wasser@viking.DEC (John A. Wasser) (09/10/85)
>Path: decwrl!decvax!harpo!jad >Subject: If you could save lives, would you? >Posted: 4 Sep 85 20:37:27 GMT > > If you had the power to save lives, would you do it? You and I do have that > power. ...people are being smashed to death inside their cars ... > Safety experts claim ... air bags .... prevent thousands of deaths ... > hundreds of thousands of serious injuries... > Please write. No endeavor is more important nor more noble than to > save lives. Since this was posted to net.consumers I hope you don't mind a consumer's question. How much more would I be asked to pay for a car because the manufacturer was required to install airbags that I don't want because I ALWAYS wear my seat belt. -John A. Wasser Work address: ARPAnet: WASSER%VIKING.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Usenet: {allegra,Shasta,decvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-viking!wasser Easynet: VIKING::WASSER
sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) (09/12/85)
In article <388@decwrl.UUCP> wasser@viking.DEC (John A. Wasser) writes: > a consumer's question. How much more would I be asked to pay > for a car because the manufacturer was required to install > airbags that I don't want because I ALWAYS wear my seat belt. Several hundred dollars. Now, maybe there could be a "seatbelt customer" option which would be cheaper? A "seatbelt customer" car would be intended only for people who do use seatbelts, and would be a few hundred dollars cheaper. And if belt-user cars get fewer injuries than bag-user cars, maybe insurance rates will eventually be lower for belt-user cars. But it would be necessary to prevent someone who doesn't use a seatbelt from buying one of those cars. So a "seatbelt customer" car somehow must be undesirable for someone who doesn't use belts. But making the car undesirable has to be cheaper than adding air bags to it. 1) A very bothersome replacement (fog horn for 5 minutes?) for the present "seatbelt not fastened" buzzer/chime, and a smarter controller for it. The combination should be more expensive to disable than the difference between this option and airbag option (or else people will buy the cheaper car, disable fog horn, and cut the belts). Maybe connect the sensors to the electronic car radio? A few circuits in the radio can be the controller..and bothersome noises can be emitted through the radio speakers. People like radio in the car, so they'd tend to not disconnect the speakers. What about people who want their own audio system instead of standard radio? 2) Passive belts as a cheaper replacement to airbags. Passive belts don't look as nice as airbags. But would that be enough inducement for people to spend more for airbags? I doubt it. 3) Penalties for people who buy a seatbelt car and then don't use them. Now we're in the same field as the belt law discussion and insurance benefit/penalty questions. One of the problems is proving whether someone was using their belt. Let's consider that now we're talking about changing the design of the car anyway. Can a belt be designed to indicate if it was fastened during a collision? How about a "click counter" (counts number of times belt was fastened) for proof of constant use of belt (report on insurance renewal the odometer and click counter reading)? Old question: If someone is injured and they weren't using their belt is it fair to penalize [not reward?] them, and will anyone [jury, insurance co] want to penalize "this suffering cripple"? Scot E. Wilcoxon Minn. Ed. Comp. Corp. circadia!mecc!sewilco 45 03 N / 93 15 W (612)481-3507 {ihnp4,uwvax}!dicomed!mecc!sewilco
john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (09/20/85)
In article <354@mecc.UUCP> sewilco@.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) writes: > >But it would be necessary to prevent someone who doesn't use >a seatbelt from buying one of those cars. So a "seatbelt customer" car >somehow must be undesirable for someone who doesn't use belts. But making >the car undesirable has to be cheaper than adding air bags to it. > >1) A very bothersome replacement (fog horn for 5 minutes?) for the present >"seatbelt not fastened" buzzer/chime, and a smarter controller for it. >The combination should be more expensive to disable than the difference >between this option and airbag option (or else people will buy the >cheaper car, disable fog horn, and cut the belts). Maybe connect the >sensors to the electronic car radio? A few circuits in the radio can be >the controller..and bothersome noises can be emitted through the radio >speakers. People like radio in the car, so they'd tend to not disconnect >the speakers. What about people who want their own audio system instead >of standard radio? > >Scot E. Wilcoxon Minn. Ed. Comp. Corp. circadia!mecc!sewilco >45 03 N / 93 15 W (612)481-3507 {ihnp4,uwvax}!dicomed!mecc!sewilco Why do you insist on making the seat belt interlocks unbeatable?? If an idiot really wants to drive around without belts (i.e., has suicidal tendencies), its his/her business, and no one else's. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/21/85)
> Maybe connect the > sensors to the electronic car radio? A few circuits in the radio can be > the controller..and bothersome noises can be emitted through the radio > speakers. People like radio in the car, so they'd tend to not disconnect > the speakers. What about people who want their own audio system instead > of standard radio? How about requiring the belt to be fastened for the radio, A/C, and so on to work? > 2) Passive belts as a cheaper replacement to airbags. Passive belts don't > look as nice as airbags. But would that be enough inducement for people > to spend more for airbags? I doubt it. Passive belts give me the willies. They're attached to the *door* instead of the car frame. What sort of safetey device is that? I can see it now: car goes crunch, doors fly open, passenger flies out. But why go to all this trouble. If someone doesn't wear his or her seatbelt let them fight it out with the insurance company. Even the potential for legal hassles in the event of an accident will be enough to make most people buckle up.
kitten@hao.UUCP (09/22/85)
> In article <388@decwrl.UUCP> wasser@viking.DEC (John A. Wasser) writes: > > a consumer's question. How much more would I be asked to pay > > for a car because the manufacturer was required to install > > airbags that I don't want because I ALWAYS wear my seat belt. > > Several hundred dollars. Now, maybe there could be a "seatbelt customer" > option which would be cheaper? A "seatbelt customer" car would be intended > only for people who do use seatbelts, and would be a few hundred dollars > cheaper. And if belt-user cars get fewer injuries than bag-user cars, > maybe insurance rates will eventually be lower for belt-user cars. > > But it would be necessary to prevent someone who doesn't use > a seatbelt from buying one of those cars. So a "seatbelt customer" car > somehow must be undesirable for someone who doesn't use belts. But making > the car undesirable has to be cheaper than adding air bags to it. > > 1) A very bothersome replacement (fog horn for 5 minutes?) for the present > "seatbelt not fastened" buzzer/chime, and a smarter controller for it. > The combination should be more expensive to disable than the difference > between this option and airbag option... They did this in '74, and too many people complained. It was a starter interlock. On my sister's car, I remember what a hassle it was when the damn thing didn't work. What if someone was following her to her car? I know *I'd* want to get away fast. This is not the answer. > 2) Passive belts as a cheaper replacement to airbags. Passive belts don't > look as nice as airbags. But would that be enough inducement for people > to spend more for airbags? I doubt it. This, I believe, is the answer...I can't think of anything better to satisfy (almost) everyone than to have a choice of passive belts and airbags. Sure, the non-belters will grumble and whine at the cost of the airbag...perhaps it will be enough incentive for them to start belting. > 3) Penalties for people who buy a seatbelt car and then don't use them. > Now we're in the same field as the belt law discussion and insurance > benefit/penalty questions. One of the problems is proving whether > someone was using their belt... Scot E. Wilcoxon Something *like* this should be included in #2 above. Anyone caught with a disconnected passive belt should suffer a HEFTY penalty, and should count on their driving records as a moving violation. Passive belts should be connected in a way that disconneting could not be put back. My Ford has a bolt head for the seat belt that has a multi-point star shaped hole, requiring a 'special' tool, but it can be removed by a wrench, etc. Make this impossible, and the insurance people and cops can tell it was deliberately removed. I think Scot has some good ideas... {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!kitten CSNET: kitten@NCAR ARPA: kitten%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
kitten@hao.UUCP (09/22/85)
> In article <354@mecc.UUCP> sewilco@.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) writes: > >1) A very bothersome replacement (fog horn for 5 minutes?) for the present > >"seatbelt not fastened" buzzer/chime, and a smarter controller for it. > >The combination should be more expensive to disable than the difference > >between this option and airbag option (or else people will buy the > >cheaper car, disable fog horn, and cut the belts). Maybe connect the > >sensors to the electronic car radio? A few circuits in the radio can be > >the controller..and bothersome noises can be emitted through the radio > >speakers. People like radio in the car, so they'd tend to not disconnect > >the speakers. What about people who want their own audio system instead > >of standard radio? > > > >Scot E. Wilcoxon Minn. Ed. Comp. Corp. circadia!mecc!sewilco > > Why do you insist on making the seat belt interlocks unbeatable?? If an idiot > really wants to drive around without belts (i.e., has suicidal tendencies), > its his/her business, and no one else's. > John Allred No, it is EVERYONE'S business! We ALL pay for the maiming and death in increased health care and insurance costs. {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!kitten CSNET: kitten@NCAR ARPA: kitten%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
wcs@ho95e.UUCP (Bill.Stewart.4K435.x0705) (09/24/85)
(stuff about passive belts being a good thing, at least for stupid people who otherwise don't wear belts, and how they certainly beat airbags) > Something *like* this should be included in #2 above. Anyone caught with > a disconnected passive belt should suffer a HEFTY penalty, and should > count on their driving records as a moving violation. Passive belts > should be connected in a way that disconneting could not be put back. > My Ford has a bolt head for the seat belt that has a multi-point star > shaped hole, requiring a 'special' tool, but it can be removed by a > wrench, etc. Make this impossible, and the insurance people and cops > can tell it was deliberately removed. > {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} > !hao!kitten > CSNET: kitten@NCAR ARPA: kitten%ncar@CSNET-RELAY NO NO NO NO NO! Have you ever tried to fix a broken seatbelt on a Ford? It's basically impossible. I eventually gave up and wore just the shoulder belt, since the lap belt was permanently jammed (no flames please; I know it's not a great arrangement.) (I also couldn't get my dealer to understand the idea that I wanted the seatbelt repaired.) New Jersey has a seatbelt law, of sorts - you have to wear it, but the police are only allowed to check for it if they pull you over because of your driving. Part of the motivation is to prevent charges of "harrassment" from people who might claim the police don't like them and are using seatbelt laws as an excuse for ticketing them. I personally feel that the police should be able to ticket anybody for not wearing seatbelts, and should be able to check them at tollbooths. The penalty should be simple, but direct - a small fine, but allow the insurance companies to charge double on the personal-injury-protection rates if you've had a seatbelt violation in the past n years (n=~=3). (Personal Injury Protection is part of NJ's so-called no-fault insurance.) We also have a law requiring children to be in car seats or seatbelts (depending on age), and it appears to be unenforced. THAT's something I think should carry heavy fines. -- ## Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs
draughn@iitcs.UUCP (Mark Draughn) (09/25/85)
[If nothing else, at least flame me so I know this is going out over the wire!] In article <1770@hao.UUCP> kitten@hao.UUCP writes: >> In article <388@decwrl.UUCP> wasser@viking.DEC (John A. Wasser) writes: (Discussion about how to make cars with airbags more attractive to people who don't wear seat belts. >> 2) Passive belts as a cheaper replacement to airbags. Passive belts don't >> look as nice as airbags. But would that be enough inducement for people >> to spend more for airbags? I doubt it. I don't know what "passive belts" are. I'm going to assume that they are those belts that automatically fall into place over your body when you close the door. I am also going to assume that they cannot be easily disconnected. I know such belts exist, and even if they aren't called "passive belts" I'm still going to flame them. AAAARRRGH! Did you ever think how unpleasant it is to ALWAYS be belted in? What do you do if you drop something on the floor on the passenger side. You have to get out of the car and walk around to the other side! Or what if you take a date to a drive-in movie. Even if you have nothing else in mind besides watching a movie, you're going to feel silly sitting there, belted in, in the middle of a parking lot. Mark Draughn
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (09/25/85)
> > 2) Passive belts as a cheaper replacement to airbags. Passive belts don't > > look as nice as airbags. But would that be enough inducement for people > > to spend more for airbags? I doubt it. > > This, I believe, is the answer...I can't think of anything better to satisfy > (almost) everyone than to have a choice of passive belts and airbags. Sure, > the non-belters will grumble and whine at the cost of the airbag...perhaps > it will be enough incentive for them to start belting. > I do not like passive belts. I ALWAYS use my seatbelts when driving. But, there ARE some times when I want to sit in or access my car when it is not moving, and I don't want the &%#@*! belts in my way. Have you ever tried to get your wallet out of your pocket, pay the person in the window, and collect your food from a drive-thru fast food place while wearing a seat belt? Have you ever tried to get something from the glove compartment without getting in the car in one equipped with passive belts? It's a HASSLE, and I don't want it imposed on me just because some OTHER people are bozos and don't use their belts. I ALWAYS use mine when the car is moving. > > 3) Penalties for people who buy a seatbelt car and then don't use them. > > Now we're in the same field as the belt law discussion and insurance > > benefit/penalty questions. One of the problems is proving whether > > someone was using their belt... Scot E. Wilcoxon > > Something *like* this should be included in #2 above. This I can agree with. The problem, of course, is as you stated: enforceability. The courts are ALREADY overcrowded with people suing each other over car accidents. All we need is a bunch of people trying to prove this other bozo wasn't wearing his belt, so I shouldn't be liable for his head injuries... We have to be realistic here. This is not a viable option. It is also a bad idea to have the government try to protect us from our own stupidity. First of all, it doesn't work, and second of all, more regulations cost more money to enforce and make the already overcomplicated task of buying and repairing cars even more so. We just have to ACCEPT the fact that some people are stupid and are going to continue to not wear their belts. > Anyone caught with > a disconnected passive belt should suffer a HEFTY penalty, and should > count on their driving records as a moving violation. I disagree with solving problems by throwing laws at them. It doesn't really work. It's treating the symptom instead of the disorder. Another thing it does is make criminals out of people who are basically good people. And for what? So one set of people can FORCE another set to adopt THEIR standards of what is safe. -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY "I don't know, but I've been told, it's hard to run with the weight of gold On the other hand I've heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead"
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (09/25/85)
> > If an idiot > > really wants to drive around without belts (i.e., has suicidal tendencies), > > its his/her business, and no one else's. > > John Allred > > No, it is EVERYONE'S business! We ALL pay for the maiming and death in > increased health care and insurance costs. This is true, but it is a simplistic view. Looking at it in purely monetary terms, the decreased insurance cost (most of which would be pocketed by the insurance companies anyway, probably) would be offset by the increased cost of new cars and increased cost of law enforcement. There's enough red tape ALREADY involved in owning and driving a car, please let's not have any more. You cannot protect idiots from themselves, and you can only partially protect "normal" people from the idiots. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY "I don't know, but I've been told, it's hard to run with the weight of gold On the other hand I've heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead"
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (09/28/85)
>> Why do you insist on making the seat belt interlocks unbeatable?? If an >> idiot really wants to drive around without belts (i.e., has suicidal >> tendencies), its his/her business, and no one else's. >> John Allred > >No, it is EVERYONE'S business! We ALL pay for the maiming and death in >increased health care and insurance costs. By this argument, we should prohibit the use of wood and other combustibles in houses, so as to cut down the costs of losses due to fire. We should forbid people to build in areas where earthquakes or hurricanes are likely. We should prohibit people with life insurance from doing *anything* risky. You have to draw a line between cost to society and freedom of the individual. I draw the line in favor of freedom, even freedom to do things I deem stupid. -=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP] (tekecs!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA]
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (09/29/85)
In article <1775@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > This is true, but it is a simplistic view. Looking at it in purely monetary >terms, the decreased insurance cost (most of which would be pocketed by the >insurance companies anyway, probably) would be offset by the increased cost >of new cars and increased cost of law enforcement. The insurance cost reflects the cost of the claims they have to settle. It is generally a lot cheaper to properly package crystal for shipment than it is to put it back together again. It is very likely that the decreased insurance cost would not be offset by the increased cost of new cars and law enforcement. Watering vegetables for 40 years is very expensive. -- God made atheists too. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (09/30/85)
In article <1774@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >> This, I believe, is the answer...I can't think of anything better to satisfy >> (almost) everyone than to have a choice of passive belts and airbags. Sure, >> the non-belters will grumble and whine at the cost of the airbag...perhaps >> it will be enough incentive for them to start belting. As has been mentioned before, passive belts are *dangerous*. You get into an accident, the doors spring open, and then you get thrown out of the car. If that happens, you are also probably dead. Sorry, but the above quote should not be attibuted to Greg Woods, but to whomever he was responding to. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
nrh@lzwi.UUCP (N.R.HASLOCK) (10/02/85)
Can this discussion be reduced to a set of basic issues?
1. Save everybodies lives ( all of the time? )
2. Save our lives on the road ( we being safe drivers etc. )
3. Save the lives of suicidal maniacs ( that's not us. No. Never )
4. Save the lives of pedestrians.
5. How much are we willing to pay for this safety. ( $ and time )
6. How much are we going to make everyone else pay.
1 is foolish if not impossible.
2 implies that we do nothing. We are safe because we will never ever
have an accident and we will always be able to avoid anyone elses.
3 says that we build cars so that the car will always protect its
occupants. For example, all rigid parts, inside and out, must be
covered with enough resilient padded to protect the occupants from
any accident ( why are we still using steering wheels? Servos driven
from a reasonable sized joystick would be so much safer! ).
4 is easy. Chain link fences along all public roads, reinforced with
crash barriers. Pedestrian overpasses or underpasses at every
intersection.
5 is the obvious problem because the answer is as little as
possible. We are never going to see the benefit of any time or money
invested because we never have accidents.
6 is going to get the same answer as 5. The only way out is to get
someone with a big enough stick to make someone else pay.
As a result of this analysis, we are going to have to compromise.
Before I decide what to compromise on, I want to see some real data
on auto incidents in the last few years. For instance, how many were
head on, head to side, head to tail, flips, spins. Table according
to road speed, road class, number of passengers, degree of injury,
road condition, weather.
--
--
{ihnp4|vax135|allegra}!lznv!nrh
Nigel The Mad Englishman or
The Madly Maundering Mumbler in the Wildernesses
Everything you have read here is a figment of your imagination.
Noone else in the universe currently subscribes to these opinions.
"Its the rope, you know. You can't get it, you know."