Health and Safety Rant

[Quadrax]

Safety rant...

Thats all fine and good but you can justify pretty much anything under the premise of safety.

Safety in and of itself is obviously a good thing but safety needs to be balanced against practicality. There are a lot of "what-ifs?" in the world and it is impracticle to try and cover every possible hazzard. Seatbelts and airbags, sure. Helmets on motorcyclists, of course. But then the line needs to be drawn.

With so many millions of cars on the road buzzing around with crazy humans controlling them of course a few are going to bump into each other or fall off the road. But that is human nature and most things humans do for fun is pretty stupid.

I fell off my bicycle while fucking around when i was a kid and broke my arm. Needed an ambulance ride, surgery and 2 nights in hospital. I also fell off my skateboard a few years later (accident prone hey) and busted up my knee and wrist. Is it right that the public payed for most of my medical expenses? Should we ban bicycles and skateboards because they are obviously dangerous?

What about the dudes who go sky-diving or rock climbing or bungee jump for fun? Why not ban those dangerous activities? What about sports injuries? How many dudes bust their ankle kicking the football around with their mates on the weekend? Think of the medical cost and lost work productivity. But these are the fun things that make life worth living for a lot of people.

Well I guess my point is that you can't bubblewrap the world. There is only so far you can go to protect people from themselves. I think cars are already at a safe enough level now and don't need further safety improvements.

I think it is wrong to take the fun out of life for a majority of people just to protect the minority who can't look both ways before crossing the road.

 

[Evel]

Thats all fine and good but you can justify pretty much anything under the premise of safety.

Safety in and of itself is obviously a good thing but safety needs to be balanced against practicality. There are a lot of "what-ifs?" in the world and it is impracticle to try and cover every possible hazzard. Seatbelts and airbags, sure. Helmets on motorcyclists, of course. But then the line needs to be drawn.

With so many millions of cars on the road buzzing around with crazy humans controlling them of course a few are going to bump into each other or fall off the road. But that is human nature and most things humans do for fun is pretty stupid.

I fell off my bicycle while fucking around when i was a kid and broke my arm. Needed an ambulance ride, surgery and 2 nights in hospital. I also fell off my skateboard a few years later (accident prone hey) and busted up my knee and wrist. Is it right that the public payed for most of my medical expenses? Should we ban bicycles and skateboards because they are obviously dangerous?

What about the dudes who go sky-diving or rock climbing or bungee jump for fun? Why not ban those dangerous activities? What about sports injuries? How many dudes bust their ankle kicking the football around with their mates on the weekend? Think of the medical cost and lost work productivity. But these are the fun things that make life worth living for a lot of people.

Well I guess my point is that you can't bubblewrap the world. There is only so far you can go to protect people from themselves. I think cars are already at a safe enough level now and don't need further safety improvements.

I think it is wrong to take the fun out of life for a majority of people just to protect the minority who can't look both ways before crossing the road.

Well said.

 

[thedguy]

Safety laws, at least in the US, were pushed hugely by Nader. The US car companies he felt weren't doing their part to make safe cars. The only problem was that when Ford did try this, no one cared and jumped over to Chevy and Chrysler for more entertaining vehicles.

To who ever said "no one would make safe cars then!" Volvo has always pushed to make cars safe, regardless of regulation, Mercedes started a big push back in the 60's. I've personally felt that cars now are more than plenty safe. You can only expect so much from 1+ton of steel traveling at speed in excess of 55mph!

I'd like to see the laws changed so that 1) I can import any car I want regardless of safety so long as it meets legal requirements for lighting or anything that effects other drivers 2) manufacturers can make and sell cars that are "unsafe" by the government standard, but only a percentage can be sold this way and will be required to have big honking tags when on the sale floor that the vehicle is considered "unsafe".

 

[GM_IV]

Its probably in the car maker's best interest to make cars safer. If someone gets in a car accident and dies...well they won't be buying another car ever, if they survive with minimal injury...they'll need another car eventually and considering the car saved their lives they're more likely to buy from the same brand. I've seen a lot people have improved brand loyalty after an accident where they suffered very minor injuries.

As for importing cars, I'm all for allowing the ability to import any car we want. I find it silly I can't buy a new car I want just because its sold in China and Japan. Instead I have to wait for the car to be 15 years old before I'm allowed to import it. The Conservative government also wanted to change this 15 year rule to 25, I'm not sure what made them back down(possibly because it scored zero political points and made more people angry) but it proves to me the politicians here are useless and all need to be out of office.

 

[nsx_23]

Thats all fine and good but you can justify pretty much anything under the premise of safety.

Safety in and of itself is obviously a good thing but safety needs to be balanced against practicality. There are a lot of "what-ifs?" in the world and it is impracticle to try and cover every possible hazzard. Seatbelts and airbags, sure. Helmets on motorcyclists, of course. But then the line needs to be drawn.

With so many millions of cars on the road buzzing around with crazy humans controlling them of course a few are going to bump into each other or fall off the road. But that is human nature and most things humans do for fun is pretty stupid.

I fell off my bicycle while fucking around when i was a kid and broke my arm. Needed an ambulance ride, surgery and 2 nights in hospital. I also fell off my skateboard a few years later (accident prone hey) and busted up my knee and wrist. Is it right that the public payed for most of my medical expenses? Should we ban bicycles and skateboards because they are obviously dangerous?

What about the dudes who go sky-diving or rock climbing or bungee jump for fun? Why not ban those dangerous activities? What about sports injuries? How many dudes bust their ankle kicking the football around with their mates on the weekend? Think of the medical cost and lost work productivity. But these are the fun things that make life worth living for a lot of people.

Well I guess my point is that you can't bubblewrap the world. There is only so far you can go to protect people from themselves. I think cars are already at a safe enough level now and don't need further safety improvements.

I think it is wrong to take the fun out of life for a majority of people just to protect the minority who can't look both ways before crossing the road.

Thats the problem. How do you draw the line between people doing activities like skydiving and go-karting and morons not looking when crossing the road? I love doing these sorts of dangerous activities (e.g. Skydiving, not crossing the road without looking) as much as the next guy, but I do them knowing full well what the consequences could be and just accept it.

What I'm against is some people's blatant attitude of "Its my life and I can do whatever the fuck I want" and their failure to recognize that there are consequences for their decisions that affect many other people. I'm against bubblewrapping the world and protecting everyone from danger as much as possible, but I'm also against people not being taught early on that they need to be responsible for their own actions.

It is why I'm such so against that "school zone" thing we have down here in Victoria. It doesn't teach kids to be fucken responsible for their own actions. Then again, most kids I see these days don't seem to know what the word responsibility means.

Anyway, relating back to importing cars, I'm struggling to see why somenone can't import, for instance, a Veyron into Australia and drive it. I mean, its a properly engineered car, there are plenty of LHD Mustangs on the road anyway, and the chance of bumping into one is one in a million. To be fair, there are looser laws around import cars, but still.

 

[Quadrax]

Thats the problem. How do you draw the line between people doing activities like skydiving and go-karting and morons not looking when crossing the road?

I think the problem is often that the lawmakers have good intentions but do not fully understand the situation. A classic example is some of the Australian State laws that ban young drivers from driving turbocharged cars. Because all turbo cars are fast and dangerous right? Obviously those laws are fundamentally flawed by ignoring the many high powered N/A engines and unnecessarily banning many low powered small turbo-diesel engines. Yet it is amazing that these laws were proposed and went through god knows how many levels of bureaucracy to be passed without anyone having a clue what they were doing.

So in that regard i guess it is not all laws that are the problem, but ineffectual laws. The only way to improve that then is to improve the quality of governing and lawmaking. Thats a whole other problem...

The one thing i am sure of is that no matter how safe you make things, some idiot somewhere will still find a way to hurt themselves.

 

[Nabster]

My car has no airbags. Or ABS. Or Traction Control. And full manual drum brakes. And 40-year-old seat belts consisting of a separate lap belt and shoulder belt (which uses a gigantic metal box that rests in the middle of your chest to hold together, which I don't use). And a thin piece of foam between the driver and the solid, non-collapsible steering column. Essentially, no proper safety features at all- and it's perfectly legal for me to drive.

I'd wager the Aston in question is safer than that, so why is it illegal?

 

[Wizegui]

I'm glad that cars have gotten safer over the last few years, but what's the deal with the European pedestrian legislation? Frankly, I'd go for the car with the worse pedestrian rating when it comes to buying a car.

 

[thevictor390]

I think the problem is often that the lawmakers have good intentions but do not fully understand the situation. A classic example is some of the Australian State laws that ban young drivers from driving turbocharged cars. Because all turbo cars are fast and dangerous right? Obviously those laws are fundamentally flawed by ignoring the many high powered N/A engines and unnecessarily banning many low powered small turbo-diesel engines. Yet it is amazing that these laws were proposed and went through god knows how many levels of bureaucracy to be passed without anyone having a clue what they were doing.

First I am hearing of this law, and I am speechless. Did anyone not show the lawmakers one of these banned cars or one of these legal ones? (I don't know if those models are sold in Australia but you get the idea).

Personally, I understand the reasoning behind these safety laws, but there really need to be exceptions for sports cars. The purpose of these cars is to drive for fun (e.g. to a track day), and in no situation is one required to buy one.

 

[Brian]

I have to admit though, I have thought about this before, especially the seatbelt law - if you're an idiot and don't want to wear a seatbelt, then you shouldn't be forced to. Its your life!

Someone who chooses not to wear his or her seatbelt doesn't have the same ability to control their car in an extreme situation than someone who is belted in. End of story. Not wearing your seatbelt endangers others on the road.

 

[Quadrax]

I'd wager the Aston in question is safer than that, so why is it illegal?

Like I said above it all comes down to bureaucrats not having any expertise in the areas which their laws apply to.

For example in Australia we have "safety" laws that state that you can not fit any parts to a car that it did not originally come with. So basically if you fit any aftermarket parts, even if they are an upgrade over the original, you can be pulled over by the police and have the car declared unroadworthy and fined.

I understand the laws were originally design to stop street racers who pretty much drive full-on racetrack cars on the public roads. But now it has gotten to the point where police are taking peoples cars off of the road for having a non-standard air filter on the engine.

It happened to me when one of my cars was taken off the road for having upgraded suspension and tires. I should have known making a car handle better is a bad thing. :?

 

[Red_Bull]

Another example of bureaucrats 'not getting it' is their willingness to lower speed limits without any apparent thoughtful research or consideration. Quadrax, you're from South Australia so you must be aware of this 'hoon drivers' fixation the State government and SAPOL are having at the moment. A few kids managed to kill themselves in the Barossa a few weeks ago, so therefore a blanket 80 kph speed limit is now in force in the region, nevermind the fact that the people who crashed and died are the sort of people who disregard speed limits anyway. It's very easy for local and state governments to simply lower the speed limits and congratulate themselves on a job well done, but how about addressing the real issue of poor driver training.

I've digressed a little off the original topic of car safety here, but what if we removed all safety features from cars? Instead of an airbag being deployed when you hit a tree, howabout a big steel spike? People are willing to crash their cars because they think they'll be saved by it's safety devices. Remove them and replace them with instant means of death and I think you'll find people will be a lot more prudent

 

[speedycatz]

Why American gov't is so tight-fisted with car regulations??? It's not like the EU has a low standard anyway...

 

[thedguy]

Why American gov't is so tight-fisted with car regulations??? It's not like the EU has a low standard anyway...

When Nadar went insane on safety, he didn't specify much other than some basic ideas and how bad things were. The Big 3 saw this as an opportunity to make protectionist laws. Which came back to bite them in the ass. It's why our headlights were shit seal beams designed in the 30's up until the 80's when Europe had long switched to superior H4 designs.

I believe pretty much the rest of the world had an agreed upon standard prior to us having any damn laws at all.

The other thing is, Mercedes lobbied their ass off in the late 80's some how claiming their non-American sold cars were dangerous and that it should be illegal to import them. Even though they actually are nearly identical and easily converted, mercedes just wanted to stop the gray market importation of many of it's cars since Merc couldn't keep up with demand or keep the prices down.

 

[Quadrax]

Another example of bureaucrats 'not getting it' is their willingness to lower speed limits without any apparent thoughtful research or consideration.

Damn straight. Most road safety laws these days are largely arbitrary.

I posted somewhere recently how ridiculous it is to introduce new laws when the real problem is people aren't obeying the existing laws.

The other thing is, Mercedes lobbied their ass off in the late 80's some how claiming their non-American sold cars were dangerous and that it should be illegal to import them. Even though they actually are nearly identical and easily converted, mercedes just wanted to stop the gray market importation of many of it's cars since Merc couldn't keep up with demand or keep the prices down.

Again we have a similar problem in Australia. A lot of legislation relating to vehicle road-worthiness here is aimed at protecting the locally manufactured cars. It started to become a problem when people began importing 2nd hand cars from japan in large numbers. People were getting cars from the late 1980s / early 1990s from japan that have features that are only just appearing on locally made cars now some 20 years later. After lobbying from local manufacturers the government made importing these cars more expensive and required a heap of stupid modifications and a bunch of red tape to get through.

The irony is that many of the high performance cars sold new by the special divisions of Holden and Ford (HSV & FPV) don't actually pass roadworthy laws. Mostly it is insufficient ground clearance due to the arbitrary minimum height laws, but of course the local made cars are allowed to bypass this somehow.

 

[Strelok16]

My car has no airbags. Or ABS. Or Traction Control. And full manual drum brakes. And 40-year-old seat belts consisting of a separate lap belt and shoulder belt (which uses a gigantic metal box that rests in the middle of your chest to hold together, which I don't use). And a thin piece of foam between the driver and the solid, non-collapsible steering column. Essentially, no proper safety features at all- and it's perfectly legal for me to drive.

I'd wager the Aston in question is safer than that, so why is it illegal?

I thought Mustangs got collapsible steering columns in 67 or 68?

Im pretty sure old cars are exepmt from safety laws that were passed after they were made, which is pretty reasonable. Someone who has, say, an all original old Model T and still wants to drive it shouldnt have to ruin it by having to install airbags and seatbelts. (especially since in the Model T's case, all that stuff would be useless if the light metal body collapses around you)

I think some regulations are needed, especially with stuff like lights and other things that affect other drivers. But I think automakers should be able to sell cars that dont meet at least some safety regulations for their own driver/passengers as long as the people buying them know about it. Motorcycles are much more dangerous for their users than cars are, even with helmets and stuff, and im pretty sure most people who buy them know that. and I dont see motorcycles being outlawed any time soon.

 

[thedguy]

Realistically I think we could just stick the LAWS at some where around the early 90's requirements. They are plenty safe by that point and not excessively heavy. Companies can obviously choose to go safer, and if we must keep people working at the NHTSA the manufacturer can pay to have them test the cars and continue on some crash test ratings and revising roof crushing standards and the lot... but not require them.

My car has no airbags. Or ABS. Or Traction Control. And full manual drum brakes. And 40-year-old seat belts consisting of a separate lap belt and shoulder belt (which uses a gigantic metal box that rests in the middle of your chest to hold together, which I don't use). And a thin piece of foam between the driver and the solid, non-collapsible steering column. Essentially, no proper safety features at all- and it's perfectly legal for me to drive.

I'd wager the Aston in question is safer than that, so why is it illegal?

Hey there is an idea! Lets go ahead and fund a project to have all old cars crushed on account that they don't meet modern safety requirements!

You sound like those old timers who always say "they don't built 'em like they used to" when they talk about old cars getting in small accidents and only the bumper was damaged. Never mind that when that same car gets in a wreck at 65 it will put all the energy into the driver as he/she gets tossed all over the place and the glass breaks with sharp edges cutting a 4" gash in your leg. Same accident in a 1986 RX7 the driver would more than likely walk away.

But hey, at least the classic car has cheaper costs at the body shop right? Who gives a damn if you won't survive.

 

[waydee]

I don't think he's praising his car in any way, he's saying it's a bit illogical to deny the importation of a modern Aston Martin on the grounds of safety when he is legally allowed to drive what amounts to a bit of a death trap of a car.

 

[prizrak]

Someone who chooses not to wear his or her seatbelt doesn't have the same ability to control their car in an extreme situation than someone who is belted in. End of story. Not wearing your seatbelt endangers others on the road.

BS. Your seats will make much more difference. My half ass tiny side bolsters and leather seats don't hold me in very well during hard cornering while my friend's 240sx with cloth seats and slightly bigger bolsters hold me in quite nicely. Wearing a seatbelt in both, I have also never been in a situation where the seatbelt would stop me from going forward under heavy braking. Most cars just don't have powerful enough brakes to do it. The only seatbelts that keep you in are the 5 point harnesses, which are not found in modern cars....

I have a very hard time believing that car manufacturers would stop making safe cars if there was no regulation. Plenty of them started offering side impact air bags, collision detection systems, brake assist, blind spot warning, night fucking vision and so on despite none of these things being mandated. ESP and TC are not required by law, yet even my AWD (that really doesn't have much need for it) has it as standard.

Simply put safety is a selling point and as such does not need to be mandated. Also as mentioned many times already, anyone buying something that is in the class of an AM or a Lambo is really not looking for safety....

I think some regulations are needed, especially with stuff like lights and other things that affect other drivers. But I think automakers should be able to sell cars that dont meet at least some safety regulations for their own driver/passengers as long as the people buying them know about it. Motorcycles are much more dangerous for their users than cars are, even with helmets and stuff, and im pretty sure most people who buy them know that. and I dont see motorcycles being outlawed any time soon.

I get routinely blinded by SUV/Truck lights because of how high they are. Not to mention all the idiots who buy E-Bay HID kits and have their low beams set to be brighter than my high beams. When you can blind me in my rear view through a 20% tinted rear windshield ITS TOO FUCKING BRIGHT!

 

[AiR]

Not by law, but Euro-NCAP requires such safety equipment, they'll test the lowest spec car they can find and rate all cars of that model according to that which is an efficient way of getting the manufacturers to not skimp on safety, even on cheap cars. ESP is always needed, regardless of which wheels drive your car as it helps you maintain control over your vehicle.