Idiots + cars = LOL

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,664
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Ah, so anything that might prolong a road closure is an unacceptable risk? Engine oil should be banned because if it spills in a crash it takes longer to clean up.
Or maybe anything that creates additional traffic should be banned too? In that case bicycles should be banned from the roadway, as should cars in general, really - buses and trains only from now on, right?
Disability is an unacceptable "drain on society", eh? Let's ban all sports then, including jogging and weightlifting.
A young person's death is too great a cost to society? I'll just stop here before going on a pro-life rant.

:facepalm:


I have no stance on this one, we're all big boys now and capable of making our own decisions. Having said that, I'm very glad that manufacturers are forced to put seatbelts and airbags on their cars. It's a good measure against the idiocy of others. They have already saved my life once.

Those two are contradictory - if you say you're capable of making your own decisions regarding wearing your seat belt, you're also capable of choosing a car with seat belts and air bags or choosing a cheaper one without them.


The active crash avoidance and lane departure shouldn't be there. That's just protecting people that text and drive or are falling asleep behind the wheel.

It's protecting you from those people too...
 

rickhamilton620

has a fetish for terrible cars
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
16,856
Location
Yoe, PA
Car(s)
2012 Kia Forte EX
The active crash avoidance and lane departure shouldn't be there. That's just protecting people that text and drive or are falling asleep behind the wheel.

Disagree. Autonomous Emergency Braking doesn't just protect the driver behind the wheel, it protects other drivers/car occupants that those distracted drivers would otherwise hit and (in the case of lane Departure Warning and Road Departure Mitigation) helps protect bystanders (including those in homes) from injury from cars leaving course.

The presence of these features don't benefit just "careless" drivers but can also be of use if a driver is suddenly incapacitated by enabling other driver assistance features like VW's "Emergency Assist" and Mercedes' "Emergency Stop Assist":


The 2017 Corolla has AEB and LDW w/ Steering Assist standard on every trim, even the el-cheapo L. It's a big deal, extending these safety features down even further to the drivers who may need it most (younger drivers, the elderly who transition to a compact car as they age) as standard equipment.

Progress in this department is a good thing.
 
Last edited:

gaasc

Desperately looking for a title
DONOR
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
9,230
Location
Honduras
Car(s)
3 of them
Those two are contradictory - if you say you're capable of making your own decisions regarding wearing your seat belt, you're also capable of choosing a car with seat belts and air bags or choosing a cheaper one without them.

I don't think they are. Forcing seatbelts on all cars maximizes the number of people that can actually make that choice. They can decide whether they wear it or not regardless of purchasing power, or even if they actually own the car as opposed of being forced to ride in it. Example: A penny-pinching fleet manager orders a whole bunch of cars with no seatbelts and company policy forces you to use them instead of your belted car. Or you don't even own a car so you are forced to use a taxi without seatbelts even though you would rather ride in a car that does.
 
Last edited:

MWF

Now needs wood
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
28,295
Location
MWF HQ, Ukadia
Car(s)
MX-5 1.8i Indiana SE, update pending
We had TV Public Information Films in the 70s about seat belt use with the strap line "Clunk, Click, Every Trip"

They were presented by Jimmy Savile, now confirmed as the worst serial paedophile ever in the UK and possibly the world.

Irony has a fucking sick sense of humour, even by my standards.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,664
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
I don't think they are. Forcing seatbelts on all cars maximizes the number of people that can actually make that choice. They can decide whether they wear it or not regardless of purchasing power, or even if they actually own the car as opposed of being forced to ride in it. Example: A penny-pinching fleet manager orders a whole bunch of cars with no seatbelts and company policy forces you to use them instead of your belted car. Or you don't even own a car so you are forced to use a taxi without seatbelts even though you would rather ride in a car that does.

In all those situations, ultimate personal responsibility leaves you with choices.
Individual purchasing power is your own problem in that world view, the community shouldn't subsidize your seat belt by forcing everyone else to buy one - you should just make more money.
Choose to drive fleet cars without a seat belt, or change company policy, or get a different job.
Choose to ride in a cheaper taxi without seatbelts, or ride in a taxi advertising "I have seatbelts" as a premium feature - the market would ensure that those exist.
 

gaasc

Desperately looking for a title
DONOR
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
9,230
Location
Honduras
Car(s)
3 of them
In all those situations, ultimate personal responsibility leaves you with choices.
Individual purchasing power is your own problem in that world view, the community shouldn't subsidize your seat belt by forcing everyone else to buy one - you should just make more money.
Choose to drive fleet cars without a seat belt, or change company policy, or get a different job.
Choose to ride in a cheaper taxi without seatbelts, or ride in a taxi advertising "I have seatbelts" as a premium feature - the market would ensure that those exist.

Now you read like an extreme libertarian (aside and irrelevant from the argument, but I really really loathe the phrase "just make more money"). You and I know the world does not work like that so I am left to assume you are just taking the other position to point out the flaws. I agree with them, that's why I like that seat belts are mandatory equipment. Like I said on my first post, I have no stance on it.

Edit: And before you say it no, I don't think liking something counts as a stance. At least not as much as "The government shouldn't tell me when I buckle up." or "You should be handed a jail sentence for not buckling up.".
 
Last edited:

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,435
Well, no, of course not. Things were different back then. It was normal for kids to ride in the back of a ute (pickup) or panel van when I was a kid. But then, it was also normal for the road toll to be much higher back then than it is now. For all the talk about "nanny states" and over-protectiveness, the reality is that basic safety requirements such as requiring children to remain INSIDE moving vehicles are a no-brainer and any parent in this day and age who would get their son to stand up through a sun roof should be charged with child endangerment.

I'm all for being smart and safe behind the wheel, I was just surprised that this non-story made the news. If the kid got decapitated by a pelican or something, then we'd be talking.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,664
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Now you read like an extreme libertarian (aside and irrelevant from the argument, but I really really loathe the phrase "just make more money"). You and I know the world does not work like that so I am left to assume you are just taking the other position to point out the flaws.

It's a continuation of the previous post: "if you say you're capable of making your own decisions regarding wearing your seat belt, you're also capable of choosing a car with seat belts and air bags or choosing a cheaper one without them." I don't agree with those positions, but they're effectively all on the same side of community common sense vs individual responsibility.
On the one side you have the community as a whole making common sense decisions for everyone, such as "all cars should have seat belts" and "all occupants should use those seat belts", on the other side you have individual responsibility, such as "I decide to buy a car with seat belts or without" and "I decide to use a seat belt or not".

Telling everyone to make (and therefore buy) only cars with seat belts is essentially the same principle as telling everyone to use seat belts, while the opposite principle is individual responsibility on both counts.
You can of course want one of each side, but I'd still say that's a contradictory position :dunno:


Edit: And before you say it no, I don't think liking something counts as a stance. At least not as much as "The government shouldn't tell me when I buckle up." or "You should be handed a jail sentence for not buckling up.".

Liking is a stance :tease: maybe not a strong opinion, but it's certainly not neutral.

Jail? :lmao:

- - - Updated - - -

I'm all for being smart and safe behind the wheel, I was just surprised that this non-story made the news. If the kid got decapitated by a pelican or something, then we'd be talking.

It's right in the story: "The incident was among a number of statewide road events that prompted yet another police warning about dangerous driving."
Bunch of incidents, police issues press release, press takes up release, local news is made.

When you were a kid, local news from Middle of Nowhere, Australia wouldn't have been on your radar.
 
Last edited:

stiggie

pop
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
11,293
Location
Wollongong, Australia
Car(s)
Golf GTI
I'm all for being smart and safe behind the wheel, I was just surprised that this non-story made the news. If the kid got decapitated by a pelican or something, then we'd be talking.

My city only has about 300,000 people in it. If a possum farts, it makes the news.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
21,591
Location
Michigan USA
:think:

Do possums fart often?
 

Cowboy

My name is Sheridan
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,890
Obviously not enough since the newspapers have to report this rubbish.....
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,094
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
It's pretty clear most people are not smart enough to understand and evaluate even something as simple as safety belts, otherwise everybody would use them constantly. They are victim of a bias which makes them feel the discomfort of wearing them (what discomfort, btw, they also help you keep on the seat during a sharp bend...) more than the risk of not wearing them, which puts their reaction in the realm of the very human but also of the desperately stupid. Like humans are, actually.

So, should people be free to wear seatbelts or not? Yes, they should. Problem is, they almost never are because they can't think straight enough; so you're not taking any freedom out of them by forcing them to wear seat-belts through law. Like helmets on a bike, really.

A bit like it happens for safety regulations elsewhere. They become mandatory little by little because they are a no-brainer in the pros vs cons, and yet people avoid them.

Who needs safety measures at the shooting range, for example, right? Aren't you free to wear or not goggles? Yet eyes and ear protections are well regulated, aren't they?
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
Who needs safety measures at the shooting range, for example, right? Aren't you free to wear or not goggles? Yet eyes and ear protections are well regulated, aren't they?
No, they're not. Clubs establish their own rules regarding eyes and ears but there are no laws about it. Also, hunters frequently skip ear pro in order to hear better in the woods. Recreationally, if you're shooting in your back yard, go ahead and skip protection - not my problem if you lose hearing or an eye.
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,094
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
No, they're not. Clubs establish their own rules regarding eyes and ears but there are no laws about it. Also, hunters frequently skip ear pro in order to hear better in the woods. Recreationally, if you're shooting in your back yard, go ahead and skip protection - not my problem if you lose hearing or an eye.

How many serious (as in they know what they are doing) clubs allow unprotected ears or eyes? Why? To avoid lawsuits following damage. Why? Because so many people are not really choosing anything, rather they understand only too late, when the damage is already done.

The same reason why car manufacturer tells you not to take away the ignition key while moving or not to inhale the exhaustion gases.

I agree that freedom must be protected, but freedom passes through information and understanding of the consequences, not by fancy.

Oh, and I don't know if I would fine the dad on that bridge. If I saw that he was driving very carefully and taking all measures to avoid the child being endangered, I would ha have let him go, because regulations are there to protect, not to control. If, on the other side, he was driving like normal... well... the fine is just.
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,265
How many serious (as in they know what they are doing) clubs allow unprotected ears or eyes? Why? To avoid lawsuits following damage. Why? Because so many people are not really choosing anything, rather they understand only too late, when the damage is already done.
And none of that is really relevant because there is still no law that requires me to wear eye and ear protection - the key here is the difference between laws and the rules of a private club. Same thing with motorcycles really - any race event is going to require that you wear a helmet, sure, but there shouldn't be a law about it - if you are an adult and you make the conscious decision to ride a motorcycle without protection, that's your own choice - a stupid choice, imho, but a choice nonetheless. With cars, I don't have a problem with laws that require automobile manufacturers to provide seatbelts but I don't think that on the individual level we should be forced to use them. Basically, I think you should be free to make bad decisions with your own life.
 
Top