On 20 Dec 2004 16:25:54 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:20:12 GMT, wrote:
On 20 Dec 2004 03:21:54 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
Maybe I missed those responses. The ones I've been reading seem to
center around "Don't force us to use someting you can't make work".
One of the most telling things to come out of the recent (post-1997)
debate on air bags was the safety mavens unflinching opposition to
installing an 'off' switch so people could turn them off if they
desired.
One of the biggest forces fighting that is the automakers...something
about liability, lawyers, all that...
I'm talking about the response of the 'consumer advocates' such as
Consumers Union and government agencies like the NHTSA. You know, the
people who supposedly exist as advocates for us or to improve our
well-being.
It's the first time I've ever heard CU, Ralph Nader and NHTSA accused
of shilling for the automakers.
They much preferred trying to work around the fact that air bags can
kill or injure you to allowing you the choice of not using them.
Yes, dozens of people a year vs. thousands saved.
Remember, if you use your seat belt (which I do) an air bag has very
little positive effect on your safety.
Or are you one of these people who base your opinions on the exception rather than the rule?
I'm one of those people who prefer to have the choice. These other
folks who are supposedly so interested in my well-being are admantly
opposed to my having any choice at all. Which is what I find so
interesting.
This is especially significant since the risk of injury from airbags
goes way up for certain classes of drivers. I'm sure my
five-foot-nothing mother-in-law woud love to be able to switch off the
airbags in her car. The last time she was in an accident the air bag
skinned her face. She spent several days in the hospital solely
because of the airbags and the same thing -- or worse -- is probably
going to happen to her if she's in another accident where the airbags
deploy.
--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent