In article .com,
says...

Hmmmm. We all seem to have different places where we draw the line. I
think that requiring seat belts and requiring their use has been proved
to reduce deaths and injuries. Of course I believed in seat belts and
used them before they were required ( had to install them myself ).
But I draw the line at air bags. Seat belts are cheap and effective.
Air bags are not cheap and can cause injury. I have not tried to
research the benefits of air bags if one is wearing seat belt including
a shoulder harness. So they may reduce injuries, but I think that
antilock brakes are more cost effective in reducing injuries. And
where are the laws requiring tires rated A or better for traction.
Pete said he could tell you the stopping distance of cars based on the
tires they had.

There's one of those 'unintended consequences' effects. Airbags
are mandated for cars (nannystate regulation) because folks won't
wear their seatbelts. Turns out that because of the need to
prevent unbelted occupants from hitting the hard parts inside the
cars, the bags have to inflate rapidly with great force. This
causes small passengers to be injured or killed.

New round of nannystate regulations requiring weight sensors on
seats, etc. which then have their own spin-down of unintended
consequences.

Wouldn't have been better to simply say, "here are the seat belts.
Use 'em or not. If you don't use them, you'll probably die in
crash." No laws, no airbags, just the application of reason.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================