I think there's a demand for a device to equalize the sizes of electrical
cord prongs.

Imagine a gizmo similar to a bit sharpener into which you insert the plug
needing adjustment. A cutting wheel inside trims the larger, neutral, prong
to the same size as the other one. It would probably have two cutting wheels
to do both the top and the bottom.

I'd be willing to pay, oh, say, $14.95 for such a machine. It would save an
immense amount of time compared to massaging each plug with a Dremel tool.

Heck, hardware stores could offer it as a service when you bought the
offending, crippled, tools - similar to free gift wrapping!

And as for safety, it's not an issue. If grinding down the neutral prong
WERE problematic, we'd certainly see some cautions in the 8-page safety
instruction booklet that comes with and electric clock along with all the
other admonitions such as "Not for use in the shower, Do not puncture, etc."

HeyBub wrote:
I think there's a demand for a device to equalize the sizes of electrical
cord prongs.

Imagine a gizmo similar to a bit sharpener into which you insert the plug
needing adjustment. A cutting wheel inside trims the larger, neutral, prong
to the same size as the other one. It would probably have two cutting wheels
to do both the top and the bottom.

I'd be willing to pay, oh, say, $14.95 for such a machine. It would save an
immense amount of time compared to massaging each plug with a Dremel tool.

Heck, hardware stores could offer it as a service when you bought the
offending, crippled, tools - similar to free gift wrapping!

And as for safety, it's not an issue. If grinding down the neutral prong
WERE problematic, we'd certainly see some cautions in the 8-page safety
instruction booklet that comes with and electric clock along with all the
other admonitions such as "Not for use in the shower, Do not puncture, etc."


How about a machine to make power cords more flexible by removing the
insulation? If it were unsafe, I'm sure the instructions that came with
my floor lamp would have said so.

Before they had polarized plugs, didn't you ever get a shock from a lamp?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

And as for safety, it's not an issue. If grinding down the neutral prong
WERE problematic, we'd certainly see some cautions in the 8-page safety
instruction booklet that comes with and electric clock along with all the
other admonitions such as "Not for use in the shower, Do not puncture,
etc."

Natural selection on the job, it's a thing of beauty.

Use a good brand (Trim brand) flat nose toe nail trimmers.
Snip, snip.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
I think there's a demand for a device to equalize the sizes
of electrical
cord prongs.

Imagine a gizmo similar to a bit sharpener into which you
insert the plug
needing adjustment. A cutting wheel inside trims the larger,
neutral, prong
to the same size as the other one. It would probably have
two cutting wheels
to do both the top and the bottom.

I'd be willing to pay, oh, say, $14.95 for such a machine.
It would save an
immense amount of time compared to massaging each plug with
a Dremel tool.

Heck, hardware stores could offer it as a service when you
bought the
offending, crippled, tools - similar to free gift wrapping!

And as for safety, it's not an issue. If grinding down the
neutral prong
WERE problematic, we'd certainly see some cautions in the
8-page safety
instruction booklet that comes with and electric clock along
with all the
other admonitions such as "Not for use in the shower, Do not
puncture, etc."

E Z Peaces wrote:


How about a machine to make power cords more flexible by removing the
insulation? If it were unsafe, I'm sure the instructions that came
with my floor lamp would have said so.

Back when I was traveling to trade shows every week, I did just that. I
removed the outer rubber tube from the all the computer's power cords. The
resulting wire coiled up into a neat little, tiny really, bundle.


Before they had polarized plugs, didn't you ever get a shock from a
lamp?

Um, no.

HeyBub wrote:
I think there's a demand for a device to equalize the sizes of
electrical cord prongs.

Imagine a gizmo similar to a bit sharpener into which you insert the
plug needing adjustment. A cutting wheel inside trims the larger,
neutral, prong to the same size as the other one. It would probably
have two cutting wheels to do both the top and the bottom.

I'd be willing to pay, oh, say, $14.95 for such a machine. It would
save an immense amount of time compared to massaging each plug with a
Dremel tool.
Heck, hardware stores could offer it as a service when you bought the
offending, crippled, tools - similar to free gift wrapping!

And as for safety, it's not an issue. If grinding down the neutral
prong WERE problematic, we'd certainly see some cautions in the
8-page safety instruction booklet that comes with and electric clock
along with all the other admonitions such as "Not for use in the
shower, Do not puncture, etc."

Another solution without a problem.

HeyBub wrote:
E Z Peaces wrote:


Before they had polarized plugs, didn't you ever get a shock from a
lamp?

Um, no.


It would be hard for a designer to make sure that the threaded part of a
lamp socket would never touch the shell. One might also touch it while
changing a bulb. If that side of the cord were hot, it would be hot
whether or not the switch was on.

It used to be that the chassis of a TV was a shock hazard if plugged in
with the wrong polarity.

On Feb 2, 8:51*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
E Z Peaces wrote:

How about a machine to make power cords more flexible by removing the
insulation? *If it were unsafe, I'm sure the instructions that came
with my floor lamp would have said so.

Back when I was traveling to trade shows every week, I did just that. I
removed the outer rubber tube from the all the computer's power cords. The
resulting wire coiled up into a neat little, tiny really, bundle.



Before they had polarized plugs, didn't you ever get a shock from a
lamp?

Um, no.

Why would you want to defeat a safety function? It took a while for
UL to get that requirement, but it has saved many lives over the past
25 years.

hr(bob) wrote:
On Feb 2, 8:51 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
E Z Peaces wrote:

How about a machine to make power cords more flexible by removing
the insulation? If it were unsafe, I'm sure the instructions that
came with my floor lamp would have said so.

Back when I was traveling to trade shows every week, I did just
that. I removed the outer rubber tube from the all the computer's
power cords. The resulting wire coiled up into a neat little, tiny
really, bundle.



Before they had polarized plugs, didn't you ever get a shock from a
lamp?

Um, no.

Why would you want to defeat a safety function? It took a while for
UL to get that requirement, but it has saved many lives over the past
25 years.

I wonder what the authorities will have to say about this product. Think UL will
approve it?

On Feb 2, 6:30*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
I think there's a demand for a device to equalize the sizes of electrical
cord prongs.

Imagine a gizmo similar to a bit sharpener into which you insert the plug
needing adjustment. A cutting wheel inside trims the larger, neutral, prong
to the same size as the other one. It would probably have two cutting wheels
to do both the top and the bottom.

I'd be willing to pay, oh, say, $14.95 for such a machine. It would save an
immense amount of time compared to massaging each plug with a Dremel tool..

Heck, hardware stores could offer it as a service when you bought the
offending, crippled, tools - similar to free gift wrapping!

And as for safety, it's not an issue. If grinding down the neutral prong
WERE problematic, we'd certainly see some cautions in the 8-page safety
instruction booklet that comes with and electric clock along with all the
other admonitions such as "Not for use in the shower, Do not puncture, etc."

I have one, its called a File

That is not the sound of rain you are hearing it is thousands of
lawyers drooling.

hr(bob) wrote:

Why would you want to defeat a safety function? It took a while for
UL to get that requirement, but it has saved many lives over the past
25 years.

How many is "many"?

Let's say each person plugs in one thing a day and 1/3 of the time that
person has to do it over or check beforehand, thereby wasting one second of
time.

300,000,000 people x 1 second / 3600 seconds/hr = 83,000 hours of lost
productivity per day or 22 million man-hours per year. At even the minimum
wage (say $9/hr), that's $210 million of wealth destroyed each year by
polarized plugs.

According to the CPSC, about 400 people are electrocuted each year. Some of
these deaths are due to coming in contact with overhead lines, and the like,
so assume 300 are due to defective consumer equipment or equipment used
improperly. Now suppose that number doubles as a result of non-polarized
plugs. The value of each life saved then works out to (mumble-mumble, carry
the three...) about $700,000.

Somewhere there's a trade-off point.

On Feb 3, 1:55*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
hr(bob) wrote:

Why would you want to defeat a safety function? *It took a while for
UL to get that requirement, but it has saved many lives over the past
25 years.

How many is "many"?

Let's say each person plugs in one thing a day and 1/3 of the time that
person has to do it over or check beforehand, thereby wasting one second of
time.

300,000,000 people x 1 second / 3600 seconds/hr = 83,000 hours of lost
productivity per day or 22 million man-hours per year. At even the minimum
wage (say $9/hr), that's $210 million of wealth destroyed each year by
polarized plugs.

According to the CPSC, about 400 people are electrocuted each year. Some of
these deaths are due to coming in contact with overhead lines, and the like,
so assume 300 are due to defective consumer equipment or equipment used
improperly. Now suppose that number doubles as a result of non-polarized
plugs. The value of each life saved then works out to (mumble-mumble, carry
the three...) about $700,000.

Somewhere there's a trade-off point.

Slightly off topic.
I don't buy this business of something 'costing' x dollars in time
lost or misused time etc.
Sure if something is blatant and frequent it may have a cost. e.g. A
Fire Dept. finds that half the calls are False Alarms. There could be
real cost in extra time, danger of being tied up, falsely, when a
'real' alarm occurs etc.
But if some searchers take three hours looking for someone who turns
out to be not lost after all there was no requirement to go out and
hire more searchers. A wife doesn't go and get another one fiftieth of
husband because he is 2% slow taking out the garbage. Or a family does
not hire another tenth of a baby sitter if that sitter is half an hour
late for a five hour baby sitting job.
We don't elect another fifth of representative or senator if our
present one spends 20% of their time 'goofing off' or on vacation!

HeyBub wrote:
I think there's a demand for a device to equalize the sizes of
electrical cord prongs.

Imagine a gizmo similar to a bit sharpener into which you insert the
plug needing adjustment. A cutting wheel inside trims the larger,
neutral, prong to the same size as the other one. It would probably
have two cutting wheels to do both the top and the bottom.

I'd be willing to pay, oh, say, $14.95 for such a machine. It would
save an immense amount of time compared to massaging each plug with a
Dremel tool.

It only takes a second with a pair of dikes.

Jon

On Feb 3, 1:10*pm, "Jon Danniken"
wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
I think there's a demand for a device to equalize the sizes of
electrical cord prongs.

Imagine a gizmo similar to a bit sharpener into which you insert the
plug needing adjustment. A cutting wheel inside trims the larger,
neutral, prong to the same size as the other one. It would probably
have two cutting wheels to do both the top and the bottom.

I'd be willing to pay, oh, say, $14.95 for such a machine. It would
save an immense amount of time compared to massaging each plug with a
Dremel tool.

It only takes a second with a pair of dikes.

Jon

That's how I do it.

Before they had polarized plugs, didn't you ever get a shock from a
lamp?

We had an old (even then) electric metal fan when I was a kid (circa 1968).

It was a real challange to turn the thing on and off cause there was a
random chance of a zap! I really hated that fan.

Back then I had no idea it had to do with the direction the plug was
in the outlet - that would have been some very useful information.

"HeyBub" wrote in
news
hr(bob) wrote:

Why would you want to defeat a safety function? It took a while for
UL to get that requirement, but it has saved many lives over the past
25 years.

How many is "many"?


Devil's advocate here...double insulation (not using the case/frame of
appliance as ground) effectively renders polarized plugs unnecessary -
except in the case of an internal fault, of course.

But them, it seems like a very simple, cost-effective safety feature,
so why not.

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:55:56 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote Re Tool idea:

Now suppose that number doubles as a result of non-polarized
plugs. The value of each life saved then works out to (mumble-mumble, carry
the three...) about $700,000.

Somewhere there's a trade-off point.

In the U.S.:

$1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000.00

We consider a human live very valuable.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Caesar Romano wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:55:56 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote Re Tool idea:

Now suppose that number doubles as a result of non-polarized
plugs. The value of each life saved then works out to
(mumble-mumble, carry the three...) about $700,000.

Somewhere there's a trade-off point.

In the U.S.:

$1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000.00

We consider a human live very valuable.

Unless it's a poor person that can't afford medical insurance, or a person with
pre-existing conditions. 45,000 deaths per year.

http://www.harvardscience.harvard.ed...ealth-coverage

Van Chocstraw wrote:
On 02/02/2010 10:13 PM, Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
I think there's a demand for a device to equalize the sizes of
electrical cord prongs.

Imagine a gizmo similar to a bit sharpener into which you insert the
plug needing adjustment. A cutting wheel inside trims the larger,
neutral, prong to the same size as the other one. It would probably
have two cutting wheels to do both the top and the bottom.

I'd be willing to pay, oh, say, $14.95 for such a machine. It would
save an immense amount of time compared to massaging each plug with
a Dremel tool.
Heck, hardware stores could offer it as a service when you bought
the offending, crippled, tools - similar to free gift wrapping!

And as for safety, it's not an issue. If grinding down the neutral
prong WERE problematic, we'd certainly see some cautions in the
8-page safety instruction booklet that comes with and electric clock
along with all the other admonitions such as "Not for use in the
shower, Do not puncture, etc."

Another solution without a problem.


It IS a problem on old outlets with both narrow blade slots and some
extension cords with the same. That's why they sell those little gray
adapters to defeat wide blade plugs and three prong plugs.

If I have an antique socket, replace it? Or buy a gadget that eliminates obvious
modern safety features? Let me think?

"Bob F" wrote in
:

Caesar Romano wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:55:56 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote Re Tool idea:

Now suppose that number doubles as a result of non-polarized
plugs. The value of each life saved then works out to
(mumble-mumble, carry the three...) about $700,000.

Somewhere there's a trade-off point.

In the U.S.:

$1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000.00

We consider a human live very valuable.

Unless it's a poor person that can't afford medical insurance, or a
person with pre-existing conditions. 45,000 deaths per year.

http://www.harvardscience.harvard.ed...icles/new-stud
y-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage

Yes, except in that case...it goes without saying....

....add gw hates black people...

what a maroon...

HeyBub wrote:
hr(bob) wrote:
Why would you want to defeat a safety function? It took a while for
UL to get that requirement, but it has saved many lives over the past
25 years.

How many is "many"?

Let's say each person plugs in one thing a day and 1/3 of the time that
person has to do it over or check beforehand, thereby wasting one second of
time.

300,000,000 people x 1 second / 3600 seconds/hr = 83,000 hours of lost
productivity per day or 22 million man-hours per year. At even the minimum
wage (say $9/hr), that's $210 million of wealth destroyed each year by
polarized plugs.

According to the CPSC, about 400 people are electrocuted each year. Some of
these deaths are due to coming in contact with overhead lines, and the like,
so assume 300 are due to defective consumer equipment or equipment used
improperly. Now suppose that number doubles as a result of non-polarized
plugs. The value of each life saved then works out to (mumble-mumble, carry
the three...) about $700,000.

Somewhere there's a trade-off point.


Only equipment where polarization matters, has polarized plugs.

The CPSC says only 87,000 Americans a year are treated for electrical
shock, so polarized plugs must be working, except of course for the
87,000 who tamper with them.

Suppose if nobody used polarized plugs there were 87,000,000
hospitalizations a year for electrical shock, at $100,000 apiece.
Polarized plugs are saving us $8.7 trillion a year.

Besides, if I didn't look before I inserted a plug, I'd probably miss
the outlet and damage the wall, which could easily cost another $8.7
trillion.

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:03:33 -0500, E Z Peaces
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
I think there's a demand for a device to equalize the sizes of electrical
cord prongs.

Imagine a gizmo similar to a bit sharpener into which you insert the plug
needing adjustment. A cutting wheel inside trims the larger, neutral, prong
to the same size as the other one. It would probably have two cutting wheels
to do both the top and the bottom.

I'd be willing to pay, oh, say, $14.95 for such a machine. It would save an
immense amount of time compared to massaging each plug with a Dremel tool.

Heck, hardware stores could offer it as a service when you bought the
offending, crippled, tools - similar to free gift wrapping!

And as for safety, it's not an issue. If grinding down the neutral prong
WERE problematic, we'd certainly see some cautions in the 8-page safety
instruction booklet that comes with and electric clock along with all the
other admonitions such as "Not for use in the shower, Do not puncture, etc."


How about a machine to make power cords more flexible by removing the
insulation? If it were unsafe, I'm sure the instructions that came with
my floor lamp would have said so.

Before they had polarized plugs, didn't you ever get a shock from a lamp?


How about a $14.95 brain transplant machine???
Any IDIOT who would renovate a polarized plug needs one.

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:44:11 -0500, Van Chocstraw
wrote:

On 02/02/2010 10:13 PM, Bob F wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
I think there's a demand for a device to equalize the sizes of
electrical cord prongs.

Imagine a gizmo similar to a bit sharpener into which you insert the
plug needing adjustment. A cutting wheel inside trims the larger,
neutral, prong to the same size as the other one. It would probably
have two cutting wheels to do both the top and the bottom.

I'd be willing to pay, oh, say, $14.95 for such a machine. It would
save an immense amount of time compared to massaging each plug with a
Dremel tool.
Heck, hardware stores could offer it as a service when you bought the
offending, crippled, tools - similar to free gift wrapping!

And as for safety, it's not an issue. If grinding down the neutral
prong WERE problematic, we'd certainly see some cautions in the
8-page safety instruction booklet that comes with and electric clock
along with all the other admonitions such as "Not for use in the
shower, Do not puncture, etc."

Another solution without a problem.


It IS a problem on old outlets with both narrow blade slots and some
extension cords with the same. That's why they sell those little gray
adapters to defeat wide blade plugs and three prong plugs.

No, that's why they sell replacement polarized receptacles.

"Bob F" wrote in
:

Caesar Romano wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:55:56 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote Re Tool idea:

Now suppose that number doubles as a result of non-polarized
plugs. The value of each life saved then works out to
(mumble-mumble, carry the three...) about $700,000.

Somewhere there's a trade-off point.

In the U.S.:

$1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000.00

We consider a human live very valuable.

Unless it's a poor person that can't afford medical insurance, or a
person with pre-existing conditions. 45,000 deaths per year.

http://www.harvardscience.harvard.ed...icles/new-stud
y-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage

Yes, except in that case...it goes without saying....

....add gw hates black people...

what a maroon...

Only if it's sold with a polarized plug.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Bob F"
wrote in message
...


I wonder what the authorities will have to say about this
product. Think UL will
approve it?

Caesar Romano wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:55:56 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote Re Tool idea:

Now suppose that number doubles as a result of non-polarized
plugs. The value of each life saved then works out to
(mumble-mumble, carry the three...) about $700,000.

Somewhere there's a trade-off point.

In the U.S.:

$1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000.00

We consider a human live very valuable.

Then why are school busses not equipped with seat belts?

On 2/2/2010 6:30 PM, HeyBub wrote:
I think there's a demand for a device to equalize the sizes of electrical
cord prongs.

Imagine a gizmo similar to a bit sharpener into which you insert the plug
needing adjustment. A cutting wheel inside trims the larger, neutral, prong
to the same size as the other one. It would probably have two cutting wheels
to do both the top and the bottom.

I'd be willing to pay, oh, say, $14.95 for such a machine. It would save an
immense amount of time compared to massaging each plug with a Dremel tool.

Heck, hardware stores could offer it as a service when you bought the
offending, crippled, tools - similar to free gift wrapping!

And as for safety, it's not an issue. If grinding down the neutral prong
WERE problematic, we'd certainly see some cautions in the 8-page safety
instruction booklet that comes with and electric clock along with all the
other admonitions such as "Not for use in the shower, Do not puncture, etc."





You are a laughing troll aren't ye?

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:43:46 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Caesar Romano wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:55:56 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote Re Tool idea:

Now suppose that number doubles as a result of non-polarized
plugs. The value of each life saved then works out to
(mumble-mumble, carry the three...) about $700,000.

Somewhere there's a trade-off point.

In the U.S.:

$1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000.00

We consider a human live very valuable.

Then why are school busses not equipped with seat belts?


Because to do so, you have to design and build a completely different
bus. Seatbelts simply added to an existing bus are somewhere between
useless and more dangerous.

School busses in their present form are among the safest vehicles on
the road. If you want meaningful safety measures, make wearing a
helmet mandatory in cars. Head injuries in car crashes are very
common, and often what makes them fatal. Those that aren't killed by
head inhjuries in car crashes are often left with TBI and are costly
to warehouse for the rest of their lives at taxpayer expense. It would
be so easy to avoid so much of it.

wrote:
Somewhere there's a trade-off point.

In the U.S.:

$1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000.00

We consider a human live very valuable.

Then why are school busses not equipped with seat belts?


Because to do so, you have to design and build a completely different
bus. Seatbelts simply added to an existing bus are somewhere between
useless and more dangerous.

School busses in their present form are among the safest vehicles on
the road.

I suggest that airline travel is safer than school busses and airplanes are
equipped with seat belts. And just because school busses are among the
safest vehicles on the road that doesn't mean they can't be made safer.
Nevertheless, I agree that it would cost more to retrofit seat belts in
school busses than the paltry few lives it might save*.

Fact is, there's a point of diminishing returns.

------------
* One recent report says about 800 kids are killed in vehicle accidents each
year. Of these, about 20 involved a school bus. Of these 20, five were
passengers and 15 were pedestrians. Putting seat belts on the roughly
half-million school busses in the U.S. would cost only, um, 500,000 busses x
30 seats x $75 each = $1.125 billion.

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 07:46:44 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
Somewhere there's a trade-off point.
In the U.S.:

$1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000.00

We consider a human live very valuable.
Then why are school busses not equipped with seat belts?

Because to do so, you have to design and build a completely different
bus. Seatbelts simply added to an existing bus are somewhere between
useless and more dangerous.

School busses in their present form are among the safest vehicles on
the road.
I suggest that airline travel is safer than school busses and airplanes are
equipped with seat belts. And just because school busses are among the
safest vehicles on the road that doesn't mean they can't be made safer.
Nevertheless, I agree that it would cost more to retrofit seat belts in
school busses than the paltry few lives it might save*.

Fact is, there's a point of diminishing returns.

------------
* One recent report says about 800 kids are killed in vehicle accidents each
year. Of these, about 20 involved a school bus. Of these 20, five were
passengers and 15 were pedestrians. Putting seat belts on the roughly
half-million school busses in the U.S. would cost only, um, 500,000 busses x
30 seats x $75 each = $1.125 billion.


You are neglecting the other problem. You can't simply install
seatbelts in present buses. They were not designed properly for seat
belts. You would have to start over with a completely new bus of a
different design, and after that, still have buses that are not
appreciably safer than what we have now. It's a totally misguided idea
with no real payoff.

Current school buses are glorified enclosed flatbed trucks. It took
decades to even get the seat backs made taller and padded, to reduce the
broken noses and smashed teeth that used to be common in school bus
accidents. They are statistically safe mostly because they seldom travel
fast, are bright frigging yellow, and have flashing lights all over
them, including the ability to make passing traffic stop when needed.

A truck-based school bus, well maintained, seems to last about 10-12
years around here in salt country. (although I have seen recycled US
buses in other countries that are less fussy.) Design changes could be
built into the refresh cycle, and ignore the cost of doing retrofits.
Given the impossibility of keeping 30-60+ kids belted in unless you add
another warm adult on the bus, the best approach would likely be to
make them like a carnival ride, with little padded pods for the kids to
be encapsulated in. That would be an extension of the current high-back
padded seat concept, plus maybe adding a little side to the seat on the
aisle side, and padding the wall side. Unless the bus got upside down or
the driver went crazy, that would protect in the majority of most
slide-offs and intersection accidents. The ribs they added on the
outside of the bus body a couple of decades ago have mostly eliminated
the problem of bus being penetrated in a T-bone, much like the side
guard beams do in a passenger car.

But looking at the question as a taxpayer, the biggest bang for the buck
would be driver training and testing, hardass mechanical inspection of
the bus itself, and hardass enforcement of the laws other drivers are
supposed to follow around occupied school buses they encounter. Maybe
add external cameras to the onboard cameras many buses already have, so
they can get plate numbers of cars that ignore the flashing lights. with
a button the driver can push when needed to snap a still.

But what do I know- I'm not an engineer. I just get trapped behind a Big
Yellow Thing on the way to work 2-3 days a week.

--
aem sends...

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:26:24 -0500, aemeijers
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 07:46:44 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
Somewhere there's a trade-off point.
In the U.S.:

$1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000.00

We consider a human live very valuable.
Then why are school busses not equipped with seat belts?

Because to do so, you have to design and build a completely different
bus. Seatbelts simply added to an existing bus are somewhere between
useless and more dangerous.

School busses in their present form are among the safest vehicles on
the road.
I suggest that airline travel is safer than school busses and airplanes are
equipped with seat belts. And just because school busses are among the
safest vehicles on the road that doesn't mean they can't be made safer.
Nevertheless, I agree that it would cost more to retrofit seat belts in
school busses than the paltry few lives it might save*.

Fact is, there's a point of diminishing returns.

------------
* One recent report says about 800 kids are killed in vehicle accidents each
year. Of these, about 20 involved a school bus. Of these 20, five were
passengers and 15 were pedestrians. Putting seat belts on the roughly
half-million school busses in the U.S. would cost only, um, 500,000 busses x
30 seats x $75 each = $1.125 billion.


You are neglecting the other problem. You can't simply install
seatbelts in present buses. They were not designed properly for seat
belts. You would have to start over with a completely new bus of a
different design, and after that, still have buses that are not
appreciably safer than what we have now. It's a totally misguided idea
with no real payoff.

Current school buses are glorified enclosed flatbed trucks. It took
decades to even get the seat backs made taller and padded, to reduce the
broken noses and smashed teeth that used to be common in school bus
accidents. They are statistically safe mostly because they seldom travel
fast, are bright frigging yellow, and have flashing lights all over
them, including the ability to make passing traffic stop when needed.

A truck-based school bus, well maintained, seems to last about 10-12
years around here in salt country. (although I have seen recycled US
buses in other countries that are less fussy.) Design changes could be
built into the refresh cycle, and ignore the cost of doing retrofits.
Given the impossibility of keeping 30-60+ kids belted in unless you add
another warm adult on the bus, the best approach would likely be to
make them like a carnival ride, with little padded pods for the kids to
be encapsulated in. That would be an extension of the current high-back
padded seat concept, plus maybe adding a little side to the seat on the
aisle side, and padding the wall side. Unless the bus got upside down or
the driver went crazy, that would protect in the majority of most
slide-offs and intersection accidents. The ribs they added on the
outside of the bus body a couple of decades ago have mostly eliminated
the problem of bus being penetrated in a T-bone, much like the side
guard beams do in a passenger car.

But looking at the question as a taxpayer, the biggest bang for the buck
would be driver training and testing, hardass mechanical inspection of
the bus itself, and hardass enforcement of the laws other drivers are
supposed to follow around occupied school buses they encounter. Maybe
add external cameras to the onboard cameras many buses already have, so
they can get plate numbers of cars that ignore the flashing lights. with
a button the driver can push when needed to snap a still.

But what do I know- I'm not an engineer. I just get trapped behind a Big
Yellow Thing on the way to work 2-3 days a week.

Well, there are a few problems. Drivers do get training, but you start
off with people who are very low paid. It's essentially part time,
seasonal work with no benefits. So, you aren't going to get many
drivers who could get a job doing something that pays better. You will
find a fair number of retired folks, and some of them may have been
well educated and worked at good jobs in the past. You'll mostly get
dregs, though.

Then you put these hapless folks in the drivers seat of a bus with 66
kids sitting behind them as they attempt to do everything right. Those
kids are supervised at home, and supervised all day long at school. On
the bus, they aren't supervised, and they tend to let loose. It really
isn't the drivers fault. he's making almost no money for taking on
that huge responsibility. EVERY bus really needs at least one
competent adult on board besides the driver.

Buses get a lot of inspections and maintenance. The bus company has to
keep records of when certain items were checked, adjusted and
replaced. So, the inspectors look at those records. They mostly look
at a few buses, just to confirm that what was written in the books
matches what they find. If the records say the bus got new rear brake
drums last month, and you find that the drums on the bus are old,
scored and cracked, well then, the inspection gets racheted up, and
buses start getting parked. It's not that easy to get away with lousy
maintenance in my state.

People who fail to stop for a stopped school bus should lose their
license for 6 months. Those are somebody's kids on that bus. Let's
take it seriously.

Most cars that t-bone a bus, go under it. The passengers are pretty
high up.

All in all, I really think the seatbelt argument is a loser. In my
youth, I drove a school bus for a year. It was extra money that fit
around my schedule at the time. Seatbelts would have caused more
problems then they would have solved.

As I mentioned earlier, mandatory helmets in cars would save a lot
more kids and adults (by several orders of magnitude) from TBI and
death, then spending billions of dollars on school bus seatbelts.

On cars, the purpose of seat belts is to prevent the passengers from
getting tossed around in an accident, or especially ejected from the
car. It would be pretty hard to get ejected from a bus in a crash, and
unlikely for a car to hit a bus with enough force to toss people around.
I have heard of buses getting rear-ended by cars, and the bus driver
taking off, not even knowing they were hit. I remember seeing something
on TV years ago about school bus safety, and most of the deadliest
crashes involved gasoline powered buses catching on fire after being
broadsided just right, and buses running off into water. In either case,
it would seem to me that seat belts would be much more harm than good,
as kids would panic and be trappped in the seats.. Just my $.02

wrote:

-snip-

Well, there are a few problems. Drivers do get training, but you start
off with people who are very low paid. It's essentially part time,
seasonal work with no benefits.

That is entirely dependent on your district. Our district, and the
one I drove for many years ago, hires full time, pays well & includes
the same benefits the teachers get-- retirement, health, drug 7 dental
coverage.

Meanwhile, many districts in the same area contract out to low bidders
who hire folks who couldn't get a job at McDonalds. Those are the
ones you see on the news who molest their kids, leave them in the bus
when it gets locked up at night, get arrested for drunk driving, etc.

Oh, yeah-- I just remembered. My daughter, fresh out of college &
working for a non-profit after-school program for inner-city kids,
gets to drive her kids [short bus] as part of her duties. So some
of those drivers have 4 yr degrees from prestigious universities.g

Jim

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:41:25 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

wrote:

-snip-

Well, there are a few problems. Drivers do get training, but you start
off with people who are very low paid. It's essentially part time,
seasonal work with no benefits.

That is entirely dependent on your district. Our district, and the
one I drove for many years ago, hires full time, pays well & includes
the same benefits the teachers get-- retirement, health, drug 7 dental
coverage.

Meanwhile, many districts in the same area contract out to low bidders
who hire folks who couldn't get a job at McDonalds. Those are the
ones you see on the news who molest their kids, leave them in the bus
when it gets locked up at night, get arrested for drunk driving, etc.

Oh, yeah-- I just remembered. My daughter, fresh out of college &
working for a non-profit after-school program for inner-city kids,
gets to drive her kids [short bus] as part of her duties. So some
of those drivers have 4 yr degrees from prestigious universities.g

Jim

Yeah. I had graduated college before I drove a bus. I sure wasn't
thinkng of it as a career move.

On Feb 4, 6:58*pm, wrote:

Well, there are a few problems. Drivers do get training, but you start
off with people who are very low paid. It's essentially part time,
seasonal work with no benefits. So, you aren't going to get many
drivers who could get a job doing something that pays better. You will
find a fair number of retired folks, and some of them may have been
well educated and worked at good jobs in the past. You'll mostly get
dregs, though.

Having just had a school bus change lanes into me this morning without
signaling (or apparently checking mirrors) and having only missed
getting sandwiched between said bus and a guardrail due to quick
braking, all I can say is you're quite possibly right.

Now I know some people who either are or have been school bus drivers,
and they're all right, but the ones I see driving... sheesh.

And what's up with waiting 5 minutes with the lights on because some
snowflake isn't waiting at the bus stop? I leave early just so I can
beat the school buses... when I was a kid the bus would wait about 30
seconds, and if you weren't in visual range you got left. And if you
were late and didn't RUN to the bus you either got left or (if the bus
driver was feeling nice and there wasn't too much traffic) got yelled
at.

nate

On Feb 3, 9:44*am, Van Chocstraw
wrote:
On 02/02/2010 10:13 PM, Bob F wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
I think there's a demand for a device to equalize the sizes of
electrical cord prongs.

Imagine a gizmo similar to a bit sharpener into which you insert the
plug needing adjustment. A cutting wheel inside trims the larger,
neutral, prong to the same size as the other one. It would probably
have two cutting wheels to do both the top and the bottom.

I'd be willing to pay, oh, say, $14.95 for such a machine. It would
save an immense amount of time compared to massaging each plug with a
Dremel tool.
Heck, hardware stores could offer it as a service when you bought the
offending, crippled, tools - similar to free gift wrapping!

And as for safety, it's not an issue. If grinding down the neutral
prong WERE problematic, we'd certainly see some cautions in the
8-page safety instruction booklet that comes with and electric clock
along with all the other admonitions such as "Not for use in the
shower, Do not puncture, etc."

Another solution without a problem.

It IS a problem on old outlets with both narrow blade slots and some
extension cords with the same. That's why they sell those little gray
adapters to defeat wide blade plugs and three prong plugs.

They still sell two hole receptacles, which is the correct solution to
that problem, not adapters and workarounds.

nate

wrote:

You are neglecting the other problem. You can't simply install
seatbelts in present buses. They were not designed properly for seat
belts. You would have to start over with a completely new bus of a
different design, and after that, still have buses that are not
appreciably safer than what we have now. It's a totally misguided idea
with no real payoff.

Sure you could. Simply glue the ends to the floor. Or, for a more
substantial attachement, use a sheet-metal screw.

There is no requirement the things actually WORK - nor any way to tell - but
just having them there will make all manner of folk feel good. After all,
feeling good is the rationale behind many government regulations.

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:

You are neglecting the other problem. You can't simply install
seatbelts in present buses. They were not designed properly for seat
belts. You would have to start over with a completely new bus of a
different design, and after that, still have buses that are not
appreciably safer than what we have now. It's a totally misguided
idea with no real payoff.

Sure you could. Simply glue the ends to the floor. Or, for a more
substantial attachement, use a sheet-metal screw.

There is no requirement the things actually WORK - nor any way to
tell - but just having them there will make all manner of folk feel
good. After all, feeling good is the rationale behind many government
regulations.

and it's for the children

On Feb 5, 11:26*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

You are neglecting the other problem. You can't simply install
seatbelts in present buses. They were not designed properly for seat
belts. You would have to start over with a completely new bus of a
different design, and after that, still have buses that are not
appreciably safer than what we have now. It's a totally misguided idea
with no real payoff.

Sure you could. Simply glue the ends to the floor. Or, for a more
substantial attachement, use a sheet-metal screw.

There is no requirement the things actually WORK - nor any way to tell - but
just having them there will make all manner of folk feel good. After all,
feeling good is the rationale behind many government regulations.

You been hanging out with Saint Joan of Claybrook again?

You forgot to throw something in there about "if it saves just one
life it's worth it" and also "it's easier to force the manufacturers
to provide passive safety devices than to convince consumers to use
active ones"

nate