"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:51:53 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

Amen. No belts/bags/helmets, no insurance coverage. Your life, your
choice.

Reality check time, Larry. Your buddy, who isn't the sharpest knife in
the
drawer, is riding a bike without a helmet and gets in a crash. He's
flopping
on the ground with a brain injury. Along comes the ambulance. "Eh, no
helmet," they say. "Let him lie." They get back in the ambulance and
drive
home. Your buddy dies.

Right. HIS choice. And that's the way it should be.


Or not. They take him to the hospital, as they're now required to by law.
He
lives, after $120,000 worth of brain surgery.

$120k barely gets him in the door and stabilized today. Make it 1/2 a
mil to do surgery to save his life, but in a completely vegetative
state. THAT bothers me on both counts. A lot.


Your buddy's assets amount to $623 net. The hospital has to raise its
rates
for the rest of us, to cover people like your buddy. According to the
State
of Illinois, roughly 85% of motorcycle-accident hospital costs are not
covered by insurance. The state winds up eating about 40% of the cost,
with
the other 45% born directly by the hospital. You pay both ways.

That's precisely what I'm against.


Now, you have to change the law in some way to effect what you're
proposing.
Either you let the sucker lie on the ground and die, or the hospital
pushes
him into the street on a gurney when he's reached his insurance limit.

Questions: Do you handle it all up-front, letting him lie on the ground,
and
let the highway cleanup crew remove the carcass after a few days, or do
you
just push him out to die when he's run out of money? And, regardless of
which you choose, do you really want to live in a society that would
allow
either situation? How about if YOU simply forgot to fasten your seat belt
one day, and got in a crash? When the EMTs saw you weren't wearing a belt
and turned around to walk away, might you change your mind?

Nope, I'd deserve the fate I got if I forgot to buckle up. EMTs
shouldn't resuscitate the Opt Outers, but should merely make them
more comfy for their impending death.

Since hospitals are geared toward the dying, toting the bodies there
for a day or two there with minimal fuss and accelerated disposal
would probably be the easiest route since bodies (living and dead) are
already going there now. Doctors should NOT be kept from putting
people out of their misery if these people WANT that. (Along that
line, suicide watch on Death Row is one of the most assinine things in
this country, second only to some of Shrub's moves.)


Serious questions, they need a serious answer.

If it's me dying, please promptly put me out of my misery. 1 shot to
the temple, like a horse in a western movie. (Yes, I'm serious and
need to update my Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care statement
for Oregon. I'm a fatalist and don't want to be kept alive by machines
as a vegetable, thanks.)

Those who opt out could get small tattoos on the inside of their
wrists. DNR for "Do Not Resuscitate." This would alert EMTs and
hospitals before the fact that the party had made other choices.

You talk a good ideological line, Larry, but I doubt if you would live up to
your ideological standards if you faced either of those situations in real
life. Confronting real life-and-death situations tends to expose ideology
for the idiocy it is, even among the hard-liners.

Of course, there are some people who could do it. But a lot of sociopaths
like them are already in prison for some other sociopathological weirdness.

For a normal human being to either let the "opt-outer" friend die, or for
you to shrug over your own impending death when you might be saved, is
nearly impossible. Sorry, but I don't believe you would adhere to these
ideas in real life. Neither would anyone else who has managed to reach
adulthood without being incarcerated or committed.

You're playing a philosophical game with yourself. I'm thinking about what
happens in real life.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
oups.com...
One bit of the information is that smart air bags are expected to cost
$173 per car. That must come to 1.x billion dollars per year. What I
don't have is the number of deaths saved by air bags when the person
was wearing a seat belt. I am not even sure there is anyway one can
find out if an air bag saved the life of a person who was wearing a
seat belt.

Have you tried? Or are you "not even sure" because it didn't hit you over
the head on Google?

--
Ed Huntress

In article .com,
says...

But if you did not want to buy an air bag, but the government mandated
that you shall if you buy a new car..............You really ought to
sue the government..............

Ah I think this is what the discussion is about Dan. You obviously
cannot win a suit against the government, but you can ask that they
ease off on making laws that defend citizens against their own
actions.

Jim


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

In article , Ed Huntress says...

They'll sue the car manufacturer, of course.

Well, since you ask, why shouldn't they? If you buy an airbag to save your
life, and the car manufacturer sells you one, whose fault is it when it
doesn't work?

And who's fault is it if it *does* work, and it kills your infant?

At one time it was actually illegal to disconnect the airbags.

Jim


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

On 11 Feb 2005 14:46:13 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

They'll sue the car manufacturer, of course.

Well, since you ask, why shouldn't they? If you buy an airbag to save your
life, and the car manufacturer sells you one, whose fault is it when it
doesn't work?

And who's fault is it if it *does* work, and it kills your infant?

At one time it was actually illegal to disconnect the airbags.

Jim
Well Jim, I don't know for sure about all instances of children being
killed by airbags but when I did look into it all the children were
not restrained properly or were in the wrong seat. I think there must
be cases where children were strapped in according to instructions and
still killed by airbags. But not very many. And both my wife and
sister in law are short enough to be at risk from an airbag. I
thought it was still legal to disconnect them.
ERS

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

They'll sue the car manufacturer, of course.

Well, since you ask, why shouldn't they? If you buy an airbag to save
your
life, and the car manufacturer sells you one, whose fault is it when it
doesn't work?

And who's fault is it if it *does* work, and it kills your infant?

That's a good question. Who did the research?

At one time it was actually illegal to disconnect the airbags.

I thought it still is, except on the passenger side, right? Or is that a
state law?

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:07:17 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:03:31 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:35:29 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

Which tall, sparse manlike woman with glasses was in charge of killing
the children at Waco?

Ohhhhhh! Gotcha.

Is this her? (Check your email box)

GACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When that one showed up at the Wreck, some folks were screaming
"Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh! MY EYES, MY EYES!"

--
Vidi, Vici, Veni
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:28:45 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

Those who opt out could get small tattoos on the inside of their
wrists. DNR for "Do Not Resuscitate." This would alert EMTs and
hospitals before the fact that the party had made other choices.

You talk a good ideological line, Larry, but I doubt if you would live up to
your ideological standards if you faced either of those situations in real
life. Confronting real life-and-death situations tends to expose ideology
for the idiocy it is, even among the hard-liners.

I'd place a wager with you, but I wouldn't be around to collect when
I won, would I?


Of course, there are some people who could do it. But a lot of sociopaths
like them are already in prison for some other sociopathological weirdness.

So those of us who believe in reincarnation are sociopaths, eh?


For a normal human being to either let the "opt-outer" friend die, or for
you to shrug over your own impending death when you might be saved, is
nearly impossible. Sorry, but I don't believe you would adhere to these
ideas in real life. Neither would anyone else who has managed to reach
adulthood without being incarcerated or committed.

I've come close a few times, Ed. Alcoholism, car accidents, and just
plain wild-ass living have oft put me on the edge. And I've watched
far too many people (my neighbor across the street right now) linger
and NOT die when they wanted to. While I've never been suicidal, I've
never had that homicidal drive to live, either.

After all that, and watching my father die with a smile on his face
(my sister, mother, and I all "released him with love) the evening
before), I'm OK with moving on. This life is fun but it's nothing to
get hysterical about. On with the game! What the hell? It's only a
body.


You're playing a philosophical game with yourself. I'm thinking about what
happens in real life.

Perhaps you cling to life far too tightly. Meditate on it. It might
do you some good, Grasshoppa.

--
Vidi, Vici, Veni
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:28:45 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

Those who opt out could get small tattoos on the inside of their
wrists. DNR for "Do Not Resuscitate." This would alert EMTs and
hospitals before the fact that the party had made other choices.

You talk a good ideological line, Larry, but I doubt if you would live up
to
your ideological standards if you faced either of those situations in
real
life. Confronting real life-and-death situations tends to expose ideology
for the idiocy it is, even among the hard-liners.

I'd place a wager with you, but I wouldn't be around to collect when
I won, would I?

Nor would you be around to pay up when the EMTs turned to walk away, and you
found out that you are a human being after all, and I won. d8-)

Of course, there are some people who could do it. But a lot of sociopaths
like them are already in prison for some other sociopathological
weirdness.

So those of us who believe in reincarnation are sociopaths, eh?

Reincarnation? Where did that come from?

We were talking about three situations: one in which your friend had a
motorcyle accident without a helmet, and the EMTs decided to let him lie
there and die; another in which they took him to the hospital, but his
insurance wouldn't pay and they pushed him out in the street to die when he
ran out of money; and a third in which you had forgotten to fasten your seat
belt, got in an accident, and were left to die because of it.

Anyone who would just let the EMTs drive away, or watch passively while his
buddy was pushed out of the hospital, or just waved goodby to the ambulance
while he lay dying in his car, is a freak of nature. You are not such a
freak -- you show more than an ordinary sense of humanity in many things you
write, IMO -- so I don't believe you would do it, if you were in any of
those situations.

Ideology is for hypothesizing about human nature while sitting in your easy
chair. When the rubber hits the road, ideology goes out the window. You, and
every other normal person, reverts to being a real human being.

For a normal human being to either let the "opt-outer" friend die, or for
you to shrug over your own impending death when you might be saved, is
nearly impossible. Sorry, but I don't believe you would adhere to these
ideas in real life. Neither would anyone else who has managed to reach
adulthood without being incarcerated or committed.

I've come close a few times, Ed. Alcoholism, car accidents, and just
plain wild-ass living have oft put me on the edge. And I've watched
far too many people (my neighbor across the street right now) linger
and NOT die when they wanted to. While I've never been suicidal, I've
never had that homicidal drive to live, either.

We aren't talking about people who "linger and not die when they wanted to."
We're talking about people who could be saved and who likely would recover,
albeit at great expense and difficulty. That's the hypothetical. I know; I
wrote it. g


After all that, and watching my father die with a smile on his face
(my sister, mother, and I all "released him with love) the evening
before), I'm OK with moving on. This life is fun but it's nothing to
get hysterical about. On with the game! What the hell? It's only a
body.

I'm OK with moving on too, should it come to that. But I will rage against
the dying of the light if there is a chance I can make it. Nearly everyone
does until they just give up.



You're playing a philosophical game with yourself. I'm thinking about
what
happens in real life.

Perhaps you cling to life far too tightly. Meditate on it. It might
do you some good, Grasshoppa.

No, I care about the lives of my friends, and myself, and even people I
don't know. Most people are. I've watched people spring into incredible
feats of bravery and fortitude when it looked like others may die. Those are
normal human beings at their best. I've never seen anyone just say, "He was
being irresponsible, so just let him die." Never. And I hope I never do.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
One bit of the information is that smart air bags are expected to
cost
$173 per car. That must come to 1.x billion dollars per year.
What I
don't have is the number of deaths saved by air bags when the
person
was wearing a seat belt. I am not even sure there is anyway one
can
find out if an air bag saved the life of a person who was wearing a
seat belt.

Have you tried? Or are you "not even sure" because it didn't hit you
over
the head on Google?

--
Ed Huntress
I thought about how one would know if the seat belt alone would have
saved the life as opposed to knowing that both a seat belt and air bag
were needed to save the life. I can't see how I would make that
determination if I were filling out a report on the accident. And
figured that it was unlikely there was a good way to make this
determination. Therefore I reasoned that Any statistics that I found
would be very suspect. So I did not even try google.

If you know of a good way to determine if a person wearing a seat belt
lived because of an air bag and would have died with the seat belt
alone, please let me know.

Dan

If you know of a good way to determine if a person wearing a seat belt
lived because of an air bag and would have died with the seat belt
alone, please let me know.

Dan


Double blind placibo controlled.

Take a large number of polliticans (both dems and repubs to be fair and
of both sexes), remember the larger the number the better the results,
have a robot strap half in with automotive grade airbags and the other
half with one of their colleages (the placebo air bag as this case may
be), then just to be shure look the other way when you crash them into a
solid wall. Without looking then determin who was saved by a real air
bag by asking the opinion of vacationing doctors in some other country.
This will add both an air of authority and the touch of distinction to
your study necessary for an application of grant for the next.

As a followup take any random victum from the study before a body of law
and they will be sure to enact legislation for the proliforation of more
air bags.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:40:46 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

Of course, there are some people who could do it. But a lot of sociopaths
like them are already in prison for some other sociopathological
weirdness.

So those of us who believe in reincarnation are sociopaths, eh?

Reincarnation? Where did that come from?

Those of us who believe in reincarnation could let people (including
ourselves) die. "Sociopaths like them" read "us" to me.


We were talking about three situations: one in which your friend had a
motorcyle accident without a helmet, and the EMTs decided to let him lie
there and die; another in which they took him to the hospital, but his
insurance wouldn't pay and they pushed him out in the street to die when he
ran out of money; and a third in which you had forgotten to fasten your seat
belt, got in an accident, and were left to die because of it.

Yes, that's how it started, but the conversation contained more than
those bare threads.


Anyone who would just let the EMTs drive away, or watch passively while his
buddy was pushed out of the hospital, or just waved goodby to the ambulance
while he lay dying in his car, is a freak of nature. You are not such a
freak -- you show more than an ordinary sense of humanity in many things you
write, IMO -- so I don't believe you would do it, if you were in any of
those situations.

If you reread that post, I was saying that the bodies (alive or dead)
should go to the hospital where they're used to tending them until the
county morgue folks drop by. And that they could be cared for and
comforted until they died, but not given heroic efforts to be saved.
(Most would die within 24 hours without machines.)


We aren't talking about people who "linger and not die when they wanted to."
We're talking about people who could be saved and who likely would recover,
albeit at great expense and difficulty. That's the hypothetical. I know; I
wrote it. g

One of the reasons that I feel so strongly about letting them go is
because I have been in people's lives who have lingered and not died.
Whatever.

Ciao!



----------------------------------
VIRTUE...is its own punishment
http://www.diversify.com Website Applications
==================================================

wrote in message
oups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
One bit of the information is that smart air bags are expected to
cost
$173 per car. That must come to 1.x billion dollars per year.
What I
don't have is the number of deaths saved by air bags when the
person
was wearing a seat belt. I am not even sure there is anyway one
can
find out if an air bag saved the life of a person who was wearing a
seat belt.

Have you tried? Or are you "not even sure" because it didn't hit you
over
the head on Google?

--
Ed Huntress
I thought about how one would know if the seat belt alone would have
saved the life as opposed to knowing that both a seat belt and air bag
were needed to save the life. I can't see how I would make that
determination if I were filling out a report on the accident. And
figured that it was unlikely there was a good way to make this
determination. Therefore I reasoned that Any statistics that I found
would be very suspect. So I did not even try google.

If you know of a good way to determine if a person wearing a seat belt
lived because of an air bag and would have died with the seat belt
alone, please let me know.

There are enough double-pair comparison studies, done both with accident
statistics and with instrumented dummies, to convince anyone with a
reasonable understanding of the science behind it. You can find them via
Google.

FWIW, this ****ed me off no end, because I wanted to believe that seat belts
and shoulder harnesses were just as good. I used to argue vehemently against
airbags. But the data was overwhelming, so I stopped.

--
Ed Huntress

jim rozen wrote:
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
snip
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.

AIUI, in countries where seatbelt laws are in force, the airbags are
significantly smaller.
They don't need to be sized to restrain unbelted occupants, so have much
more benign effect on out-of-position and smaller people.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:40:46 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

Of course, there are some people who could do it. But a lot of
sociopaths
like them are already in prison for some other sociopathological
weirdness.

So those of us who believe in reincarnation are sociopaths, eh?

Reincarnation? Where did that come from?

Those of us who believe in reincarnation could let people (including
ourselves) die. "Sociopaths like them" read "us" to me.

Why would your belief in reincarnation influence your opinion about whether
people should die if they make a stupid mistake? I've never heard of that
flavor of reincarnation belief. Are you serious, or are you arguing for the
fun of it?

We were talking about three situations: one in which your friend had a
motorcyle accident without a helmet, and the EMTs decided to let him lie
there and die; another in which they took him to the hospital, but his
insurance wouldn't pay and they pushed him out in the street to die when
he
ran out of money; and a third in which you had forgotten to fasten your
seat
belt, got in an accident, and were left to die because of it.

Yes, that's how it started, but the conversation contained more than
those bare threads.

I'm not asking about other threads, bare or not. You made a statement; I
posited some circumstances; and you responded to them. Those were the
hypotheticals. No one had to die in my examples. They had just done stupid
things, and my question concerned whether you would save them anyway,
despite the laws concerning insurance liability. It was clearly assumed they
would have a good chance of pulling through, at higher expense and
difficulty.

That's all there is to the hypothetical. Whatever you believe about
reincarnation is your business and no one else's. Whether it influences what
you would do doesn't matter. I'm asking what you would do about the living.
That was the issue.



Anyone who would just let the EMTs drive away, or watch passively while
his
buddy was pushed out of the hospital, or just waved goodby to the
ambulance
while he lay dying in his car, is a freak of nature. You are not such a
freak -- you show more than an ordinary sense of humanity in many things
you
write, IMO -- so I don't believe you would do it, if you were in any of
those situations.

If you reread that post, I was saying that the bodies (alive or dead)
should go to the hospital where they're used to tending them until the
county morgue folks drop by.

That wasn't what you were talking about, nor what I asked you about. A lot
of people who have head injuries go on to live perfectly normal lives.
Assume that these people live.

And that they could be cared for and
comforted until they died, but not given heroic efforts to be saved.
(Most would die within 24 hours without machines.)


We aren't talking about people who "linger and not die when they wanted
to."
We're talking about people who could be saved and who likely would
recover,
albeit at great expense and difficulty. That's the hypothetical. I know;
I
wrote it. g

One of the reasons that I feel so strongly about letting them go is
because I have been in people's lives who have lingered and not died.
Whatever.

These people didn't have to die. Try that one.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:36:34 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

Why would your belief in reincarnation influence your opinion about whether
people should die if they make a stupid mistake? I've never heard of that
flavor of reincarnation belief. Are you serious, or are you arguing for the
fun of it?

Let's forget your silly liberal twist on that for a moment and
just concentrate on the concept. If a person believes in
reincarnation, they are less concerned about death in general.
And if someone pulls a stupid stunt, they're declaring to us
that -they- are less concerned about life in general, too. Who
are we to argue? Their choice, their consequences. It's called
"accepting personal responsibility for your actions", Ed.


These people didn't have to die. Try that one.

Maybe in the next lifetime they won't do something so stupid, eh?
And if they did this stunt on a barren stretch of road, they'd
die anyway. This moot point is also known as "fate."

As I said, we're not going to agree on this so it's futile arguing.


----------------------------------
VIRTUE...is its own punishment
http://www.diversify.com Website Applications
==================================================

On 15 Feb 2005 02:17:05 GMT, the inscrutable Ian Stirling
spake:

jim rozen wrote:
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
snip
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.

AIUI, in countries where seatbelt laws are in force, the airbags are
significantly smaller.
They don't need to be sized to restrain unbelted occupants, so have much
more benign effect on out-of-position and smaller people.

They're, hopefully, a bit quieter as a result of their smaller size.

Ear injury from air bag deployment noise?
Author(s): P C Chan 1 | J H Stuhmiller 2 | F A Bandak 3
doi: 10.1533/ijcr.2005.0323

International Journal of Crashworthiness
Print ISSN: 1358-8265
Volume: 10 | Issue: 1
Page(s): 33-40
Keywords

Air bag, ear, injury, biomechanics, acoustics, crash safety, noise,
auditory
Abstract text

Data from animal exposures to impulse noise is reviewed and an
auditory injury criterion is proposed. The criterion is based on
A-weighted acoustic energy, normalized to an equivalent 8- hour
exposure, for which a level of 92 dB is estimated to cause
unacceptable permanent auditory injuries in 10% of the population.
Auditory hazard of air bag noise was assessed by comparing recent
fleet representative air bag noise data with four impulse noise
occupational standards used in NATO countries and with the auditory
injury criterion arising from this study. The data analysis indicates
that air bag deployment produces intense noise that exceeds each of
the current occupational standards for noise related ear injury. Dual
air bag deployments produce peak sound pressure levels from 165 to 175
dB and A-weighted energies as large as 97 dB. The proposed auditory
injury criterion, together with the observed distribution of energy
levels from the air bags tested, suggests that air bag noise can
produce permanent auditory injuries in about 1–2% of the deployments.
Author(s) affiliations

1. Jaycor, San Diego, California
2. Jaycor, San Diego, California
3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center and George Washington University

Must be registered to access PDF
http://www.extenza-eps.com/extenza/l...&type=abstract

----------------------------------
VIRTUE...is its own punishment
http://www.diversify.com Website Applications
==================================================

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:36:34 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

Why would your belief in reincarnation influence your opinion about
whether
people should die if they make a stupid mistake? I've never heard of that
flavor of reincarnation belief. Are you serious, or are you arguing for
the
fun of it?

Let's forget your silly liberal twist on that for a moment and
just concentrate on the concept. If a person believes in
reincarnation, they are less concerned about death in general.
And if someone pulls a stupid stunt, they're declaring to us
that -they- are less concerned about life in general, too. Who
are we to argue? Their choice, their consequences. It's called
"accepting personal responsibility for your actions", Ed.


These people didn't have to die. Try that one.

Maybe in the next lifetime they won't do something so stupid, eh?
And if they did this stunt on a barren stretch of road, they'd
die anyway. This moot point is also known as "fate."

As I said, we're not going to agree on this so it's futile arguing.

I'm not here to argue with you about reincarnation. What I'm saying is that
I don't believe you would stand there and let someone die because you
thought he was foolish for not wearing a helmet.

Your intellectualizing about it is one thing. What you would do in a
real-life situation is another thing. And I simply don't believe you would
turn your back in that situation. Real people in real life-threatening
situations aren't philosophers. They don't even think about it. They just
act.

--
Ed Huntress

If the data was not overwhelming, I would have a problem using accident
statistics. Because the cars with airbags are obviously newer than the
ones with only seat belts. And are likely to be designed with crumple
zones. But If you say the evidence is overwhelming, I will not bother
to look. I have enough to do with solving all the rest of the worlds
problems 8-). I am still not completely convinced that air bags are
cost effective. Now I see stuff about active roll control being
designed into suspensions.

Dan


Ed Huntress wrote:
..

If you know of a good way to determine if a person wearing a seat
belt
lived because of an air bag and would have died with the seat belt
alone, please let me know.

There are enough double-pair comparison studies, done both with
accident
statistics and with instrumented dummies, to convince anyone with a
reasonable understanding of the science behind it. You can find them
via
Google.

FWIW, this ****ed me off no end, because I wanted to believe that
seat belts
and shoulder harnesses were just as good. I used to argue vehemently
against
airbags. But the data was overwhelming, so I stopped.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
oups.com...
If the data was not overwhelming, I would have a problem using accident
statistics. Because the cars with airbags are obviously newer than the
ones with only seat belts. And are likely to be designed with crumple
zones. But If you say the evidence is overwhelming, I will not bother
to look. I have enough to do with solving all the rest of the worlds
problems 8-). I am still not completely convinced that air bags are
cost effective.

I guess it depends on what you think your life is worth. I'll spring for the
extra $173/person for the significant increase in accident survivability.

The piece of reality that ****es me off even more is that your survival rate
is much higher in heavier cars. I love light sports cars. Until 1976 I never
owned a car that weighed more than 2,000 lb, and I owned two that weighed
less than 1500 lb. dry. They were the most fun vehicles I've ever driven.
But I look at the stats, and it makes my heart sink. I would get another one
if I were going to be the only driver but I can't justify it for a car that
my other family members, inevitably, would have to drive. It just doesn't
make any sense.

Likewise, airbags. Jim and I were discussing five-point harness. I'd wear it
myself if it were an option. I hit a steel guardrail a sharp glancing blow
on a twin-oval track at 90 mph in a little Alfa Romeo, and the five-point
harness hardly even left a bruise. Fortunately, the submarine belt was
carefully tucked beside my testicles. g

But I've read the studies, and parts of a *big* SME book on car safety, and
I just can't argue with the research. It's become very good. As a person who
is responsible for more than myself, I can't argue with the science.

Now I see stuff about active roll control being
designed into suspensions.

It's getting outrageously complicated, IMO. Somebody here was talking
recently about getting software updates on his M-B !. That's over the top.
But, if the active roll control works, I'll go for it.

One of my two new cars has ABS. Personally, I think I can do better than the
ABS on a slippery road, but I may be deluding myself. But it's great for my
wife.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:29:26 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message

One of my two new cars has ABS. Personally, I think I can do better than the
ABS on a slippery road, but I may be deluding myself. But it's great for my
wife.

Well, I think you're deluding yourself; unless you have 4 separate brake
pedals and a foot for each one, there's no way you can threshhold brake
on each wheel individually, as ABS does for you.

Dave Hinz

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:29:26 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
wrote in message

One of my two new cars has ABS. Personally, I think I can do better than
the
ABS on a slippery road, but I may be deluding myself. But it's great for
my
wife.

Well, I think you're deluding yourself; unless you have 4 separate brake
pedals and a foot for each one, there's no way you can threshhold brake
on each wheel individually, as ABS does for you.

Dave Hinz

Very possibly. But I'm not impressed with the percentage of time the system
(on a 2005 Hundai Sonata) is engaged when it's supposedly
threshhold-braking. I also tried ABS on a Nissan Altima on a dry road, and I
wasn't impressed with that, either. I have a hill nearby that's a good test
when it has a fresh layer of snow on it. I tried the Sonata versus my Ford
Focus (no ABS) a few weeks ago, and I stopped the Focus faster. However, I
could steer the Sonata better while I was braking.

However, one anecdote does not make for a reasonable conclusion, and other
ABS systems may be better. Given a choice, I'll go with the ABS. It seems
likely that it's going to beat my own performance in a true panic stop, no
matter how good I am that day. g I would have gotten it in my Focus if I
had the time to wait for an ordered car.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Dave Hinz says...

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:29:26 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message

One of my two new cars has ABS. Personally, I think I can do better than the
ABS on a slippery road, but I may be deluding myself. But it's great for my
wife.

Well, I think you're deluding yourself; unless you have 4 separate brake
pedals and a foot for each one, there's no way you can threshhold brake
on each wheel individually, as ABS does for you.

The problem happens when your car *has* ABS, and the car behind
you doesn't. Crunch.

Again, I suggest that folks drive with the knowledge that they
have the ABS to bail them out. So they do stupid stuff that
they shouldn't do.

Jim


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

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:40:13 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Well, I think you're deluding yourself; unless you have 4 separate brake
pedals and a foot for each one, there's no way you can threshhold brake
on each wheel individually, as ABS does for you.

Very possibly. But I'm not impressed with the percentage of time the system
(on a 2005 Hundai Sonata) is engaged when it's supposedly
threshhold-braking.

I've got a '99 Saab, and I've had ABS engage exactly three times - one was
a test. I'm firmly convinced that at least one of the two real times,
it prevented a collision. Anecdotal judgement and all that, but: it
was on wet pavement, one wheel went over a manhole cover, two were
on normal pavement, and the fourth was on a brick crosswalk. Four very
different friction situations, and I stopped _straight_.

I also tried ABS on a Nissan Altima on a dry road, and I
wasn't impressed with that, either. I have a hill nearby that's a good test
when it has a fresh layer of snow on it. I tried the Sonata versus my Ford
Focus (no ABS) a few weeks ago, and I stopped the Focus faster. However, I
could steer the Sonata better while I was braking.

From what I've read, it's as much about the maintaining steering
control as about stopping distance. Steering puts a vector force on
the tire/road interface, which will change how the front wheels
slip or not. The ABS's job is to still stay just below that point.

However, one anecdote does not make for a reasonable conclusion, and other
ABS systems may be better.

I don't know of any fundamental design differences in ABS, but implementation
will obviously vary by manufacturer.

Given a choice, I'll go with the ABS. It seems
likely that it's going to beat my own performance in a true panic stop, no
matter how good I am that day. g I would have gotten it in my Focus if I
had the time to wait for an ordered car.

For me, it's not a feature that will change my decision on buying
a particular car or not. But, from an engineering standpoint, it's
fascinating to study.

Dave Hinz

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:59:41 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

I'm not here to argue with you about reincarnation. What I'm saying is that
I don't believe you would stand there and let someone die because you
thought he was foolish for not wearing a helmet.

First, there's about a 99% chance that nothing I could do, personally,
would ensure saving a life. And second, in these litigious times, it's
chancy even to attempt to help someone. You could be charged with
murder or ??? despite all of your good intentions. (God, I love
lawyers for sweet little things like that.)


Your intellectualizing about it is one thing. What you would do in a
real-life situation is another thing. And I simply don't believe you would
turn your back in that situation. Real people in real life-threatening
situations aren't philosophers. They don't even think about it. They just
act.

Aha! There you go changing the terms this time. You're right, people
do act/react in life-threatening situations. But there's not much
one -can- do for a biker who was tossed from his bike (or stopped
abruptly) at high speed and without a helmet, is there, hmmm?


----------------------------------
VIRTUE...is its own punishment
http://www.diversify.com Website Applications
==================================================

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

First, there's about a 99% chance that nothing I could do, personally,
would ensure saving a life.

Remember, in the first instance, you're an EMT.

And second, in these litigious times, it's
chancy even to attempt to help someone. You could be charged with
murder or ??? despite all of your good intentions. (God, I love
lawyers for sweet little things like that.)

Not any more. There are "good Samaritan" laws in almost every state.


Aha! There you go changing the terms this time. You're right, people
do act/react in life-threatening situations. But there's not much
one -can- do for a biker who was tossed from his bike (or stopped
abruptly) at high speed and without a helmet, is there, hmmm?

Assume low speed. Remember, he's flopping around and screaming.

You'd do something to try to save him. Yes you would. [No I wouldn't!] Yes
you would. [No I wouldn't!] Yes you would. [No I wouldn't!] Yes you would.
[No I wouldn't!] Yes you would. [No I wouldn't!] Yes you would. [No I
wouldn't!] Yes you would.

d8-)

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Assume low speed. Remember, he's flopping around and screaming.

Ed, you're missing the point. If you drop a human on their
head from head-height, there is no flopping around. Not for
very long.

The flopping stops in about a minute.

Even a *low* speed fall-over is going to have bad consequences
unless the rider has a helmet. The helmet is the best way
to see to it that the rider gets admitted to a hospital
at the end of the ambulance ride.

Jim


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

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:13:27 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

First, there's about a 99% chance that nothing I could do, personally,
would ensure saving a life.

Remember, in the first instance, you're an EMT.

Yeah, so am I. And 99% of the time, there is nothing I can do, personally,
to insure saving a life. Traumatic death isn't reversable in a well-stocked
surgical suite, and certainly isn't going to be something the guy in the
field is going to change. Mostly dead, yes. Dead-dead, nope.

And second, in these litigious times, it's
chancy even to attempt to help someone. You could be charged with
murder or ??? despite all of your good intentions. (God, I love
lawyers for sweet little things like that.)

Not any more. There are "good Samaritan" laws in almost every state.

Yes, but. You're not covered by "good samaritan" laws if you have
a duty to act, as in: you're an EMT who was on call and was paged
to the scene. Then we get into the whole malpractice and or patient
abandonment scenarios. If I exceed my training, and/or screw up, I
can be held liable for that (rightly so - you don't want an EMT Basic
whipping out his pocket knife to do a tracheatomy on someone, just
because they saw it on M*A*S*H.

Aha! There you go changing the terms this time. You're right, people
do act/react in life-threatening situations. But there's not much
one -can- do for a biker who was tossed from his bike (or stopped
abruptly) at high speed and without a helmet, is there, hmmm?

Assume low speed. Remember, he's flopping around and screaming.

Sick patients don't bitch. If they're flopping and screaming, they'll
be fine (just loud).

You'd do something to try to save him. Yes you would. [No I wouldn't!] Yes
you would. [No I wouldn't!] Yes you would. [No I wouldn't!] Yes you would.
[No I wouldn't!] Yes you would. [No I wouldn't!] Yes you would. [No I
wouldn't!] Yes you would.

You would. I would, anyway, and if it was me flopping around, I'd hope
that you would, too.

On 15 Feb 2005 14:21:16 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Assume low speed. Remember, he's flopping around and screaming.

Ed, you're missing the point. If you drop a human on their
head from head-height, there is no flopping around. Not for
very long.

The flopping stops in about a minute.

Bit more, in my experience, sometimes. Depends on alot.

Even a *low* speed fall-over is going to have bad consequences
unless the rider has a helmet. The helmet is the best way
to see to it that the rider gets admitted to a hospital
at the end of the ambulance ride.

....or, gets a ride in the ambulance at all, instead of leaving
the scene in a bag.

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:29:26 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

wrote in message


One of my two new cars has ABS. Personally, I think I can do better than the
ABS on a slippery road, but I may be deluding myself. But it's great for my
wife.


Well, I think you're deluding yourself; unless you have 4 separate brake
pedals and a foot for each one, there's no way you can threshhold brake
on each wheel individually, as ABS does for you.

Dave Hinz


What ABS system does that? I'll admit my auto technology is quite a bit
outdated but I havent heard of any ABS that modulate all four wheels
independently.
...lew...

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
k.net...
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:29:26 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

wrote in message


One of my two new cars has ABS. Personally, I think I can do better than
the
ABS on a slippery road, but I may be deluding myself. But it's great for
my
wife.


Well, I think you're deluding yourself; unless you have 4 separate brake
pedals and a foot for each one, there's no way you can threshhold brake
on each wheel individually, as ABS does for you. Dave Hinz


What ABS system does that? I'll admit my auto technology is quite a bit
outdated but I havent heard of any ABS that modulate all four wheels
independently.
...lew...

all 4 wheel abs systems do, nowadays. they only brake the slipping wheel(s).

In article , Dave Hinz says...

Even a *low* speed fall-over is going to have bad consequences
unless the rider has a helmet. The helmet is the best way
to see to it that the rider gets admitted to a hospital
at the end of the ambulance ride.

...or, gets a ride in the ambulance at all, instead of leaving
the scene in a bag.

My guess is that the body would probably go via ambulance no
matter even if it were in a bag. First off to put the person
in the bag, somebody has to pronounce, right? Which means
a doctor in most states.

I'm not sure if the wagon rolled up with a DOA victim that
they would probably just wheel him/her right downstairs.

But the days of hearses picking folks right up are probably
gone. I recall my mom saying that when they had a car wreck
in Kansas, in the early 50s, she was transported to the
hospital in a hearse. The community did not have an ambulance
so any vehicle where the person could lie down was better
than nothing.

She did say it gave her the creeps a bit.

Jim


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

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Assume low speed. Remember, he's flopping around and screaming.

Ed, you're missing the point. If you drop a human on their
head from head-height, there is no flopping around. Not for
very long.

The flopping stops in about a minute.

No, I'm not missing the point, Jim. The point is that a large percentage of
unhelmeted head-injury motorcycle-accident victims live, albeit at great
medical expense. I know where the firgures are. 'Want me to post them?

--
Ed Huntress

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:13:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

First, there's about a 99% chance that nothing I could do, personally,
would ensure saving a life.

Remember, in the first instance, you're an EMT.

Yeah, so am I. And 99% of the time, there is nothing I can do, personally,
to insure saving a life.

That isn't the question. The question is whether you would try, or would
leave somebody there on the road, still alive, because you think he was
foolish not to wear a helmet -- or not to wear a seatbelt.

Larry says he would let them lie. I don't believe him.

You'd do something to try to save him. Yes you would. [No I wouldn't!]
Yes
you would. [No I wouldn't!] Yes you would. [No I wouldn't!] Yes you
would.
[No I wouldn't!] Yes you would. [No I wouldn't!] Yes you would. [No I
wouldn't!] Yes you would.

You would. I would, anyway, and if it was me flopping around, I'd hope
that you would, too.

Nearly everyone would.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:13:27 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

First, there's about a 99% chance that nothing I could do, personally,
would ensure saving a life.

Remember, in the first instance, you're an EMT.

Uh, at this point, I'm far too schizo to be an EMT. Sorry.


And second, in these litigious times, it's
chancy even to attempt to help someone. You could be charged with
murder or ??? despite all of your good intentions. (God, I love
lawyers for sweet little things like that.)

Not any more. There are "good Samaritan" laws in almost every state.

Hey, that's good news. When did they come about? It couldn't have
been more than maybe 3 years since I heard the last horror story.


Aha! There you go changing the terms this time. You're right, people
do act/react in life-threatening situations. But there's not much
one -can- do for a biker who was tossed from his bike (or stopped
abruptly) at high speed and without a helmet, is there, hmmm?

Assume low speed. Remember, he's flopping around and screaming.

You'd do something to try to save him. Yes you would. [No I wouldn't!] Yes
you would. [No I wouldn't!] Yes you would. [No I wouldn't!] Yes you would.
[No I wouldn't!] Yes you would. [No I wouldn't!] Yes you would. [No I
wouldn't!] Yes you would.

One of us (No we wouldn't) would conceivably do something given the
right (wrong) conditions.

Ciao, babe.


----------------------------------
VIRTUE...is its own punishment
http://www.diversify.com Website Applications
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress says...

... The point is that a large percentage of
unhelmeted head-injury motorcycle-accident victims live, albeit at great
medical expense. I know where the firgures are. 'Want me to post them?

I don't want to put you to trouble. If you have good numbers that
describe for the two classes: 1) helmeted and 2) unhelmeted riders, for
all crashes, how many of each class die within 24 hours of the
crash, that would be of interest.

I tried to find that a few years ago, and failed.

Jim


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

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

... The point is that a large percentage of
unhelmeted head-injury motorcycle-accident victims live, albeit at great
medical expense. I know where the firgures are. 'Want me to post them?

I don't want to put you to trouble. If you have good numbers that
describe for the two classes: 1) helmeted and 2) unhelmeted riders, for
all crashes, how many of each class die within 24 hours of the
crash, that would be of interest.

Nope, I haven't seen anything that says when they die.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

I don't want to put you to trouble. If you have good numbers that
describe for the two classes: 1) helmeted and 2) unhelmeted riders, for
all crashes, how many of each class die within 24 hours of the
crash, that would be of interest.

Nope, I haven't seen anything that says when they die.

Heck that's easy. You already answered that. They die when
they fall on their heads without a helmet. The question was,
what's the overall precentage ratio of fatalities in motorbike
crashes - helmeted vs unhelmeted?

Jim


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

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

I don't want to put you to trouble. If you have good numbers that
describe for the two classes: 1) helmeted and 2) unhelmeted riders,
for
all crashes, how many of each class die within 24 hours of the
crash, that would be of interest.

Nope, I haven't seen anything that says when they die.

Heck that's easy. You already answered that. They die when
they fall on their heads without a helmet. The question was,
what's the overall precentage ratio of fatalities in motorbike
crashes - helmeted vs unhelmeted?

Jim

Jim, which question do you want answered? You've said two different things
in the two messages quoted above. As for the second one, I gave some
statistics on that days ago.

As for the first, as I said, I don't recall seeing anything that would tell
you how long after an accident they die.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:41:52 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

That isn't the question. The question is whether you would try, or would
leave somebody there on the road, still alive, because you think he was
foolish not to wear a helmet -- or not to wear a seatbelt.

Larry says he would let them lie. I don't believe him.

No wonder you don't believe me. You took everything I said and twisted
it around what you wanted to hear. Reread the whole conversation and
look for context this time, eh? Oy vay.


----------------------------------
VIRTUE...is its own punishment
http://www.diversify.com Website Applications
==================================================