In news:J. Clarke typed:
ted harris wrote:

In news:J. Clarke typed:
Yeah, but now there are 6 billion people on this rock, and half of them
have an IQ of 100 or less...

I once met a fellow who had two Nobel Prizes in Physics. One time some
psychology department or other decided to evaluate his IQ. According to
him it was 96.

Yasser Arafat had a Nobel Prize as well...

Not in physics he didn't. And not two of them.

Are you kidding me...?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Lobby Dosser typed:
It's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!!!

That's the most well thought out and best executed post you've made so
far...signs of intelligence!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke typed:
P.S. This debate reminds me of the tobacco manufacturers/smokers
debacle...I mean, we are all addicts too, right!

Huh? snip same old argument

That about sums it for you...
..--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

"ted harris" writes:
In news:Lobby Dosser typed:

On a more serious note:

I consider the chainsaw far more dangerous than the tablesaw, but don't
use it as frequently. Wonder if the SawStop sensor mechanism would work
on a chainsaw? All they'd have to do is shut down the motor.

I think it wilol work on anything that has a rotational blade. If it works
on a bandsaw, it should work on a chainsaw too.

So every time you hit a nail you need a new chainsaw blade? And since
the sawstop needs to be disabled when cutting metallic substances, what
happens when you hit a nail in a piece of barnwood? New blade and unit required?

scott

In news:Lobby Dosser typed:
"ted harris" wrote:

In news:Lobby Dosser typed:
It's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!!!

That's the most well thought out and best executed post you've made so
far...signs of intelligence!

Glad to see you have a sense of humor. I was beginning to wonder.

This is a very serious subject...

On a more serious note:

I consider the chainsaw far more dangerous than the tablesaw, but don't
use it as frequently. Wonder if the SawStop sensor mechanism would work
on a chainsaw? All they'd have to do is shut down the motor.

I think it wilol work on anything that has a rotational blade. If it works
on a bandsaw, it should work on a chainsaw too.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

(Scott Lurndal) wrote:

"ted harris" writes:
In news:Lobby Dosser typed:

On a more serious note:

I consider the chainsaw far more dangerous than the tablesaw, but
don't use it as frequently. Wonder if the SawStop sensor mechanism
would work on a chainsaw? All they'd have to do is shut down the
motor.

I think it wilol work on anything that has a rotational blade. If it
works on a bandsaw, it should work on a chainsaw too.

So every time you hit a nail you need a new chainsaw blade? And since
the sawstop needs to be disabled when cutting metallic substances,
what happens when you hit a nail in a piece of barnwood? New blade
and unit required?


Seems to me that the chainsaw is a different animal. Stop the motor and
the chain stops within one(?) rotation. Probably enough to keep you from
taking off your foot.

As to barnwood, you'll probably need a pretty good metal detector.
scott

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:24:39 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

I think it wilol work on anything that has a rotational blade. If it works
on a bandsaw, it should work on a chainsaw too.

I would fear that trying to stop the chain that quickly would tend to
create an unacceptably high risk of having chain parts flying around.
Add to that the fact that chain saws operate in environments that are
far from controlled, often in the rain, snow, mud etc. and cut green
wood a lot I can see *way* too many opportunities for false positives
for it to be a practical solution on a chain saw. Add the need to keep
it as small and light as possible and I think it's a complete
non-starter. Current chain-braking technology works acceptably well
for most circumstances that matter with a chain saw (kickback) and is
unlikely to be greatly improved on by adding complexity.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:04:41 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

"ted harris" wrote:

In news:Lobby Dosser typed:
It's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!!!

That's the most well thought out and best executed post you've made so
far...signs of intelligence!

Glad to see you have a sense of humor. I was beginning to wonder.

On a more serious note:

I consider the chainsaw far more dangerous than the tablesaw, but don't use
it as frequently. Wonder if the SawStop sensor mechanism would work on a
chainsaw? All they'd have to do is shut down the motor.

One of the limits of SawStop, according to all the reports, is that it
doesn't work in very damp wood, such as you're more likely to
encounter with a chain saw.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

Nor did I say that you said so. I simply asked what the limits were of
your distaste for governmet regulation. Am I correct to assume that you
think that government regulation can be a good and necessary thing? If
so, we might have a reasonable discussion about the merits of regulation
in this particular instance. If not, then you must oppose the other
examples that I raised.

Again, so what if they use government to impose the adoption of someting
that the free market did not want... if the imposition is a good thing.
Your suggestions seemed to be that such an approach was categorically
wrong. Am I misunderstanding?

I am simple asking if encouraging the government to adopt any such
regulations if acceptable to you. If it is, let's talk about the merits
of StopSaw rather that the use of government to impose regulation.

By the way, technically speaking, this is a "counter example", not a
straw man. It is a fair and valued approach to philosophical investigation.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , tzipple wrote:

I asked a question. I did not assign any point of view. And it is not a
"cheap tactic." It is a fair question to pose to those who argue that an
unfettered free market is a good thing. Let's see if he responds... as
you did not.


Indeed it is... but I did not argue that an unfettered free market is a good
thing. That's *your* strawman. I said no such thing.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In news:Scott Lurndal typed:
"ted harris" writes:
In news:Lobby Dosser typed:

On a more serious note:

I consider the chainsaw far more dangerous than the tablesaw, but don't
use it as frequently. Wonder if the SawStop sensor mechanism would work
on a chainsaw? All they'd have to do is shut down the motor.

I think it wilol work on anything that has a rotational blade. If it
works on a bandsaw, it should work on a chainsaw too.

So every time you hit a nail you need a new chainsaw blade? And since
the sawstop needs to be disabled when cutting metallic substances, what
happens when you hit a nail in a piece of barnwood? New blade and unit
required?

scott

I really don't know a thing about chainsaws, so I can't comment.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

J. Clarke wrote:


Go down to the library. Look at your state laws and the US Code sitting on
the shelf. Ask yourself what's wrong with this picture.


I'm sure many of you have see these before, but if you have not, enjoy!

STUPID LOCAL LAWS

In Ottumwa, Iowa, "It is unlawful for any male person, within the
corporate limits of the (city), to wink at any female person with whom
he is unacquainted."

In Los Angeles, you cannot bathe two babies in the same tub at the same
time.

In Zion, Ill., it is illegal for anyone to give lighted cigars to dogs,
cats, and other domesticated animals kept as pets.

In Carmel, N.Y., a man can't go outside while wearing a jacket and pants
that do not match. Note: this law isn't silly. Write your legislators
today and get this PASSED in your area now!!

In St. Louis, it's illegal to sit on the curb of any city street and
drink beer from a bucket.

In Hartford, Conn., you aren't allowed to cross a street while walking
on your hands.

In Baltimore, it's illegal to throw bales of hay from a second-story
window within the city limits. It's also illegal to take a lion to the
movies.

In Oxford, Ohio, it's illegal for a woman to strip off her clothing
while standing in front of a man's picture.

In Carrizozo, N.M., it's forbidden for a female to appear unshaven in
public (includes legs and face).

In Pennsylvania it is illegal to have over 16 women live in a house
together because that constitutes a brothel...however up to 120 men can
live together, without breaking the law.

In Michigan, a woman isn't allowed to cut her own hair without her
husband's permission.
printed in the local paper....

In New York, it is against the law to throw a ball at someone's head for
fun.

The state of Washington has passed a law stating it is illegal, I
repeat, illegal, to paint polka dots on the American flag.

In order for a pickle to officially be considered a pickle in
Connecticut, it must bounce.

To keep any of the incarcerated beast from picking up bad habits, the
town of Manville , NJ decreed that it is illegal to feed whiskey or
offer cigarettes to animals at the local zoo.

If you sell hollow logs in Tennessee, you are breaking the law.

Compulsive gamblers stay out of Richmond, VA: it is even illegal to flip
a coin in a restaurant to see who pays for the coffee.

Have it your way, but don't share it in OK. This state forbids a person
from taking a bite out of another person's hamburger.

Need a radio on Sunday? In Spokane, WA, you can buy one on the Sabbath,
but forget about purchasing a television!

In the state of New York, you need a license to use a clothesline outdoors.

What happens to doughnut holes? Well, they won't be found in Lehigh NE.
Selling doughnut holes in this city is verboten.

And if any retirees from the circus are thinking about settling down and
farming in NC, they are forwarned right here and now that it is against
the law in this state to use elephants to plow cotton fields!
It is illegal to take more than 2 baths a month within Boston confines.

Two people cannot kiss in front of a church.

All Public Displays of Affection (PDAs) are forbidden on Sunday.

Pedestrians always have the right of way.

Anyone may let their sheep and cows graze in the public gardens/commons
at any time except Sundays.
In Calgary there is a by-law that is still on the books that requires
businesses within the city to provide rails for tying up horses.

In the England it is illegal to sell most goods on a Sunday, (this law
is mostly ignored), it is however legal to sell a carrot. It is also
legal to sell it at any price and to give free gifts with it, such as
anything else one might want to buy on a Sunday!
Pennsylvania:

In certain sections of Pennsylvania many years ago, the Farmer's
Anti-Automobile society set up some "rules of the road." In effect, they
said:

1. "Automobiles travelling on country roads at night must send up a
rocket every mile, then wait ten minutes for the road to clear."

2. "If a driver sees a team of horses, he is to pull to one side of the
road and cover his machine with a blanket or dust cover that has been
painted to blend into the scenery."

3. "In the event that a horse refuses to pass a car on the road, the
owner must take his car apart and conceal the parts in the bushes."

Utah:

It is against the law to fish from horseback.

Ohio:

In Bexley, Ordinance number 223, of 09/09/19 prohibits the installation
and usage of slot machines in outhouses.

Indiana:

Back in 1924, a monkey was convicted in South Bend of the crime of
smoking a cigarette and sentenced to pay a 25 dollar fine and the trial
costs.

Kansas:

No one may catch fish with his bare hands in Kansas.
California:

In 1930, the City Council of Ontario passed an ordinance forbidding
roosters to crow within the city limits.

Oklahoma:

Harthahorne City Ordinance, Section 363, states that it shall be
unlawful to put any hypnotized person in a display window.
These excerpts are from the book "Loony Laws" by Robert Pelton (Walker;
$8.95) Enjoy!

In Clawson, Mich., there is a law that makes it LEGAL for a farmer to
sleep with his pigs, cows, horses, goats, and chickens.

In Gary, Ind., persons are prohibited from attending a movie house or
other theater and from riding a public streetcar within four hours of
eating garlic.

In Miami, it's illegal for men to be seen publicly in any kind of
strapless gown.

In Detroit, couples are banned from making love in an automobile unless
the act takes place while the vehicle is parked on the couple's own
property.

In Harford, Conn., you aren't allowed to cross a street while walking on
your hands.

In Nicholas County, W. Va., no member of the clergy is allowed to tell
jokes or humorous stories from the pulpit during a church service.

In California, animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet
of a tavern, school, or place of worship.

In Los Angeles, a man is legally entitled to beat his wife with a
leather belt or strap, but the belt can't be wider than 2 inches, unless
he has his wife's consent to beat her with a wider strap.

In Kentucky, "No female shall appear in a bathing suit on any highway
within this state unless she be escorted by at least two officers or
unless she be armed with a club"

An amendment to the above legislation: "The provisions of this statuate
shall not apply to females weighing less than 90 pounds nor exceeding
200 pounds, nor shall it apply to female horses."
In Grand Haven, Michigan, no person shall throw an abandoned hoop skirt
into any street or on any sidewalk, under penalty of a five- dollar fine
for each offense.

In Russell, Kansas, it is against the law to have a musical car horn.

A Glendale, California, ordinance permits horror films to be shown only
on Mondays, Tuesdays, or Wednesdays.

Cicero, Illinois, prohibits humming on public streets on Sundays.

Hunting with a rifle is permitted in Norfolk County, Virgina - provided
that the hunter is fifteen feet off the ground.

You may water your lawn on Staten Island, New York, provided that you
hold the hose in your hand while doing so; but to lay a hose on the lawn
or to use a sprinkler for watering your lawn is unlawful.

Clinton County, Ohio, calls for a fine for anyone caught leaning against
a public building.

Loins may not be taken to the theater in Maryland.

Abilene, Texas, makes it illegal to idle or loiter anyplace within the
corporate limits of the city for the purpose of flirting or mashing.
From kralickr @ interlynx.net Thu Feb 29 02:50:57 1996
Subject: funny laws

I'm not sure which jurisdiction in TX (I think it was Waco, but I can't
be sure):

It is illegal to walk around with a concealed ice cream cone.

Rich
Ontario, Canada
From bholton @ ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 29 21:17:25 1996
Subject: Stupid Laws

I just was wondering if you wouldn't mind a few more law additions to
your Stupid Laws file. IIRC these laws are still on the books.

In Carmel, CA, it is illegal to eat ice cream while standing on the side
walk.

In Prunedale, CA, it is illegal to have two indoor bathtubs in your house.

In article , "ted harris" wrote:

I really don't know a thing about chainsaws, so I can't comment.

That hasn't stopped you so far. Why start now?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:54:48 GMT, Glen wrote:

In St. Louis, it's illegal to sit on the curb of any city street and
drink beer from a bucket.

Well, I'm certainly not going to visit St. Louis, then!

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:52:10 -0600, tzipple wrote:

Again, so what if they use government to impose the adoption of someting
that the free market did not want... if the imposition is a good thing.
Your suggestions seemed to be that such an approach was categorically
wrong. Am I misunderstanding?

Yes, _and_ you're still top-posting.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:03:42 -0500, GregP wrote:
On 16 Dec 2004 16:39:02 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

How so? I drive Saab cars in part because they're so safe. ....

That makes sense. But a fair number of the objections
here boiled down to I've never been hurt and I never
will get hurt; only careless people have accidents;
and exaggerating the negatives, such as you have to
ship your saw back if the safety device "fires."

Maybe I missed those responses. The ones I've been reading seem to
center around "Don't force us to use someting you can't make work".

On 20 Dec 2004 03:21:54 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:03:42 -0500, GregP wrote:
On 16 Dec 2004 16:39:02 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

How so? I drive Saab cars in part because they're so safe. ....

That makes sense. But a fair number of the objections
here boiled down to I've never been hurt and I never
will get hurt; only careless people have accidents;
and exaggerating the negatives, such as you have to
ship your saw back if the safety device "fires."

Maybe I missed those responses. The ones I've been reading seem to
center around "Don't force us to use someting you can't make work".

One of the most telling things to come out of the recent (post-1997)
debate on air bags was the safety mavens unflinching opposition to
installing an 'off' switch so people could turn them off if they
desired.

They much preferred trying to work around the fact that air bags can
kill or injure you to allowing you the choice of not using them.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:20:12 GMT, wrote:
On 20 Dec 2004 03:21:54 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Maybe I missed those responses. The ones I've been reading seem to
center around "Don't force us to use someting you can't make work".

One of the most telling things to come out of the recent (post-1997)
debate on air bags was the safety mavens unflinching opposition to
installing an 'off' switch so people could turn them off if they
desired.

One of the biggest forces fighting that is the automakers...something
about liability, lawyers, all that...

They much preferred trying to work around the fact that air bags can
kill or injure you to allowing you the choice of not using them.

Yes, dozens of people a year vs. thousands saved. Or are you one of these
people who base your opinions on the exception rather than the rule?

On 20 Dec 2004 16:25:54 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:20:12 GMT, wrote:
On 20 Dec 2004 03:21:54 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Maybe I missed those responses. The ones I've been reading seem to
center around "Don't force us to use someting you can't make work".

One of the most telling things to come out of the recent (post-1997)
debate on air bags was the safety mavens unflinching opposition to
installing an 'off' switch so people could turn them off if they
desired.

One of the biggest forces fighting that is the automakers...something
about liability, lawyers, all that...



They much preferred trying to work around the fact that air bags can
kill or injure you to allowing you the choice of not using them.

Yes, dozens of people a year vs. thousands saved. Or are you one of these
people who base your opinions on the exception rather than the rule?

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On 20 Dec 2004 16:25:54 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:20:12 GMT, wrote:
On 20 Dec 2004 03:21:54 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Maybe I missed those responses. The ones I've been reading seem to
center around "Don't force us to use someting you can't make work".

One of the most telling things to come out of the recent (post-1997)
debate on air bags was the safety mavens unflinching opposition to
installing an 'off' switch so people could turn them off if they
desired.

One of the biggest forces fighting that is the automakers...something
about liability, lawyers, all that...

I'm talking about the response of the 'consumer advocates' such as
Consumers Union and government agencies like the NHTSA. You know, the
people who supposedly exist as advocates for us or to improve our
well-being.

It's the first time I've ever heard CU, Ralph Nader and NHTSA accused
of shilling for the automakers.


They much preferred trying to work around the fact that air bags can
kill or injure you to allowing you the choice of not using them.

Yes, dozens of people a year vs. thousands saved.
Remember, if you use your seat belt (which I do) an air bag has very
little positive effect on your safety.

Or are you one of these people who base your opinions on the exception rather than the rule?

I'm one of those people who prefer to have the choice. These other
folks who are supposedly so interested in my well-being are admantly
opposed to my having any choice at all. Which is what I find so
interesting.

This is especially significant since the risk of injury from airbags
goes way up for certain classes of drivers. I'm sure my
five-foot-nothing mother-in-law woud love to be able to switch off the
airbags in her car. The last time she was in an accident the air bag
skinned her face. She spent several days in the hospital solely
because of the airbags and the same thing -- or worse -- is probably
going to happen to her if she's in another accident where the airbags
deploy.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:40:06 GMT, wrote:
On 20 Dec 2004 16:25:54 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Yes, dozens of people a year vs. thousands saved.

Remember, if you use your seat belt (which I do) an air bag has very
little positive effect on your safety.

Remember, just because you keep repeating a falsehood, that doesn't make
it true. The engineers of European cars had airbags in place _long_ before
the US required them, and they certainly didn't do it for cost reduction
reasons. Apparently those who work with automotive safety systems as part
of their job know more about it than, say, you.

Or are you one of these people who base your opinions on the exception rather than the rule?

I'm one of those people who prefer to have the choice.

OK, so you'd rather go face-first into a dashboard than an airbag? You
prefer hitting a steering wheel with your chest, rather than an air-filled
pillow? You can still get _serious_ chest trauma wearing a seatbelt,
by hitting the steering wheel. Been there, done that, read the bruise
on the guy's chest that had "droF" pressed into it.

These other
folks who are supposedly so interested in my well-being are admantly
opposed to my having any choice at all. Which is what I find so
interesting.

Some choices are poor ones. A basic understanding of the statistics
involved would show that to any rational person.

This is especially significant since the risk of injury from airbags
goes way up for certain classes of drivers.

Yes, up to something like 1:1000 per life saved, instead of 1:5000.
Still safer with than without.

I'm sure my
five-foot-nothing mother-in-law woud love to be able to switch off the
airbags in her car. The last time she was in an accident the air bag
skinned her face.

Waaah. A bit of bag rash on the face. Beats eating the dashboard.

She spent several days in the hospital solely
because of the airbags and the same thing -- or worse -- is probably
going to happen to her if she's in another accident where the airbags
deploy.

Right, because obviously the airbag is going to hit her harder than she'll
hit the harder parts of the car...sheesh.

Dave Hinz wrote:

....
Remember, if you use your seat belt (which I do) an air bag has very
little positive effect on your safety.

This assertion is refuted by data...

I'm one of those people who prefer to have the choice.

....

This is especially significant since the risk of injury from airbags
goes way up for certain classes of drivers.

Yes, up to something like 1:1000 per life saved, instead of 1:5000.
Still safer with than without.

I don't know the actual ratioes here (and am too lazy to look them up)
but it is recommended to not use airbag in front w/ passengers under
given weight/height.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:20:12 GMT, wrote:

One of the most telling things to come out of the recent (post-1997)
debate on air bags was the safety mavens unflinching opposition to
installing an 'off' switch so people could turn them off if they
desired.

They much preferred trying to work around the fact that air bags can
kill or injure you to allowing you the choice of not using them.

I don't like legislated seatbelt use and would prefer to
have "off" switches for air bags - kinda help Darwin along -
but the choice is *not* betw airbags causing harm vs not
using them.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:56:19 -0600, Duane Bozarth wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

...
Remember, if you use your seat belt (which I do) an air bag has very
little positive effect on your safety.

This assertion is refuted by data...

And I also did not write it. Please take care with attribution lines,
because you're making it look like something I disagree with strongly.

Sawstop, airbags... sawstop... airbags.... hmmm....
Am I the first to suggest that tablesaws be fitted with airbags which go off
whenever a body part touches the blade?
Boom! Your insert sprouts a big puffy bag and pushes your hand out of harms
way in milliseconds.
Don't forget to wear your face shield!

-j




"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:20:12 GMT, wrote:

One of the most telling things to come out of the recent (post-1997)
debate on air bags was the safety mavens unflinching opposition to
installing an 'off' switch so people could turn them off if they
desired.

They much preferred trying to work around the fact that air bags can
kill or injure you to allowing you the choice of not using them.

I don't like legislated seatbelt use and would prefer to
have "off" switches for air bags - kinda help Darwin along -
but the choice is *not* betw airbags causing harm vs not
using them.

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:52:10 -0600, tzipple wrote:

Again, so what if they use government to impose the adoption of someting
that the free market did not want... if the imposition is a good thing.
Your suggestions seemed to be that such an approach was categorically
wrong. Am I misunderstanding?


Yes, _and_ you're still top-posting.


And you are still evading anything that looks like an actual response
to my post. No surprise that you clip my post as well as a part of the
dodge. Sneaky!

"J" wrote in message
...
Sawstop, airbags... sawstop... airbags.... hmmm....
Am I the first to suggest that tablesaws be fitted with airbags which go
off
whenever a body part touches the blade?
Boom! Your insert sprouts a big puffy bag and pushes your hand out of
harms
way in milliseconds.
Don't forget to wear your face shield!

-j


Well... if you're wearing your full face helmet, your leather apron and your
hearing protection, you don't need a face shield.
--

-Mike-

On 20 Dec 2004 19:00:40 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:40:06 GMT, wrote:
On 20 Dec 2004 16:25:54 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Yes, dozens of people a year vs. thousands saved.

I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Between their introduction in the 1980s and 1997, the NHTSB reported
about 2600 lives saved by air bags. Almost all of those people were
otherwise unsecured, which means almost all of them would have also
been saved by seat belts.

This is a far cry from your 'thousands' saved every year. Meanwhile,
87 people were killed by air bags in that same period. Studies clearly
show that air bags increase the possibility and severity of injury
see:
http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/pdf/airbags.pdf

Note that below 52 Km/H a woman is more likely to be injured than
protected by an air bag.

And more children have been killed by air bags than saved by them:
http://www.musc.edu/catalyst/archive...7passenger.htm

(See also the NHTSA report referenced below)


Remember, if you use your seat belt (which I do) an air bag has very
little positive effect on your safety.

Remember, just because you keep repeating a falsehood, that doesn't make
it true.

Just because you have a preconception doesn't make it true. Seat belts
reduce fatalities among drivers and front-seat passengers by about 45
percent. Air bags add, at most about an additional 9 percent
protection. In my book that's 'very little' additional protection. As
far as injury reduction is concerned, air bags added 7 percent
protection to seat belts, an amount the NHTSA declared not
statistically significant.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site...ype= standard

The engineers of European cars had airbags in place _long_ before
the US required them, and they certainly didn't do it for cost reduction
reasons.

And your source for this statement? I can't find any. The earliest
mention I can find for air bags in Europe is in 1992, years after the
airbags first appeared on American cars.

As to why the Europeans did it -- Most of them did it because they
wanted to be able to sell their cars in the United States, at least
orignally.

Apparently those who work with automotive safety systems as part
of their job know more about it than, say, you.

Of myself, I know very little. But unlike, say, you. I'm willing to go
out and to the research to discover if what I do know is accurate.

The people who know automotive safety systems are unanamious that seat
belts work better than air bags. You'll notice none of them recommend
using air bags alone and all the literature refers to air bags as
'supplemental devices'.

Or are you one of these people who base your opinions on the exception rather than the rule?

I'm one of those people who prefer to have the choice.

OK, so you'd rather go face-first into a dashboard than an airbag? You
prefer hitting a steering wheel with your chest, rather than an air-filled
pillow?

That only happens if you're not wearing a properly adjusted seatbelt.
Or did you miss that part of my comment?

I don't know if you're deliberately attempting to set up a straw man
here or if you just don't read very carefully.

You can still get _serious_ chest trauma wearing a seatbelt,
by hitting the steering wheel. Been there, done that, read the bruise
on the guy's chest that had "droF" pressed into it.

And air bags increase the risk of injury to drivers and occupants in
most categories on the injury scale. See above.

Besides, if your seat belt is properly adjusted you won't hit the
steering wheel.


These other
folks who are supposedly so interested in my well-being are admantly
opposed to my having any choice at all. Which is what I find so
interesting.

Some choices are poor ones.
In this case the choice is not at all poor. Why should I trade a
significant risk of medium-level injury for a relatively small degree
of protection in the event of a major crash? Especially when I know
that if I am a member of certain classes the risk of injury is much
higher than for most people?

This is, at worst, not a clear cut decision and I should be able to
make it on my own. However the 'consumer advocates' among us were
nearly hysterical to prevent me from making a choice.

This is the part I find so interesting, not the relatively mundane
statistical details. It is interesting for the light it throws on
these people and their thinking. As a philosophical matter it says
some pretty ugly things about the way these people think and perhaps
what their real motives are. As a practical matter it gives us
guidance on how much credence to place on their continuing campaigns
for laws to make us 'safer.'

(This is reinforced, btw, by their track record with their arguments
and data in this case. For example their wild overestimate of how many
lives air bags would save. Their careful blurring of air bags as
supplements rather than replacements for seat belts, and so on.
However those are matters for another tirade.)


A basic understanding of the statistics involved would show that to any rational person.

Sorry, you're wrong. The statistics don't support your claims.


This is especially significant since the risk of injury from airbags
goes way up for certain classes of drivers.

Yes, up to something like 1:1000 per life saved, instead of 1:5000.
Still safer with than without.

You have not the least little idea what the facts are, do you? And
apparently you can't even be bothered to find out. So you support your
preconceptions with made-up numbers.

I'm sure my
five-foot-nothing mother-in-law woud love to be able to switch off the
airbags in her car. The last time she was in an accident the air bag
skinned her face.

Waaah. A bit of bag rash on the face.

That 'bag rash' damn near required skin grafts over most of her face.
It has caused corneal tears (severe eye damage) in others.

Beats eating the dashboard.

Since she was wearing a seat belt that wouldn't have happened. Reading
comprehension again.

She spent several days in the hospital solely
because of the airbags and the same thing -- or worse -- is probably
going to happen to her if she's in another accident where the airbags
deploy.

Right, because obviously the airbag is going to hit her harder than she'll
hit the harder parts of the car...sheesh.

Straw man/reading comprehension again. If you're wearing a seat belt
and it is properly adjusted you don't hit the harder parts of the car.

--RC


Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:56:19 -0600, Duane Bozarth
wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:

...
Remember, if you use your seat belt (which I do) an air bag has very
little positive effect on your safety.

This assertion is refuted by data...

Not according to the NHTSA report referenced in another message.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site...ype= standard

The data in another study previously cited shows that for most
categories of injury severity, air bags actually increased injury
rated. The only categories that wasn't true for was very severe
injuries.

I'm one of those people who prefer to have the choice.

...

This is especially significant since the risk of injury from airbags
goes way up for certain classes of drivers.

Yes, up to something like 1:1000 per life saved, instead of 1:5000.
Still safer with than without.

I don't know the actual ratioes here (and am too lazy to look them up)
but it is recommended to not use airbag in front w/ passengers under
given weight/height.

--RC


Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

rcook5 resonds:


This is the part I find so interesting, not the relatively mundane
statistical details. It is interesting for the light it throws on
these people and their thinking. As a philosophical matter it says
some pretty ugly things about the way these people think and perhaps
what their real motives are. As a practical matter it gives us
guidance on how much credence to place on their continuing campaigns
for laws to make us 'safer.'

I've always felt that, as an example, Ralph Nader had some psychological
problem that made him want to fix my--and your--life. Back when I was much
younger and he was killing the Corvair, a big thing was made by the press that
he was sacrificing a lot to do in a car that he felt--wrongly, IMO--was more
dangerous than the norm. IIRC, he was drawing only $100 a week in salary, etc.
This was in the mid-'60s when such a salary was a living wage, if only barely
(minimum wage at the time, I seem to recall, was around $1.25 or $1.50). He
also didn't have a wife or girlfriend, no family life, was a workaholic, all
seemingly admirable qualities to too many journalists of the time because he
was taking on GM...and winning.

I never have been able to determine if the guy was a power freak or had some
other head problem, but he has been a bug on the windshield of U.S. life for
decades now, obscuring vision and screwing up elections.

I wonder if he has upped his draw from 100 bucks a week.

Charlie Self
"It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable." Eric
Hoffer

Charlie Self wrote:

rcook5 resonds:


This is the part I find so interesting, not the relatively mundane
statistical details. It is interesting for the light it throws on
these people and their thinking. As a philosophical matter it says
some pretty ugly things about the way these people think and perhaps
what their real motives are. As a practical matter it gives us
guidance on how much credence to place on their continuing campaigns
for laws to make us 'safer.'

I've always felt that, as an example, Ralph Nader had some psychological
problem that made him want to fix my--and your--life. Back when I was much
younger and he was killing the Corvair, a big thing was made by the press
that he was sacrificing a lot to do in a car that he felt--wrongly,
IMO--was more dangerous than the norm. IIRC, he was drawing only $100 a
week in salary, etc. This was in the mid-'60s when such a salary was a
living wage, if only barely (minimum wage at the time, I seem to recall,
was around $1.25 or $1.50). He also didn't have a wife or girlfriend, no
family life, was a workaholic, all seemingly admirable qualities to too
many journalists of the time because he was taking on GM...and winning.

I never have been able to determine if the guy was a power freak or had
some other head problem, but he has been a bug on the windshield of U.S.
life for decades now, obscuring vision and screwing up elections.

I wonder if he has upped his draw from 100 bucks a week.

Did my heart good when he tried to Corvair the Beetle. While attacking GM
was OK with a lot of people, attacking the Beetle was sacrilege at that
time, and that was pretty much the end of his widespread support. Note his
success in the Presidential elections. Barely got on the ballot in a few
states.

Funny thing though, he never won anything against GM in the courtroom-his
battles were won in the press.

There's gotta be a special place reserved in Hell for him.

Charlie Self
"It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable."
Eric Hoffer

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:57:07 -0600, tzipple wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:52:10 -0600, tzipple wrote:

Again, so what if they use government to impose the adoption of someting
that the free market did not want... if the imposition is a good thing.
Your suggestions seemed to be that such an approach was categorically
wrong. Am I misunderstanding?

Yes, _and_ you're still top-posting.

And you are still evading anything that looks like an actual response
to my post. No surprise that you clip my post as well as a part of the
dodge. Sneaky!

That's called "trimming unneeded context". As you have yet to say anything
of actual content, your null-statements can safely be expunged.
On to what you may be asking...you wrongly assume my objection to making
Sawstop mandatory is because it's something "that the free market did not
want". You are wrong. My objection to them trying to force it on us is
that it _doesn't ****ing work_. If it worked, they'd be shipping product.
They are not shipping product, so either they have a bad design, or
bad makers of their product. At some point, maybe they'll work all that
out and show that it's manufacturable in quantity. _THEN_ they can
start making noises about forcing everyone to use it, if it shows a
real benefit.

An equivalent in the air-bags world would have been for Joe Smith to
patent airbags. Great, got a patent. Even a couple demo units.
Got some problems, though, the sensors are tricky, there are build
quality issues, and they might go off when you don't want 'em to. Ah
well, good enough, I got my patent, let's put 'em on all the cars.

Would you accept a piece of safety equipment that hasn't been proven,
being forced on you? I do not. Maybe Sawstop can be made to work.
Maybe it's a wonderful thing and I'll buy one. But right now, I can't
buy one if I wanted to, and trying to mandate something that isn't
available is blisteringly obviously stupid.

Dave Hinz

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 06:02:15 GMT, wrote:

I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Based on...what, exactly?

Between their introduction in the 1980s and 1997, the NHTSB reported
about 2600 lives saved by air bags. Almost all of those people were
otherwise unsecured, which means almost all of them would have also
been saved by seat belts.

This is a far cry from your 'thousands' saved every year. Meanwhile,
87 people were killed by air bags in that same period. Studies clearly
show that air bags increase the possibility and severity of injury
see:
http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/pdf/airbags.pdf

Any particular part of that report, or would you like me to read the
whole 4-point type article to guess what you mean?

Note that below 52 Km/H a woman is more likely to be injured than
protected by an air bag.

Remember, just because you keep repeating a falsehood, that doesn't make
it true.

Just because you have a preconception doesn't make it true. Seat belts
reduce fatalities among drivers and front-seat passengers by about 45
percent. Air bags add, at most about an additional 9 percent
protection.

Well then.

In my book that's 'very little' additional protection.

You're saying that because only 9% additional _deaths_ were prevented,
that that's only "very little" additional protection? Not everyone
injured in a crash is killed, I probably go to 50 injury accidents for
each fatality I go to. But, by your logic, those injuries don't count
because a death didn't happen? My argument would be that not only
are those 9% of people not dead, but _more_ additional protection
was provided to people who were injured less severely _and_ didn't die.

As
far as injury reduction is concerned, air bags added 7 percent
protection to seat belts, an amount the NHTSA declared not
statistically significant.

Right, 7% (on top of 9% reduction in fatalities) matters to hardly
anyone. Except, I suppose, for people in those 7 and 9 percent.

The engineers of European cars had airbags in place _long_ before
the US required them, and they certainly didn't do it for cost reduction
reasons.

And your source for this statement? I can't find any. The earliest
mention I can find for air bags in Europe is in 1992, years after the
airbags first appeared on American cars.

Engineers _OF_ European cars. Didn't say those cars were _in_ europe,
but that they are _from_ europe.

As to why the Europeans did it -- Most of them did it because they
wanted to be able to sell their cars in the United States, at least
orignally.

Maybe safety was their motivation. Things other than greed do get
factored into designs sometimes, y'know.

Of myself, I know very little. But unlike, say, you. I'm willing to go
out and to the research to discover if what I do know is accurate.

Yeah, according to you, 9% + 7% is "very little improvement".

The people who know automotive safety systems are unanamious that seat
belts work better than air bags. You'll notice none of them recommend
using air bags alone and all the literature refers to air bags as
'supplemental devices'.

I've made that point. In this thread.

I'm one of those people who prefer to have the choice.

OK, so you'd rather go face-first into a dashboard than an airbag? You
prefer hitting a steering wheel with your chest, rather than an air-filled
pillow?

That only happens if you're not wearing a properly adjusted seatbelt.
Or did you miss that part of my comment?

My personal experience as an EMT/Firefighter for a dozen years is at odds
with that statement. Mister "ford-shaped bruise" was most decidedly
wearing his seat belt in that frontal crash. Sometimes the wheel
comes _to you_, y'see, so all the restraint in the world isn't gonna
stop it from coming up to meet you when the dash rolls in on you.

Have you ever _been to_ a severe car crash?

I don't know if you're deliberately attempting to set up a straw man
here or if you just don't read very carefully.

I see blatantly wrong statements like your "only happens if" above, and
point out the obvious problems. There are quite likely more subtle
problems with your point of view that I am missing, but they are
masked by things like "7+9=insignificant", y'see.

You can still get _serious_ chest trauma wearing a seatbelt,
by hitting the steering wheel. Been there, done that, read the bruise
on the guy's chest that had "droF" pressed into it.

And air bags increase the risk of injury to drivers and occupants in
most categories on the injury scale. See above.

Did you get your 7% better, and 9% better, backwards then?

Besides, if your seat belt is properly adjusted you won't hit the
steering wheel.

Wrong. Absolutely and unquestionably wrong.

Some choices are poor ones.

In this case the choice is not at all poor. Why should I trade a
significant risk of medium-level injury for a relatively small degree
of protection in the event of a major crash? Especially when I know
that if I am a member of certain classes the risk of injury is much
higher than for most people?

Because you're making your decision on a flawed assumption.

A basic understanding of the statistics involved would show that to any rational person.

Sorry, you're wrong. The statistics don't support your claims.

Those 9% and 7% of people alive and/or less badly injured would
probably disagree with your statement.

I'm sure my
five-foot-nothing mother-in-law woud love to be able to switch off the
airbags in her car. The last time she was in an accident the air bag
skinned her face.

Waaah. A bit of bag rash on the face.

That 'bag rash' damn near required skin grafts over most of her face.
It has caused corneal tears (severe eye damage) in others.

Just think of how bad it would have been without the pillow of air
and fabric, had she hit the wheel.

Beats eating the dashboard.

Since she was wearing a seat belt that wouldn't have happened. Reading
comprehension again.

And again, you haven't been to many crashes, have you. Google for
extrication photos and get back to me on what doesn't move to where.

Right, because obviously the airbag is going to hit her harder than she'll
hit the harder parts of the car...sheesh.

Straw man/reading comprehension again. If you're wearing a seat belt
and it is properly adjusted you don't hit the harder parts of the car.

Keep on repeating it, maybe someone will believe you. Why don't you go
off to a firefighting group and tell 'em that you'll never get hit
by the wheel or dash if you're wearing a seatbelt, and tell us how that
goes for you.

On 21 Dec 2004 10:04:40 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

rcook5 resonds:


This is the part I find so interesting, not the relatively mundane
statistical details. It is interesting for the light it throws on
these people and their thinking. As a philosophical matter it says
some pretty ugly things about the way these people think and perhaps
what their real motives are. As a practical matter it gives us
guidance on how much credence to place on their continuing campaigns
for laws to make us 'safer.'

I've always felt that, as an example, Ralph Nader had some psychological
problem that made him want to fix my--and your--life.

I'm not sure I'd call lust for power and attention a 'psychological
problem', but that's my reading on Nader. He is just as corrupt, just
as dishonest and just and self-interested as the worst of the tobacco
company executives. The difference is he isn't after money.

Back when I was much
younger and he was killing the Corvair, a big thing was made by the press that
he was sacrificing a lot to do in a car that he felt--wrongly, IMO--was more
dangerous than the norm. IIRC, he was drawing only $100 a week in salary, etc.
This was in the mid-'60s when such a salary was a living wage, if only barely
(minimum wage at the time, I seem to recall, was around $1.25 or $1.50). He
also didn't have a wife or girlfriend, no family life, was a workaholic, all
seemingly admirable qualities to too many journalists of the time because he
was taking on GM...and winning.

A classic case. One of the problems with the American media is that
they assume that because someone isn't making money off their position
they must be alturistic. This is massively untrue, but in general the
media hasn't caught on. (I say this as a former editor and reporter.)

Nader doesn't care about worldly goods any more than a medieval
inqusitor.

I never have been able to determine if the guy was a power freak or had some
other head problem, but he has been a bug on the windshield of U.S. life for
decades now, obscuring vision and screwing up elections.

Yep. His campaigns for president are the epitome of what Ralph Nader
is all about.

I wonder if he has upped his draw from 100 bucks a week.

Charlie Self
"It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable." Eric
Hoffer

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On 21 Dec 2004 17:21:54 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 06:02:15 GMT, wrote:

I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Based on...what, exactly?

The evidence cited below, plus a lot of other confirming evidence.

Between their introduction in the 1980s and 1997, the NHTSB reported
about 2600 lives saved by air bags. Almost all of those people were
otherwise unsecured, which means almost all of them would have also
been saved by seat belts.

This is a far cry from your 'thousands' saved every year. Meanwhile,
87 people were killed by air bags in that same period. Studies clearly
show that air bags increase the possibility and severity of injury
see:
http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/pdf/airbags.pdf

Any particular part of that report, or would you like me to read the
whole 4-point type article to guess what you mean?

Good grief! You're not even willing to do the research when someone
spoon feeds you the references. I guess this is all pretty useless.

Note that below 52 Km/H a woman is more likely to be injured than
protected by an air bag.

Remember, just because you keep repeating a falsehood, that doesn't make
it true.

Just because you have a preconception doesn't make it true. Seat belts
reduce fatalities among drivers and front-seat passengers by about 45
percent. Air bags add, at most about an additional 9 percent
protection.

Well then.

In my book that's 'very little' additional protection.

You're saying that because only 9% additional _deaths_ were prevented,
that that's only "very little" additional protection?

Compared to the 45 percent offered by seat belts, yes that's very
little additional protection. Plus you have to factor in the increased
risk of injury at lower levels of severity.

Not everyone
injured in a crash is killed, I probably go to 50 injury accidents for
each fatality I go to. But, by your logic, those injuries don't count
because a death didn't happen?

Not hardly. However the statistics show that you are more likely to
suffer lesser degrees of injury if air bags deploy than if they do not
deploy.

My argument would be that not only
are those 9% of people not dead, but _more_ additional protection
was provided to people who were injured less severely _and_ didn't die.

Untrue, according to the numbers. If you are involved in a crash you
are more likely to suffer injury if you have an air bag and it deploys
in all but crashes that produce the most severe (Level 6 -- almost
certainly non-survivable) injuries.

As
far as injury reduction is concerned, air bags added 7 percent
protection to seat belts, an amount the NHTSA declared not
statistically significant.

Right, 7% (on top of 9% reduction in fatalities) matters to hardly
anyone.

Well, no. The term 'statisticaly insignifcant' means that it is simply
too close to call. Within the margin of error for the sample. It could
well be statistical noise. You can't draw any conclusions from it.

However if you break it down the picture becomes even worse.



Except, I suppose, for people in those 7 and 9 percent.

The 7 percent may not exist at all. That's the point of 'statistically
insignificant.' Note also that the 9 percent includes the people in
higher risk categories, such as very short people and children. Since
I don't fall into those categories, I am at even lower risk.

The engineers of European cars had airbags in place _long_ before
the US required them, and they certainly didn't do it for cost reduction
reasons.

And your source for this statement? I can't find any. The earliest
mention I can find for air bags in Europe is in 1992, years after the
airbags first appeared on American cars.

Engineers _OF_ European cars. Didn't say those cars were _in_ europe,
but that they are _from_ europe.

Okay. But your implication is still incorrect. American manufacturers
(GM) started putting air bags in cars in 1985, years before they were
formally required. So the Europeans were not ahead of the Americans.

As to why the Europeans did it -- Most of them did it because they
wanted to be able to sell their cars in the United States, at least
orignally.

Maybe safety was their motivation. Things other than greed do get
factored into designs sometimes, y'know.

Their primary motivation was more likely the same as the GM's -- They
knew air bags were probably coming and they needed to get experience
with them. The usual way to do this is to phase it in on high-end cars
as an option.

Or are you seriously going to suggest that big auto manufacturers are
more alturistic if their headquarters are in other countries? I
haven't noticed an upsurge in corporate citizenship since Dailmer
bought Chrysler.

Of myself, I know very little. But unlike, say, you. I'm willing to go
out and to the research to discover if what I do know is accurate.

Yeah, according to you, 9% + 7% is "very little improvement".

Nope. 9 percent for all drivers in fatalities -- traded off for a
greater risk of lesser injuries. And a statistically insignificant
'improvement' -- which may or may not be a statistical artifact in
injuries in all categories.

The people who know automotive safety systems are unanamious that seat
belts work better than air bags. You'll notice none of them recommend
using air bags alone and all the literature refers to air bags as
'supplemental devices'.

I've made that point. In this thread.

Yet you seem to be ignoring it. In this thread.

I'm one of those people who prefer to have the choice.

OK, so you'd rather go face-first into a dashboard than an airbag? You
prefer hitting a steering wheel with your chest, rather than an air-filled
pillow?

That only happens if you're not wearing a properly adjusted seatbelt.
Or did you miss that part of my comment?

My personal experience as an EMT/Firefighter for a dozen years is at odds
with that statement.

In fact it was my EMT instructor (IIRC) who first pointed this
phenomenon out to me. He stressed the fact that even though belted
drivers didn't hit the wheel or the dash, it was important to handle
them as if they had suffered internal injuries because a lot of them
had.

However I don't propose to match my long-expired Level 1 EMT
certificate against your experience. My instructor's point was
confirmed by a search of the literature.

While there is a lot on seat belt injuries, I was unable to find a
single reference to steering wheel or dashboard injuries to drivers
wearing the now-standard 3-point harness.

Mister "ford-shaped bruise" was most decidedly
wearing his seat belt in that frontal crash.

I don't doubt your story, but again the research indicates that this
is extremely rare.

And again, you're more likely to suffer Level 5 or below trauma if
your air bag deploys than if you're simply using a seat belt.

Sometimes the wheel
comes _to you_, y'see, so all the restraint in the world isn't gonna
stop it from coming up to meet you when the dash rolls in on you.

Okay, so you're not talking about a crash where the driver is thrown
forward into the steering wheel. You're talking about an accident
where the entire structure of the car is deformed and the passenger
compartment collapses. That wasn't clear from your original statement.

However judging from the literature this is a tiny percentage of
accidents. Again, there's nothing I could find on seat belt injuries
from contact with the dash or steering wheel.

It also seems to me that an air bag isn't going to do a lot for you in
that case. It may prevent the initial violent impact, but you're still
going to get crushed as the structure (and the air bag) collapses.

But unlike the hard data, that's just my opinion.

Have you ever _been to_ a severe car crash?

Dozens of them. I was a police reporter. As a court reporter I also
sat through the lawsuits that followed, including reconstructions of
crashes and crah injuries.

I don't know if you're deliberately attempting to set up a straw man
here or if you just don't read very carefully.

I see blatantly wrong statements like your "only happens if" above, and
point out the obvious problems.

Again, your position isn't supported by the evidence.

There are quite likely more subtle
problems with your point of view that I am missing, but they are
masked by things like "7+9=insignificant", y'see.

If someone can point these problems out to me I'd be very interested.
Since you can't even be bothered to read the references and your grasp
the concept of 'statistical insignificance' is non-existant, any such
problems that might exist are pretty obviously beyond you.

You can still get _serious_ chest trauma wearing a seatbelt,
by hitting the steering wheel. Been there, done that, read the bruise
on the guy's chest that had "droF" pressed into it.

And air bags increase the risk of injury to drivers and occupants in
most categories on the injury scale. See above.

Did you get your 7% better, and 9% better, backwards then?

Nope. The 7 percent may well be a statistical artifact. But when you
break injuries down by category, you find a higher percentage of
injuries for airbag versus belted drives at every category but level
6.

Besides, if your seat belt is properly adjusted you won't hit the
steering wheel.

Wrong. Absolutely and unquestionably wrong.

Not according to the evidence. If this happens there's no refererence
to it in the literature.

Also, if I understand you, in the cases you're talking about the
driver didn't hit the steering wheel, the steering wheel hit the
driver.

Some choices are poor ones.

In this case the choice is not at all poor. Why should I trade a
significant risk of medium-level injury for a relatively small degree
of protection in the event of a major crash? Especially when I know
that if I am a member of certain classes the risk of injury is much
higher than for most people?

Because you're making your decision on a flawed assumption.

I'm making my decision based on the facts as I know them, buttessed by
the research I have done.

A basic understanding of the statistics involved would show that to any rational person.

Sorry, you're wrong. The statistics don't support your claims.

Those 9% and 7% of people alive and/or less badly injured would
probably disagree with your statement.

And the people injured by air bags might differ from your opinion.

I'm sure my
five-foot-nothing mother-in-law woud love to be able to switch off the
airbags in her car. The last time she was in an accident the air bag
skinned her face.

Waaah. A bit of bag rash on the face.

That 'bag rash' damn near required skin grafts over most of her face.
It has caused corneal tears (severe eye damage) in others.

Just think of how bad it would have been without the pillow of air
and fabric, had she hit the wheel.

Since she was belted in, she would not have hit the wheel. That's the
point of 3-point restraints and they're very effective.


Beats eating the dashboard.

Since she was wearing a seat belt that wouldn't have happened. Reading
comprehension again.

And again, you haven't been to many crashes, have you.

Wrong.

Google for extrication photos and get back to me on what doesn't move to where.

Google for 'seat belt injuries' 'steering wheel' and 'dashboard' and
see what you find.

Right, because obviously the airbag is going to hit her harder than she'll
hit the harder parts of the car...sheesh.

Straw man/reading comprehension again. If you're wearing a seat belt
and it is properly adjusted you don't hit the harder parts of the car.

Keep on repeating it, maybe someone will believe you.

I keep repeating it because it is true.

Why don't you go
off to a firefighting group and tell 'em that you'll never get hit
by the wheel or dash if you're wearing a seatbelt, and tell us how that
goes for you.

Again, you're talking about the dash or wheel hitting the occupants,
not vice-versa.

And since it's such an obvious proposition, how about some references
to how air bags prevent injuries in such cases? If you're correct,
that should be a no-brainer. Except I can't find anything like that.
And I have looked.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On 21 Dec 2004 17:05:21 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:57:07 -0600, tzipple wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:52:10 -0600, tzipple wrote:

Again, so what if they use government to impose the adoption of someting
that the free market did not want... if the imposition is a good thing.
Your suggestions seemed to be that such an approach was categorically
wrong. Am I misunderstanding?

Yes, _and_ you're still top-posting.

And you are still evading anything that looks like an actual response
to my post. No surprise that you clip my post as well as a part of the
dodge. Sneaky!

That's called "trimming unneeded context". As you have yet to say anything
of actual content, your null-statements can safely be expunged.
On to what you may be asking...you wrongly assume my objection to making
Sawstop mandatory is because it's something "that the free market did not
want". You are wrong. My objection to them trying to force it on us is
that it _doesn't ****ing work_. If it worked, they'd be shipping product.
They are not shipping product, so either they have a bad design, or
bad makers of their product. At some point, maybe they'll work all that
out and show that it's manufacturable in quantity. _THEN_ they can
start making noises about forcing everyone to use it, if it shows a
real benefit.

An equivalent in the air-bags world would have been for Joe Smith to
patent airbags. Great, got a patent. Even a couple demo units.
Got some problems, though, the sensors are tricky, there are build
quality issues, and they might go off when you don't want 'em to. Ah
well, good enough, I got my patent, let's put 'em on all the cars.

Sadly, that's very nearly what happened. Except it wasn't the inventor
who pushed air bags through before they were thoroughly tested.

We shouldn't have had to kill a couple of hundred people, including a
whole bunch of children, before we recognized the idea needed some
more work.

--RC

Would you accept a piece of safety equipment that hasn't been proven,
being forced on you? I do not. Maybe Sawstop can be made to work.
Maybe it's a wonderful thing and I'll buy one. But right now, I can't
buy one if I wanted to, and trying to mandate something that isn't
available is blisteringly obviously stupid.

Dave Hinz

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

By the time Ralph Nader was killing the Corvair, the design flaws had been
addressed. The Corvair was really a decent car. My high school english teacher
had one of the sport models. (I think he still has it!) That car really had some
get-gone!

Grant



Charlie Self wrote:

rcook5 resonds:


This is the part I find so interesting, not the relatively mundane
statistical details. It is interesting for the light it throws on
these people and their thinking. As a philosophical matter it says
some pretty ugly things about the way these people think and perhaps
what their real motives are. As a practical matter it gives us
guidance on how much credence to place on their continuing campaigns
for laws to make us 'safer.'

I've always felt that, as an example, Ralph Nader had some psychological
problem that made him want to fix my--and your--life. Back when I was much
younger and he was killing the Corvair, a big thing was made by the press that
he was sacrificing a lot to do in a car that he felt--wrongly, IMO--was more
dangerous than the norm. IIRC, he was drawing only $100 a week in salary, etc.
This was in the mid-'60s when such a salary was a living wage, if only barely
(minimum wage at the time, I seem to recall, was around $1.25 or $1.50). He
also didn't have a wife or girlfriend, no family life, was a workaholic, all
seemingly admirable qualities to too many journalists of the time because he
was taking on GM...and winning.

I never have been able to determine if the guy was a power freak or had some
other head problem, but he has been a bug on the windshield of U.S. life for
decades now, obscuring vision and screwing up elections.

I wonder if he has upped his draw from 100 bucks a week.

Charlie Self
"It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable." Eric
Hoffer

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:08:37 GMT, wrote:
On 21 Dec 2004 17:21:54 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Any particular part of that report, or would you like me to read the
whole 4-point type article to guess what you mean?

Good grief! You're not even willing to do the research when someone
spoon feeds you the references. I guess this is all pretty useless.

Yeah, because a vague statement like you made could or could not be
based on anywhere in that report. I was hoping you could, you know,
indicate what page or something.

Just because you have a preconception doesn't make it true. Seat belts
reduce fatalities among drivers and front-seat passengers by about 45
percent. Air bags add, at most about an additional 9 percent
protection.

Well then.

No response?

In my book that's 'very little' additional protection.

You're saying that because only 9% additional _deaths_ were prevented,
that that's only "very little" additional protection?

Compared to the 45 percent offered by seat belts, yes that's very
little additional protection.

Seems to me it takes 45% up to 54%.

Not everyone
injured in a crash is killed, I probably go to 50 injury accidents for
each fatality I go to. But, by your logic, those injuries don't count
because a death didn't happen?

Not hardly. However the statistics show that you are more likely to
suffer lesser degrees of injury if air bags deploy than if they do not
deploy.

You're saying what I've been saying and not what you've been saying.
You're right this time, if the airbags deploy, you'll get hurt less.

My argument would be that not only
are those 9% of people not dead, but _more_ additional protection
was provided to people who were injured less severely _and_ didn't die.

Untrue, according to the numbers. If you are involved in a crash you
are more likely to suffer injury if you have an air bag and it deploys
in all but crashes that produce the most severe (Level 6 -- almost
certainly non-survivable) injuries.

So, it can save your life in really really bad crashes, it can decrease your
serious injuries in merely "really bad" crashes, but it might give you a
scrape in a minor injury? The balance seems obviously tilted towards
"use 'em".

Right, 7% (on top of 9% reduction in fatalities) matters to hardly
anyone.

Well, no. The term 'statisticaly insignifcant' means that it is simply
too close to call. Within the margin of error for the sample. It could
well be statistical noise. You can't draw any conclusions from it.

It's all the data that's available. We're not doing a presidential poll
here where the data gathered is a subset of the whole population, we're
comparing raw numbers of the actual results. 16% having a dramatically
better outcome is significant, I'm sorry if you disagree.

However if you break it down the picture becomes even worse.

Oh, well, _that_ clears it all up.

Except, I suppose, for people in those 7 and 9 percent.

The 7 percent may not exist at all. That's the point of 'statistically
insignificant.' Note also that the 9 percent includes the people in
higher risk categories, such as very short people and children. Since
I don't fall into those categories, I am at even lower risk.

You said before short people and children were _harmed_ more than helped.
Now you cite (twice) that it's actually a 9% net positive for them.
You're contradicting yourself.

As to why the Europeans did it -- Most of them did it because they
wanted to be able to sell their cars in the United States, at least
orignally.

Maybe safety was their motivation. Things other than greed do get
factored into designs sometimes, y'know.

Their primary motivation was more likely the same as the GM's -- They
knew air bags were probably coming and they needed to get experience
with them. The usual way to do this is to phase it in on high-end cars
as an option.

Companies like Mercedes and Saab (and, to a lesser extent Volvo) actually
give a **** about safety, and make changes to their cars that aren't
mandatory. The first two at least, have allowed anyone to use their
safety patents, rather than greedily keeping them to themselves.

Or are you seriously going to suggest that big auto manufacturers are
more alturistic if their headquarters are in other countries? I
haven't noticed an upsurge in corporate citizenship since Dailmer
bought Chrysler.

Yes, I'm seriously suggesting that, for instance, Saab has designed
around safety features since their inception. I'm seriously suggesting
that Mercedes invented the concept of "crumple zones", and allows everyone
to use their technology. I could go on and on with details (more for
Saab than Mercedes as that's where my direct knowledge is), but you'd
probably choose to disregard each example in turn.

Of myself, I know very little. But unlike, say, you. I'm willing to go
out and to the research to discover if what I do know is accurate.

Yeah, according to you, 9% + 7% is "very little improvement".

Nope. 9 percent for all drivers in fatalities -- traded off for a
greater risk of lesser injuries.

If they live, the scrapes can heal. You're not really suggesting that
a bit of pain is comparable to a death, are you?

And a statistically insignificant
'improvement' -- which may or may not be a statistical artifact in
injuries in all categories.

If this was a subset, I could see this being sampling error. I don't see
anything to suggest this is anythign other than the raw statistics.

The people who know automotive safety systems are unanamious that seat
belts work better than air bags. You'll notice none of them recommend
using air bags alone and all the literature refers to air bags as
'supplemental devices'.

I've made that point. In this thread.

Yet you seem to be ignoring it. In this thread.

I have never said airbags should be used by themselves.

OK, so you'd rather go face-first into a dashboard than an airbag? You
prefer hitting a steering wheel with your chest, rather than an air-filled
pillow?

That only happens if you're not wearing a properly adjusted seatbelt.
Or did you miss that part of my comment?

My personal experience as an EMT/Firefighter for a dozen years is at odds
with that statement.

In fact it was my EMT instructor (IIRC) who first pointed this
phenomenon out to me. He stressed the fact that even though belted
drivers didn't hit the wheel or the dash, it was important to handle
them as if they had suffered internal injuries because a lot of them
had.

Close. It's more like "even if you don't _know if_ they hit the wheel
or dash, since you don't want to be sued for someone becoming paralyzed,
you handle the c-spine as if it was damaged". In other words, everyone
gets a collar, everyone gets boarded. Some states allow EMTs to clear
spinal concerns in the field, and happily I am not in one of those
states. You apparently misinterpreted the intention of what the EMT
instructor told you.

However I don't propose to match my long-expired Level 1 EMT
certificate against your experience. My instructor's point was
confirmed by a search of the literature.

Yes, of course, because why actually talk about real accident scenes
when you can post another link. Or not.

While there is a lot on seat belt injuries, I was unable to find a
single reference to steering wheel or dashboard injuries to drivers
wearing the now-standard 3-point harness.

Well, I can talk to ford-guy. He's the dad of a friend of mine. Maybe
he's got pictures.

Mister "ford-shaped bruise" was most decidedly
wearing his seat belt in that frontal crash.

I don't doubt your story, but again the research indicates that this
is extremely rare.

You said "never". Now you're improving to "extremely rare".

And again, you're more likely to suffer Level 5 or below trauma if
your air bag deploys than if you're simply using a seat belt.

If you say so. I'll trade the chance of minor trauma for a chance
at not dying, thanks all the same.

Sometimes the wheel
comes _to you_, y'see, so all the restraint in the world isn't gonna
stop it from coming up to meet you when the dash rolls in on you.

Okay, so you're not talking about a crash where the driver is thrown
forward into the steering wheel. You're talking about an accident
where the entire structure of the car is deformed and the passenger
compartment collapses.

Yes, for instance.

That wasn't clear from your original statement.

Didn't need to be. You said, unequivically, that a patient who is belted
will not hit the steering wheel or dashboard, ever.

However judging from the literature this is a tiny percentage of
accidents. Again, there's nothing I could find on seat belt injuries
from contact with the dash or steering wheel.

"seat belt injuries from contact with the dash or steering wheel" is a
nonsensical phrase. If you mean "belted passengers injured by
car structure impingement" or something, well, maybe it's your google
technique.

It also seems to me that an air bag isn't going to do a lot for you in
that case. It may prevent the initial violent impact, but you're still
going to get crushed as the structure (and the air bag) collapses.

Depends on how close it gets, dunnit? Your body _does_ come off the
seat when you're stopping very fast, even with belts which do
stretch.

But unlike the hard data, that's just my opinion.

Have you ever _been to_ a severe car crash?

Dozens of them. I was a police reporter. As a court reporter I also
sat through the lawsuits that followed, including reconstructions of
crashes and crah injuries.

And you haven't seen dashboards roll?

I don't know if you're deliberately attempting to set up a straw man
here or if you just don't read very carefully.

I see blatantly wrong statements like your "only happens if" above, and
point out the obvious problems.

Again, your position isn't supported by the evidence.

You keep saying that, and yet...

There are quite likely more subtle
problems with your point of view that I am missing, but they are
masked by things like "7+9=insignificant", y'see.

If someone can point these problems out to me I'd be very interested.
Since you can't even be bothered to read the references and your grasp
the concept of 'statistical insignificance' is non-existant, any such
problems that might exist are pretty obviously beyond you.

Look. I'm trying to see if your point of view has _any_ merit, and so
far all I get is "it's in the article somewhere", "an EMT instructor
friend of mine (I think) said", and "you don't understand stats".

And air bags increase the risk of injury to drivers and occupants in
most categories on the injury scale. See above.

Did you get your 7% better, and 9% better, backwards then?

Nope. The 7 percent may well be a statistical artifact. But when you
break injuries down by category, you find a higher percentage of
injuries for airbag versus belted drives at every category but level
6.

....where people get really, really hurt, or not. Yes, I understand.
In other words, they do the most good at the most severe crashes.
Go figure.

Besides, if your seat belt is properly adjusted you won't hit the
steering wheel.

Wrong. Absolutely and unquestionably wrong.

Not according to the evidence. If this happens there's no refererence
to it in the literature.

You're backpedaling from your backpedal above.

Also, if I understand you, in the cases you're talking about the
driver didn't hit the steering wheel, the steering wheel hit the
driver.

Yeah, 'cuz that makes _all_ the difference in the world, injury-wise.
Sheesh.

Sorry, you're wrong. The statistics don't support your claims.

Those 9% and 7% of people alive and/or less badly injured would
probably disagree with your statement.

And the people injured by air bags might differ from your opinion.

I'll take minor injury over "dead" any day.

That 'bag rash' damn near required skin grafts over most of her face.
It has caused corneal tears (severe eye damage) in others.

Just think of how bad it would have been without the pillow of air
and fabric, had she hit the wheel.

Since she was belted in, she would not have hit the wheel. That's the
point of 3-point restraints and they're very effective.

Good thing it wasn't a more severe crash then, eh?

And again, you haven't been to many crashes, have you.

Wrong.

I'll amend that to "you haven't paid attention to the dynamics at many
crashes, have you".

Google for extrication photos and get back to me on what doesn't move to where.

Google for 'seat belt injuries' 'steering wheel' and 'dashboard' and
see what you find.

Right, because obviously the airbag is going to hit her harder than she'll
hit the harder parts of the car...sheesh.

Straw man/reading comprehension again. If you're wearing a seat belt
and it is properly adjusted you don't hit the harder parts of the car.

Keep on repeating it, maybe someone will believe you.

I keep repeating it because it is true.

Why don't you go
off to a firefighting group and tell 'em that you'll never get hit
by the wheel or dash if you're wearing a seatbelt, and tell us how that
goes for you.

Again, you're talking about the dash or wheel hitting the occupants,
not vice-versa.

And since it's such an obvious proposition, how about some references
to how air bags prevent injuries in such cases? If you're correct,
that should be a no-brainer. Except I can't find anything like that.
And I have looked.

Maybe in your world seat belts don't stretch at impact. If I thought
I could change your mind, I'd bother to google for seat belt dynamics
in a crash.

On 21 Dec 2004 21:11:56 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

A whole lot of stuff -- which is well beyond the point of diminishing
returns. Since he won't look at the evidence and doesn't even
understand such elementary concepts as statistical insignificance, and
since he can't provide any documented support for his position this
whole conversation is pretty much useless.

He's had his say and I've had mine. Anyone who's interested in the
truth can follow the references I've posted or do their own research.


--RC


"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 07:03:39 GMT, wrote:
On 21 Dec 2004 21:11:56 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

A whole lot of stuff -- which is well beyond the point of diminishing
returns. Since he won't look at the evidence

You gave me a many-page report as your 'evidence', and will not say what
in there you are talking about.

and doesn't even
understand such elementary concepts as statistical insignificance,

The statistical error -you- are talking about is in a sample which is
a subset of all the data. However, the report which you cite seems to
_be_ all of the data, not just a sampling. Therefore the 7 and 9 percent
are real percents of the total population of data.

and
since he can't provide any documented support for his position this
whole conversation is pretty much useless.

You're the one making the statement that airbags do more harm than good,
while citing a study showing they reduce deaths by 9% and serious
injuries by 7% (or is it the other way around? Whatever). And you say
that _I_ don't understand the topic? Sheesh.

He's had his say and I've had mine. Anyone who's interested in the
truth can follow the references I've posted or do their own research.

I notice you completely evade my questions. One last one. Let's say there
is a device which may give you a mild injury where you wouldn't have had
any, in a mild crash, but gives you a double-digit better chance of a better
outcome in a severe crash. Would you trade a bit of bag-rash for a saved
life?

Somehow, I think I know you won't be able to answer that in a meaningful
way.