Lack of ESC Awarness Kills People
in [Technical]
|
Prev: solutions manual to Advanced Modern Engineering Mathematics, 3rd Ed., by G. James
Next: Coaches.
From: jim on 12 Mar 2010 14:02 Tegger wrote: > > But, for about the last two-and-a-half decades, the fool has been no longer > responsible for himself; the provider is now responsible for him. The > providers (staffed by the fools themselves) must now take extraordinary > measures to protect themselves from those fools who use state power to > attack them. > Nah yo are the one being foolish. The things you think exist to protect fools are really designed to protect businesses from fools. Workman's compensation is not designed to protect workmen. it is designed to protect employers who hire workmen from liability. And the same is true of everything else you are whining about. > Thus a coffee cup that comes with the moronic warning, "Caution! May be > hot!"; Which protects the seller from lawsuits. > thus a toy-broom sticker that says, "does not actually fly"; Well there are toys that are self-propelled and actually do fly. > thus a commercial showing a motionless car parked in a fast-food parking > lot, with the occupants wearing their seat belts; And that means what to you? > thus an alcolic beverage container which warns that the substance within > can cause the consumer to get drunk; > thus a car commercial showing a car traveling at 20mph, and the warning, > "Professional driver, do not attempt"; > thus the disappearance of diving boards from swimming pools. > And so it goes... You haven't named one thing yet that is designed to protect foolish people from doing foolish things. Do you think that foolish people read the stuff on their beverage container while they are getting drunk and spilling stuff all over themselves? -jim
From: Tegger on 12 Mar 2010 14:23 jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in news:MbqdnaHlMb4vEgfWnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d(a)bright.net: > > You haven't named one thing yet that is designed to protect > foolish people from doing foolish things. > > Do you think that foolish people > read the stuff on their beverage container while they are getting > drunk and spilling stuff all over themselves? > You don't understand /any/ of what I wrote, do you? -- Tegger
From: Tegger on 12 Mar 2010 14:47 Tom Adams <tadamsmar(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:6dbba574-aa02-447f-9e5f- 98e433f98db6(a)l12g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > > BTW, if that person buys a new car without > ESC and never trades it, they take about a month > off their life expectancy on average. So be it. > Then go ahead and buy a car with ESC. Myself, I'll trust to simply being careful, which has worked just fine for 30 years. I suspect you'll see a moral-hazard attached to ESC: People will tend to drive faster, or less carefully, or in weather they otherwise wouldn't drive in, because they feel "safer" with the new toy. Seat belts, SRS, and ABS have a substantial moral-hazard factor, which is why their supposed benefits have been a bit difficult to quantify. There's no substitute for being prudent and careful. If in doubt, go slower. -- Tegger
From: jim on 12 Mar 2010 14:56 Tegger wrote: > > jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in > news:MbqdnaHlMb4vEgfWnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d(a)bright.net: > > > > > You haven't named one thing yet that is designed to protect > > foolish people from doing foolish things. > > > > Do you think that foolish people > > read the stuff on their beverage container while they are getting > > drunk and spilling stuff all over themselves? > > > > You don't understand /any/ of what I wrote, do you? You mean you expect someone else to understand your delusional view of the world? Congress and Presidents didn't tell McDonald's to put a temperature warning on a cup of coffee. They did that all on their own. And they didn't do it to protect fools from hot coffee. It wasn't congress and the president that moved McDonald's to take that action. It was 12 ordinary people who motivated McDonald's to do that. And believe me, Congress and the presidents would love to take that power away from ordinary people. And someday they may succeed in curtailing that power of ordinary people if they ever get enough support of fools like you. -jim
From: Tom Adams on 12 Mar 2010 15:17
On Mar 12, 2:47 pm, Tegger <inva...(a)invalid.inv> wrote: > Tom Adams <tadams...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:6dbba574-aa02-447f-9e5f- > 98e433f98...(a)l12g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > > > > > BTW, if that person buys a new car without > > ESC and never trades it, they take about a month > > off their life expectancy on average. So be it. > > Then go ahead and buy a car with ESC. Myself, I'll trust to simply being > careful, which has worked just fine for 30 years. Being careful does help. But some idiot may run out in front of you and you will need to execute an avoidance manuever. Even a safe driver in that situation will need a car that can pass the moose test. > > I suspect you'll see a moral-hazard attached to ESC: People will tend to > drive faster, or less carefully, or in weather they otherwise wouldn't > drive in, because they feel "safer" with the new toy. > > Seat belts, SRS, and ABS have a substantial moral-hazard factor, which is > why their supposed benefits have been a bit difficult to quantify. > You are right about all that. Could be the fatality reductions provided by ESC in earlier field data will be mitigated by the moral-hazard issue. That is documented for ABS (see the wikipedia on ABS). That could be why NHTSA does not have an ESC awareness campaign like they have in the EU. They might want to just quietly get it on all cars, the fewer people who know what they have the better. Also ESC will keep thousands of the worst drivers on the road instead of in the grave every year, the speed demon types. There is a guy down the hall from me who's life was probably saved by ESC and he is a hazard on the road, drives too fast for conditions. Hopefully it will just save a bunch of kids that will learn better. > There's no substitute for being prudent and careful. If in doubt, go > slower. |