Toyota safety crisis prompts 'black box' plan for new cars and lorries
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Does this ever happen to you?
Next: Public Transit?
From: Larry G on 3 May 2010 18:36 On May 3, 12:43 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-03, Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 2, 9:14 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-05-03, Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > I suspect they quit offering them because _nobody_ would buy them. > >> > They were a very high priced option. > > >> I know it was a long time ago, but check the manufacturers' objections to > >> the mandate. They were based on the prior experience. > > >> Most everything starts out as a high priced option. > > > Their objections have nothing to do with the subject. The > > manufactureres have fought every safety and/or pollution mandate. > > False. would you buy "virtually" or "many" or "most"?
From: Larry G on 3 May 2010 19:30 On May 3, 7:12 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Mon, 3 May 2010 15:28:11 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> > wrote in misc.transport.road: > > >On May 3, 10:07 am, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> There is no capitalism at all in those two places. > > >> There is no pure capitalism anywhere, to the best of my knowledge. > > >what do you call a totally virtually unregulated market? > > >I call it pure capitalism... > > >you want an AK-47 or a steak or a girl slave? all you need is money > > If I have the AK-47, I'll get the money. took a sec... yup... provided the guy who has the money does not also have one ...or two.. or a bevy of friends with RPGs and the like.. That's the thing about Somalia. If you are one that Chafs at govt taxing you do death and regulating you out of business... try a place like Somalia where you don't have to worry at all about those nasty govt entitlements...transfer of wealth , etc,
From: Larry G on 3 May 2010 20:33 On May 3, 8:17 pm, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/3/2010 19:01, Brent wrote: > > > > > > > On 2010-05-03, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 3, 7:12 pm, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>> On Mon, 3 May 2010 15:28:11 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> > >>> wrote in misc.transport.road: > > >>>> On May 3, 10:07 am, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> There is no capitalism at all in those two places. > > >>>>> There is no pure capitalism anywhere, to the best of my knowledge. > > >>>> what do you call a totally virtually unregulated market? > > >>>> I call it pure capitalism... > > >>>> you want an AK-47 or a steak or a girl slave? all you need is money > > >>> If I have the AK-47, I'll get the money. > > >> took a sec... yup... provided the guy who has the money does not > >> also have one ...or two.. or a bevy of friends with RPGs and the > >> like.. > > >> That's the thing about Somalia. If you are one that Chafs at govt > >> taxing you do death and regulating you out of business... try a place > >> like Somalia where you don't have to worry at all about those nasty > >> govt entitlements...transfer of wealth , etc, > > > Ask yourself, what happens if you don't pay the warlord? Then ask > > yourself what happens if you don't pay the US federal government? > > > Hint: Same thing. Both of them, believing they are legitmate > > authority reserve the right to kill you if you don't sufficently obey > > them. tea party blather
From: hancock4 on 4 May 2010 13:21 On May 1, 2:19 pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > And smog pumps, and 5MPH crash bumpers, and better fuel economy, and > every other government-mandated "improvement" to cars. There has never > been a government mandate that resulted in a cost *reduction*. > > >would you willingly pay $1000 extra "up front" for air bags if it > >saved you $2000 in insurance premium costs? > > Sure! You gonna give that to me in writing? > > >when the govt and/or the insurance industry totals up ALL the costs > >for ALL incidents and determines that a required safety device costs > >will be less than all the totaled costs without it - we > >get ...regulation..right? > > Can you name an instance where this has occurred? Sure! Look at how much the fatality rate has dropped per miles travelled, despite the fact people are driving faster and the roads are more crowded. All those safety devices, based on years of experience, successfully have reduced the chances of being killed in an accident. Back in 1968 and 1969 when many of the devices were mandated, they explained the why's and how's of each device. It all made good sense. For instance, the old time hood ornaments would fly off in an accident and become a lethal missile.
From: Larry G on 8 May 2010 18:20
On May 8, 5:37 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > In article <d5cot5d9tm3f4snrqiup5p5cnkvd7bs...(a)4ax.com>, > John Lansford <jlnsf...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > >I don't recall my car insurance going down just because I bought one > >with airbags. In fact, it's been rising steadily despite neither my > >wife or me having any traffic violations. If these cars are safer, > >why doesn't the insurance go down? > > >John Lansford, PE > > Same reason design speeds are going down despite cars being more > capable. cars are more capable and airbags prevent more deaths but injuries and car repairs have gotten more expensive - just like hurricanes and floods have. it's a hard argument that these things have kept prices from going up even higher than they would have. we still need design speeds and air bags (in my view) - and other things - the argument is over to what degree more than yes or no.... If you took a poll of the public asking if air bags should be optional extras instead of mandatory - I'm betting that the public would pretty thoroughly not agree. If you asked them if kids toys or food should not be regulated by the consumer products safety or the NTSB not investigating airplane crashes which rely on those black boxes, I'm pretty sure the public will say they should. My point is that the public is the one who wants these even though they'll pick out examples that they don't want ..but not agree as a group as to what should be or not be. |