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 9 May 2010 07:58 On May 9, 1:56 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-09, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > People take nutrition labels for granted now days like they are > > automatic but they're not - they are regulation. You cannot legally > > buy many drugs over the county - that's regulation. When you get a > > dental x-ray - the thing that keeps that machine from burning a hole > > in your jaw is regulation. When you see a handicap spot - that's > > regulation. automatic gasoline pump shutoffs... regulation... milk > > that is homogenized - regulation. your tires - take a look on the > > sidewalls - it says DOT and gives a load range. We all depend on it > > but take it for granted except we now have a bunch of folks who have > > gone viral on it.. > > All of which is generally inferior to existing private and market > standards and/or something created/set for the benefit of connected > businesses. If you examine how government regulation works, how it comes > into play, it's very clear that our safety is just a BS excuse used to > sell government control for the benefit of insiders. > > Lead in toys is a perfect recent example. Problem with Mattel toys made > in China. So Mattel has its lobbiests get the regulation passed. Very > costly to smaller toy companies. out-of-business damaging. Destroys the > market for second hand toys. All very good for big toy companies that > can afford the testing. After the law is in force for awhile mattel's > lobbiests get it modified so that Mattel can do its own testing. That's > how by and large the regulation works to 'keep us safe'. It is for > creating higher prices and less competition for those with the best > lobbiests. and your solution is to let companies make toys with high levels of lead? how would the consumer know which companies did not use lead? there are problems with regulation, no disagreement here but we know from bitter experience - as John points out - that if you don't regulate that companies will NOT do the right thing if in doing so it affects their bottom line - and the companies that are the best competitors in that kind of economic environment - are the ones who do not spend extra money on safety. We know this. It happens over and over most often with products from China that does not effectively regulation and from which our paid-for politicians lobby for regulatory loop-holes for imported goods. you can't have it both ways Brent. The so-called free market will NOT produce safer products if one company tries to do the right thing and in the process, their product costs more - they lose against the companies that do not build safer products.
From: Arif Khokar on 9 May 2010 19:13 On 5/8/2010 6:20 PM, Larry G wrote: > 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. But if you're shorter than 5' 3", then in order to drive the car, you have to sit relatively close to the steering wheel. When the airbag deploys in that case, it can cause severe injury or kill the driver. The main reason behind this problem is that the federal government requires that airbags be able to protect an *unbelted* 50th percentile size male dummy in a frontal collision (see FMVSS 208). This necessitates a higher force of deployment as well as deployment for relatively low collision speeds in order to comply with that mandate. Also, studies haven't shown a net benefit for airbags in terms of morbidity nor mortality. But, since the public in general doesn't realize this, they'd still favor mandatory airbags. IMO, I would like them to be optional (especially if I know the person who will be driving the car is too short to sit far enough away from the wheel to keep from being injured by airbag deployment.
From: Arif Khokar on 9 May 2010 19:28 On 5/9/2010 8:06 AM, Larry G wrote: > the LLBers combined with those willing to drive even more aggressively > in response endanger others who are innocent INCLUDING those who DO > STAY in the right lane.. the "weaves" don't care... The driver in the left lane cannot actually block the road without implicit or explicit cooperation from the driver beside him. If you end up getting cut off by someone going around a LLB not too far ahead of you, then it's really your fault for letting yourself get into a position where it's possible for that to happen. When I'm driving in the right lane and I see someone start to pass me, I give them 15 to 20 seconds to complete their passing maneuver. If they can't pass me in that time period, I increase my speed by 10 to 15 mph for the next 15 to 20 seconds and then resume my original speed. I do this because I find it unacceptable for someone to be beside me for longer than necessary (since it reduces my options to avoid potential hazards). One incidental benefit is that the other driver cannot actually become a LLB because I don't let him (so if someone even faster comes up from behind, they have no trouble getting past us).
From: necromancer on 9 May 2010 20:47 On Sun, 09 May 2010 19:13:02 -0400, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote: >On 5/8/2010 6:20 PM, Larry G wrote: > >> 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. > >But if you're shorter than 5' 3", then in order to drive the car, you >have to sit relatively close to the steering wheel. When the airbag >deploys in that case, it can cause severe injury or kill the driver. >The main reason behind this problem is that the federal government >requires that airbags be able to protect an *unbelted* 50th percentile >size male dummy in a frontal collision (see FMVSS 208). This >necessitates a higher force of deployment as well as deployment for >relatively low collision speeds in order to comply with that mandate. >Also, studies haven't shown a net benefit for airbags in terms of >morbidity nor mortality. The simple solution to that problem is a kill switch on the dash that would let the driver choose to disable the airbag if he/she feels that height (or anyother factor) would make the airbag dangerous to them. >But, since the public in general doesn't realize this, they'd still >favor mandatory airbags. IMO, I would like them to be optional >(especially if I know the person who will be driving the car is too >short to sit far enough away from the wheel to keep from being injured >by airbag deployment. Agreed. Those who want the airbags should be able to purchase them if they want them. Me, even though I have driven airbag equipped cars for over 15 years, I've never been completely comfortable with the notion that there is a package of high explosives in my steering wheel with the brunt of the explosion aimed at my face. -- "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned Given the chance, I'll probablly do it again..." --Jimmy Buffett
From: Bernd Felsche on 10 May 2010 00:55
Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2010-05-09, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> there are problems with regulation, no disagreement here but we know >> from bitter experience - as John points out - that if you don't >> regulate that companies will NOT do the right thing if in doing so it >> affects their bottom line - >Companies have a reason to please their customers in a free market. >Government on the other hand does not. Government doesn't have >customers, it has subjects. What are you going to do if you get bad >service from government? Government doesn't have subjects if it's government for the people. Government serves the people in a democracy. The rulers of a democracy are the free people. They have the final say as to who they most trust to be in government; to do the job of government for the people. If your "democracy" fails that test, then it's a democracy in name only. It's a shame that politics have to come into it. Government should be "contractable" as is any other service, with contracts to provide deliverables and those undertaking the work being personally and corporately responsible for the delivery. If those tendering to provide services mis-represent, they can be held legally responsible and dealt with under criminal law. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | If builders built buildings the way programmers X against HTML mail | wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that / \ and postings | came along would destroy civilization. |