Prev: Does this ever happen to you?
Next: Public Transit?
From: Larry G on 10 May 2010 12:38
On May 10, 10:08 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, necromancer
> <Zidane's_Last_Red_Card(a)worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 09 May 2010 19:13:02 -0400, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...(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.  
>
> A better solution is to make airbags optional. Why should someone who
> will never use the airbags be forced to pay for them?
> --
> The MFFY Litmus Test:
> If your maneuver forces another driver who has the right-of-way
> to alter course or speed, what you did was probably MFFY.

same deal with seat belts or laminated glass or structural standards
for side/front impact?

See what I am asking here is - should we have NO REGULATIONS or not?

Brent is essentially arguing that regulations don't work and cites the
failures.

I'm asking .. are you okay with the basic concept of regulations and
required safety but disagree with individual instances?

so .. no mandatory safety features on cars?

yea or nay?
From: Larry G on 10 May 2010 12:42
On May 10, 9:33 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2010-05-10, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > you need to go live in a place that does not have regulation for a few
> > days or months so you can be brought back to reality guy... regulation
> > sucks.. I agree.. it's does not prevent deaths and injuries; it is
> > full of loopholes and exclusions that unfairly benefit some at the
> > expense of others, it's dumb, redundant and ineffective - but it is
> > way the heck better than none which we know abundantly from experience
> > is much worse.
>
> You mean live in a place where the regulation allows those favored by
> government to do even worse things. Your government school /
> mainstream media use of unregulated is not what I propose at all. But
> what I propose is something that wouldn't allow favored buisnesses to
> poison me and you AT ALL.  Your definition of "unregulated" is where
> favored businesses get to foul other people's property at will. That's
> not a lack of regulation, that's the government telling the people
> without political influence to go pound sand when their rights are
> violated. That's just a regulatory system more skewed for the political
> insiders than the present one in the US.
>
> > you just cannot reconcile the idea that nothing works perfectly as
> > intended ..therefore in your mind it means it's a failure ....
>
> It does work as intended, it's intent to is shut people up about their
> property rights being violated while those with the favor of government
> can spew at least some their toxins on their neighbors.
>
> > even your precious ideas of private things like UL, ANSI, ISO, DIN,
> > etc .. they FAIL also guy..
>
> Can you deliberately miss my point any more than you are? Their
> 'failure' is that some company or companies find ways to greatly exceed
> the requirements. Then they up the requirements. That's the beauty of
> private requirements, they don't stifle the way government requirements
> do. Ferrari wanted to sell a car in the USA with nice racing harness.
> The US government made them remove it and replace it with a 3 point
> belt. Tell me, which is safer, the racing harness or the three point
> belt?
>
> > the truth is anything designed by a human ..will FAIL.. as well as
> > anything designed by nature...   mutants  (mistakes) happen.. that's
> > life.. the antidote to mutants is not - having life to start with
> > because mutants are part of the "experience".
>
> These aren't mistakes. These aren't failures. The regulatory system is
> DESIGNED politically for the insiders by the insiders. It's to create a
> false sense of safety for buyers of products, for those living near the
> pollution sources, for those drinking the water.
>
> I'm supposed to feel safe because BP dumps within the limits that the
> federal government sets. Which feels free to increase those limits for
> BP when it desires. I'm also suppose to pay for filtering out from
> the water I use most of the toxins BP dumps into the water supply that
> happened to be in when it was pulled from the lake. Why can't BP deal
> with waste in a more responsible manner and roll the cost of that up in
> their fuel price instead? Why does it get to dump tons upon tons of
> toxins into the lake when some regular guy can probably be busted if he
> tosses a beer bottle into the lake?

some companies exceed requirements. other companies will not. If there
is heavy competition, then many companies will cut corners to provide
a cheaper product.

again.. you're basically arguing that because you can cite regulations
that don't work well that regulation in general is a failed idea - at
least that's what I hear.

Do you or do you not support regulation as a concept?

cut to the chase here. do you support SOME regulation but not other
regulation?

no weaseling.. fess up
From: Larry G on 10 May 2010 13:02
On May 10, 12:45 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2010-05-10, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Brent - how would ANYONE know about what harmful substances are in ANY
> > PRODUCT?  how would you know?

that's my point. 9 times out of 10 without the govt requiring
disclosure it would not happen and you would not know.
>
> I don't. Which is why I don't buy FDA approved Apple Juice made from
> concentrate from China. I know how things are often done in china so I
> avoid it.  How do you know?  

how do you know the non-China food is okay?
>
> > you keep talking about some silly letter.. as if that is proof that
> > all companies will always tell you when there is a problem.
>
> Silly letter? You saying that government, run by bigger sociopaths than
> any corporation and without the checks that corporations would have in a
> free market somehow has our best interests in mind? Why? It has no
> reason to care, no reason to create any sort of system that does any
> more but lull us back to sleep so they can continue business as usual
> with their friends.

no letter from one company is going to stop abuses from other
companies that won't write letters and won't not use unsafe substances
and won't tell you -without the govt.
>
> > the tuna mercury regulations are for the companies to DISCLOSE the
> > levels of mercury in their product - that govt knows that it cannot
> > control on a worldwide basis - yet so the regulation was to warn those
> > who might be harmed ... disclosure...
>
> How is that possible without destroying the fish? The fish companies
> didn't add the Hg, it got into the fish because government said that
> it's favored businesses could dump toxins into the water.

you test the flesh guy. and you then tell customers how much mercury
is in the flesh.
it's not about whose fault it is. it's about telling customers the
truth and letting customers decide if the risk is worth it or not.

some fish at certain places and in certain stages of their life bio-
accumulate mercury EVEN if there were an effective world-wide ban on
mercury releases.

you're saying the govt "allows" it at the same time you're arguing
that the govt should not regulate... how can you argue both sides of
this?

even if the govt does regulate - they can't keep the mercury out of
some kinds of fish.

but they can warn people who should be careful about it - kids and
pregnant women - the same way you'd warn someone of a natural but
dangerous condition.

>
> > just as we talk about industry disclosing unsafe conditions in their
> > products.
>
> When is government going to disclose the unsafe conditions it causes?
> Oh, that's right, it's "National Security", we aren't allowed to know.

they DO DISCLOSE .. some but not all. There are, right now, superfund
sites on military bases..

again.. the govt regulates and yes.. it does a crappy job of it on
some things.. and a long, long way from airtight and without
corruption but the alternative is NOT - NO REGULATION. that's DUMB.

do you support the concept of regulation? yes or no?


From: Arif Khokar on 10 May 2010 19:19
On 5/10/2010 4:34 AM, Larry G wrote:
> On May 9, 7:13 pm, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...(a)wvu.edu> wrote:

>> 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.

> this is the "one size fits all" ...."effect" of regulation... but I'm
> not sure making them option is a better solution.

Why wouldn't it be? I would certainly like a choice where I could get a
car without one if the person who was driving it was relatively short.

Come to think of it, what I detailed above is an excellent example of
the point Brent was making about government regulation. Had automakers
been allowed to equip their vehicles with less powerful airbags that
deployed at higher collision speeds (i. e., designed for belted
occupants), they certainly could have. Unfortunately, government
regulation forced them to equip their vehicles with airbags designed to
protect larger unbelted occupants. As a result, there were deaths and
one decapitation from airbag deployment in a parking lot speed collision.

From: Larry G on 10 May 2010 19:40
On May 10, 7:19 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...(a)wvu.edu> wrote:
> On 5/10/2010 4:34 AM, Larry G wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 9, 7:13 pm, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...(a)wvu.edu>  wrote:
> >> 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.
> > this is the "one size fits all" ...."effect" of regulation... but I'm
> > not sure making them option is a better solution.
>
> Why wouldn't it be?  I would certainly like a choice where I could get a
> car without one if the person who was driving it was relatively short.
>
> Come to think of it, what I detailed above is an excellent example of
> the point Brent was making about government regulation.  Had automakers
> been allowed to equip their vehicles with less powerful airbags that
> deployed at higher collision speeds (i. e., designed for belted
> occupants), they certainly could have.  Unfortunately, government
> regulation forced them to equip their vehicles with airbags designed to
> protect larger unbelted occupants.  As a result, there were deaths and
> one decapitation from airbag deployment in a parking lot speed collision.

ya'll are citing a one-size fits all issue with some kinds of
regulation in a specific instance - and what I'm asking is do you
support the CONCEPT of regulation but when we get down into the wees -
you have your druthers.. and I have mine?

inevitably with much regulation - and technology - it's starts off
with some things that are not granular enough in implementation. a car
may have several owners - and drivers.. what are you going to do? you
put a big driver in a seat with a small airbag and he has an accident
and dies - from too small an airbag.

is the answer to not have ANY regulation at all or is the answer to
have regulation that is less than perfect and choices made ...lessons
learned.. regulations improved, technology improved?

this is ot that different in uniformity issues perspectives than
highway design, signage, materials, etc... we just had a big
discussion on guardrails and other devices to stop big and small
vehicles ... and compromises required an consequences of those
compromises. Do we decide because we cannot design and built the
optimal guardrail that we should not have them?

regulations are like guardrails.. in many respects.

I just think the current "popular" "we don't need no stinkin
regulation" is just abject ignorance of the who idea of regulation in
terms of a needed govt concept.

I totally agree that we can find innumerable dumb, redundant, awful,
corrupt, wrong regulation.. yes indeed.. do we need it? yes.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Prev: Does this ever happen to you?
Next: Public Transit?