From: Larry G on
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.

hey.. aren't you the guy that thinks there should be a regulation that
says " keep right except to pass"?
From: Larry G on
On May 10, 8:23 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2010-05-10, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 7:19 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...(a)wvu.edu> wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> It appears you have a reading comprehension problem when it comes to
> examples being cited. He's giving an example of how government
> regulation, the system of it, the concept of it, the process of it, is
> faulty.  
>
> No one person or small group can have all the information. The government
> is incapable of producing the variation that the free market is capable
> of. The free market could develop a load-cell in the seat and simple
> detect switches in the seatbelts that varies the airbag force. It could
> make the airbags user selectable. It could solve the problem that would
> still let people use the front seats of their vehicles as freely as they
> did 20 years ago. But government cannot allow that. Government, knowing
> it made a mistake cannot even admit to it and allow correction after 20
> years.
>
> On top of everything else the small group of regulators cannot possibly
> have all the information that covers every individuals' choice. It has to
> force one-size-fits-all regulation on us as a collective. It's the very
> nature of government and its legions of enforcers that mandate
> one-size-fits all. They couldn't function even with the wide variety of
> toilet paper the market gives us, let alone diverse technologies, needs,
> and preferences.

regulation does not prevent innovation especially if the regulation
focuses on results and not implementation. I have a Tundra that has an
on/off switch for the passenger airbag.

there are airbags out there right now that are configurable according
to weight sensed.

you're flat wrong about this.

cars have to meet certain requirements for crashes - the government
does NOT specify the design but only that the the crash dummy must
meet standards for injury.

you're just flat wrong guy.

regulation can be dumb -yes - but regulation can be smart also.. just
because govt is doing it does not make it incapable of being smart.

your govt regulation is what keeps those Nukes from repeating 3mi
island.

and yes. 3 mile island was regulated and found to be insufficient.

The solution was NOT to remove all regulation but to fix the
regulation.

you're still stuck in the mindset that govt cannot change.. and you're
proven wrong every day...

the title of this thread asks that very question... should the govt be
involved in drive-by-wire standards ( not designs) or should each
company just do whatever it thinks and if something goes wrong - it's
no body's business because it's their proprietary data - right? The
public would never know if their code failed or not - correct?




From: Arif Khokar on
On 5/10/2010 7:40 PM, Larry G wrote:

> 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?

That can be done without regulation. Take, for instance, side airbags.
They're not required by the government but some cars are still
equipped with them. Anti-lock brakes are not required, but some models
are equipped with them. Stability control systems are not required by
the government, but some cars are equipped with them.

IOW, we have safety features added to vehicles that weren't the result
of government regulation, but from the market trying to sell safety as a
incentive to buy. The consumer still has a choice not to pay for the
extra cost of one or all of those safety features though.

OTOH, we do have a number of stupid regulations that really have no
benefit, like having tire pressure sensors that add to the cost of the
car as well as the cost of mounting new tires. Then there are other
regulations that require that headlamps produce too much glare for the
dubious reason of illuminating overhead signs and then another
regulation that limits the hotspot brightness of high beams to half of
what the rest of the world allows.

IMO, automakers shouldn't be limited in what they do by regulations. If
they have a better system or decide not to include a system at all, then
they should be allowed to do so.
From: Larry G on
On May 11, 10:29 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...(a)wvu.edu> wrote:
> On 5/10/2010 7:40 PM, Larry G wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> That can be done without regulation.  Take, for instance, side airbags.
>   They're not required by the government but some cars are still
> equipped with them.  Anti-lock brakes are not required, but some models
> are equipped with them.  Stability control systems are not required by
> the government, but some cars are equipped with them.
>
> IOW, we have safety features added to vehicles that weren't the result
> of government regulation, but from the market trying to sell safety as a
> incentive to buy.  The consumer still has a choice not to pay for the
> extra cost of one or all of those safety features though.
>
> OTOH, we do have a number of stupid regulations that really have no
> benefit, like having tire pressure sensors that add to the cost of the
> car as well as the cost of mounting new tires.  Then there are other
> regulations that require that headlamps produce too much glare for the
> dubious reason of illuminating overhead signs and then another
> regulation that limits the hotspot brightness of high beams to half of
> what the rest of the world allows.
>
> IMO, automakers shouldn't be limited in what they do by regulations.  If
> they have a better system or decide not to include a system at all, then
> they should be allowed to do so.

Oh I agree with pretty much everything you say - but even you admit we
need SOME regulation and the disagreement is not over whether we
should have NONE what-so-ever.

right?

and yes.. it was private group Consumers Reports that found out that
he Lexus ESC was faulty/malfunctioning but if you know much about CR,
they have very, very limited resources - not near enough to test every
vehicle for every potential flaw and CR itself will tell you this.

If one of the best brands in the business - Lexus - did not
voluntarily test and find and inform owners of this problem then why
would anyone expect companies in general to voluntarily report these
problems?

The companies themselves have an essential conflict of interest. In an
unregulated environment, they'd never report their flaws because it
harms their own interests.
From: Larry G on
On May 12, 9:23 am, "Floyd Rogers" <fbloogy...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" <akhokar1...(a)wvu.edu> wrote> On 5/10/2010 7:40 PM, Larry G wrote:
> > ...
>
>  > That can be done without regulation.  Take, for instance, side airbags.
>
> >  They're not required by the government but some cars are still equipped
> > with them.  Anti-lock brakes are not required, but some models are
> > equipped with them.  Stability control systems are not required by the
> > government, but some cars are equipped with them.
>
> > IOW, we have safety features added to vehicles that weren't the result of
> > government regulation, but from the market trying to sell safety as a
> > incentive to buy.  The consumer still has a choice not to pay for the
> > extra cost of one or all of those safety features though.
>
> You are only partially correct, Arif.
> 1)  stability control systems are (or shortly will) be required for
> all vehicles in 2012.  The recent recall of the Lexus GS470 was
> to correct a flaw in their system.
> 2)  Although side-curtain airbags are not required, vehicles are
> required to take a side-impact test; those airbags are the best -
> and cheapest way - to pass the test with 5 stars.

"2) Although side-curtain airbags are not required, vehicles are
required to take a side-impact test; those airbags are the best -
and cheapest way - to pass the test with 5 stars. "

this is another example of the govt setting a standard and letting the
car manufacturers figure out how to meet that standard in the most
cost effective way - without the govt getting involved in specifying a
solution.

I believe that MOST PEOPLE .. SUPPORT this kind of regulation.

there are those opposed for sure and on a percentage basis it may
actually be 30% give or take but the vast majority of people -
virtually every soccer mom and Dad in the country are going to be in
favor of the govt setting standards for impacts.

The argument is not about whether or not the country supports
regulation, it's about how much we should have (or not have)...

Brent apparently belongs to the group that wants none.

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?