The unintended consequences of the government protecting you.

Inkara1 said:
1. It's spelled subtly.
Click to expand...

I tried "subtly" but it didn't look correct so I tried "subtley" and it didn't look right either. Just too lazy to go to dictionary.com to check.

Inkara1 said:
2. In your "subtle point," you said the kid should be in the front seat, but just now, you said it should be up to the parent's judgment. See an ever-so-slight contradiction in stances there?
Click to expand...

I do feel that the kid should be in the front seat next to the parent; but that is my personal opinion and is where I would place the child. At the same time, I do not want to take the option away from the parent as to where they place the child. I not only do not want it mandated that the child should be in the back seat; I also do not want it mandated that they should be in the front seat.

Inkara1 said:
3. Your "subtle point" still doesn't really say much. Do you want the kids in the back seat with rear-facing seats? In the back seat with front-facing seats? Do you want kids in the front seat with no passenger air bag? Do you want air bags which can be disabled (as pickup trucks are equipped with)? If you want no air bag, or a defeatable one, what do you do about the people driving the tens of millions of cars on the road today with dual frontal air bags? It setill seems like all you're doing is complaining instead of offering a solution or suggesting a course of action.
Click to expand...

Good points all.

I want the government to allow vehicle owners to disable the airbags -- permanently or switchably -- in the cars if they so desire regardless of their reasoning for doing so.

I do believe that transporting infant children facing rearward is a superior way to do so regardless of placement within the passenger compartment. This helps eliminate the whiplash effect in a frontal accident. It does not, however, eliminate it from rear impact collisions. Frontal crashes also tend to be more severe and at higher impact speeds than rear impact crashes.
 
jimpeel said:
How in the hell did we survive cars with no seatbelts, shoulder belts, airbags, non-locking steering wheels and ignitions, crush zones, impact bumpers, steel dashboards, protruding dash knobs, door handles, and window handles, suicide doors without kiddie locks, lighters that worked with the ignition off, and interlock systems.
Click to expand...


We drove safer. The more safe you make a process, the more risk a human will take when using that process.
 
Jim ... every airbag system can be disabled. It's called a fuse. 90% can also be disabled through the OBDII system. I know this, because anyone with a height of less that 5' can legally have that restraint system disabled at the dealership. Guess how tall my wife is. Also, most modern cars have a sensor in the front passenger's seat that detects any weight there. Sensed weight, but under X limit, the airbag disengages automatically. There's a specific warning about not putting bags and such on the seat because it mucks with the sensor.
 
All of our company trucks (GMs and Fords) have a switch, operated by the ignition key, to turn the passenger airbag off and on, since they don't have a back seat, I guess.
 
As to your argument about "out of sight out of mind", I must call bullshit. You show me one parent who believes that when their kids are out of their sight then they are off their minds. When you do, I'll show you an unfit parent. Every time.

I'm sorry. A competent parent does not FORGET their kid is in the fuggin car. Ever. Under any circumstance. This might explain why our subject here is a beer wench at Hooter's.
 
I know I never fell asleep in the backseat until seatbelt laws came along.
 
Professur said:
Jim ... every airbag system can be disabled. It's called a fuse. 90% can also be disabled through the OBDII system. I know this, because anyone with a height of less that 5' can legally have that restraint system disabled at the dealership. Guess how tall my wife is. Also, most modern cars have a sensor in the front passenger's seat that detects any weight there. Sensed weight, but under X limit, the airbag disengages automatically. There's a specific warning about not putting bags and such on the seat because it mucks with the sensor.
Click to expand...

That is not true of older systaem ans federal law prohibits tampering with the airbag system of disabling it on older vehicles.

Yes, the newest of the new cars do have sensors but not those built before about 2004 or so.
 
chcr said:
All of our company trucks (GMs and Fords) have a switch, operated by the ignition key, to turn the passenger airbag off and on, since they don't have a back seat, I guess.
Click to expand...

That is exactly why the system on pickups is allowed to be disabled. If it is safe to place the kid on the front seat of a pickup and disable the airbag; why is it NOT allowed for a person to do the exact same thing with ANY car?
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
As to your argument about "out of sight out of mind", I must call bullshit. You show me one parent who believes that when their kids are out of their sight then they are off their minds. When you do, I'll show you an unfit parent. Every time.

I'm sorry. A competent parent does not FORGET their kid is in the fuggin car. Ever. Under any circumstance. This might explain why our subject here is a beer wench at Hooter's.
Click to expand...

Then you also have to assume that all of tghe other parents who have left their kids are drunks that work at a bar. You also have to believe that every parent whose kid sneaks into the back yard and falls in the pool, runs into the street between parked cars, etc. is an unfit parent.
 
jimpeel said:
That is not true of older systaem ans federal law prohibits tampering with the airbag system of disabling it on older vehicles.

Yes, the newest of the new cars do have sensors but not those built before about 2004 or so.
Click to expand...



would it surprise you to know that The first two cars I ever drove in didn't have retractors on the shoulder belts? Shoulder belts were a second belt, bolted to the b-pillar. Systems improve with age. And to disable older systems 'legally' all you need is to replace the fuse with a blown one. Not a judge in the world would uphold a charge against that. Or have a signed letter that, on occasion, someone under 5' may have to drive your vehicle.

Or you could simply short the sensor and make it blow, cut it out, and drive. I don't believe there's a legal requirement to replace a used airbag, is there?
 
jimpeel said:
It all started so simply. First there were lap belts and children were injured by them, then shoulder belts and children were injured and killed by them, then airbags and children were injured and killed by them. Every step has been to try, unsuccessfully, to undo the wrong caused by the prior step. There has to eventually be a point where the admission comes that the entire thing has been a failure.
Click to expand...

I think you'll need some statistics showing it has been a failure. Got any?

Maybe something showing more people die now per 1000 drivers as than before these safety measure were implemented. I doubt that's true though.

Using some specific example of a idiot woman who left her child in the car doesn't make much of a point. Not to mention we don't know if kids were left in hot cars before seatbelts and child seats.
 
jimpeel said:
Then you also have to assume that all of tghe other parents who have left their kids are drunks that work at a bar. You also have to believe that every parent whose kid sneaks into the back yard and falls in the pool, runs into the street between parked cars, etc. is an unfit parent.
Click to expand...

No, I also have to assume that all those other parents are UNFIT, as I called them in MY post. And ya know what, chief? I do.

Sneaking into back yards and falling into pools...those are called accidents. They happen. Forgetting your kid is in your car is NOT an accident, it is a mental defect.

Kids running out from between parked cars...also an accident. Also an apple in this discussion about oranges.
 
Professur said:
would it surprise you to know that The first two cars I ever drove in didn't have retractors on the shoulder belts? Shoulder belts were a second belt, bolted to the b-pillar. Systems improve with age. And to disable older systems 'legally' all you need is to replace the fuse with a blown one. Not a judge in the world would uphold a charge against that. Or have a signed letter that, on occasion, someone under 5' may have to drive your vehicle.

Or you could simply short the sensor and make it blow, cut it out, and drive. I don't believe there's a legal requirement to replace a used airbag, is there?
Click to expand...

I am not sure if there is any legal requirement for replacing the used airbag but there definitely is a regulation on driving with it disabled and it being used makes it disabled. If the law can be stretched to its maximum iteration, it will be, especially if the ruling will put money in the government's coffers from your pocket.

Having a blown fuse would light up the indicator on the dashboard that the SRS was defective so saying that you were unaware of it being so would also require the replacement of that lamp with a blown one.
 
jimpeel said:
Then you also have to assume that all of tghe other parents who have left their kids are drunks that work at a bar.
Click to expand...

Not all drunks who work at a bar but simply people who have some priority, any priority, higher than the well-being of their children. Bad parents by definition.
 
spike said:
I think you'll need some statistics showing it has been a failure. Got any?
Click to expand...

43,000+ dead each and every year despite all of the mandated safety devices.

spike said:
Maybe something showing more people die now per 1000 drivers as than before these safety measure were implemented. I doubt that's true though.
Click to expand...

I could look at some stats but it will take soma time so stay on me about it so I will remember.

spike said:
Using some specific example of a idiot woman who left her child in the car doesn't make much of a point. Not to mention we don't know if kids were left in hot cars before seatbelts and child seats.
Click to expand...

I was left in the car when I was a kid while my folks would go in and go shopping. That was in the 50s before it became politically incorrect to do so. This was not while I was an infant and I was able to roll down as many windows as I desired.

What we, here in America, see as incompetence in child rearing is quite normal in other countries. Remember when that couple from Sweden left their infant child outside a restaurant in NYC while they went inside to eat? Made all the papers.

It seems that this is what is usual and customary in Sweden; and there are always numerous baby carriages outside of restaurants there. Here, it was neglect and child endangerment. There it is just plain normal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top