Airbag Regulation

[miata13B]

Originally posted by milefile
Airbags are clearly a different thing. Brakes protect everyone else as much as they protect the driver of the car. Airbags, however, only protect the driver and nobody else. In fact they may even be a danger in that they might give drivers a false sense of security, causing them to be more reckless.

This is all reminding me I need a brake job and I've been procrastinating. With brake jobs that always means you're basically ripping yourself off. Can you say "new rotors"?

Do you do your own brake jobs, They usually equate to 50 to 90 bucks saved. . .

Does anyone remember back in the early 90's when kids would steal cars and run them into walls to make the airbags deploy?

Now who feels a false sense of security with airbags. I certainly do not have any security with the airbags right in front of my face ready to explode. Plus then with a regulated airbags what about the accidents for those that work on them? They are always at risk with the airbags right in front of their faces?

How about a search on accidents with those saved by airbags and those injuried worse by airbags. What about airbags that accidently exploded and recalls on them???

 

[TurboSmoke]

Originally posted by milefile


Why not have cars with no steering, too?

in rome, these cars are legal.

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by danoff
The blame lies with the person who drove the car without brakes.

And what would we do with no-brakes car owner? You can't prosecute him as a criminal; he's not broken any laws. You can slap him with civil suit for wrongful death, but there's a 50% chance you spend 5 years in court, spend thousands and he still walks. Can you actually prove beyond reasonable doubt he acted with reckless disregard? How? His car was in legal working order and he drove it as the manufactuer intended.

Even if the judge orders a settlement, he can still declare personal bankrupcy and not pay a dime. Bottom line is someone is dead and there was little to no incentive on the part of the public to prevent that death.

Originally posted by danoff
Duke makes a distinction between guns and cars without brakes, but has he really thought about whether or not a car without brakes might be useful?

The gun/car analogy has limited usefulness. To the vast majority of the public, the gun is primarily a recreational item, while a car is not. Plus, a car is intended for use in a public area, while a gun is not. The analogy falls apart under scrutiny.

Originally posted by danoff
Henry Ford didn't have to put brakes on the first car, but he did.

On a side note not related to discussion: Enzo Ferrari was rumored to have declared good brakes had no place in his race cars, because a race car's mission was to go faster, not slower. When the disc brake equiped Jaguars began to pass if Ferraris in the braking zones, he finally began fitting his cars with disc brakes.

Originally posted by danoff
They could be liable if they didn't adequetly warn the consumer.

Why? Just admitting the car may be dangerous would open themselves up to liablity in the first place. They can easily say the car met all federal and state safety guidelines for a road vehicle, and they'd be right.

I didn't really want to focus too much on the 'no brakes' tangent, because it is really not central to the thread. I take issue with this line of reasoning only because it reminds me of something I would have argued back in college; back when I was a deep supporter of a totally "hands off" laissez-faire capitalism. I am not anymore.


M

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by danoff
Horn???? What the hell?

Danoff, you DO realize the horn was originally intended as a safety device, right? So that someone who may not see you can at least hear you and be alerted to your presence in time to avoid a collision? I know my horn has saved me from several.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry that even someone as bright as yourself don't recall the proper use of a horn because such use has been so throughly hijacked in modern times.

The windshield wiper is a no brainer to me. Why wouldn't you want to make sure people aren't effectively blind when it starts to rain hard?

Originally posted by danoff
Maybe it shouldn't be on the taxpayer's dime. The fact that the healthcare system is screwed up isn't the fault of the automakers.

That's another thread entirely, isn't it?


M

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by miata13B
You are a lucky man to be able to do that : ) - Especially after reading a ton of useless posts off of this Site. . .

Well, let me amend that statement. It was spoken in some haste. Its not just people I actually come into direct contact with, but rather everything I read and hear about.

I pretty much never get uptight about what I read HERE at GTPlanet, because what goes on here doesn't really impact much of anything in the real world.

I'm much less cynical today, btw. My wife going out of town and leaving me alone with the kid was definately stressing me out.

Originally posted by miata13B
As for losing the most precious person in my life would probably lead to a longtime of contemplation of life and the way it works. . . A couple of suicide thoughts, a couple genocide thoughts and fianlly a ton of drowning myself in depression for a longtime if not the rest of my life. . .

If a doctor said that to me, I'd put him on his own operating table.


M

 

[Danoff]

And what would we do with no-brakes car owner? You can't prosecute him as a criminal; he's not broken any laws. You can slap him with civil suit for wrongful death, but there's a 50% chance you spend 5 years in court, spend thousands and he still walks. Can you actually prove beyond reasonable doubt he acted with reckless disregard? How? His car was in legal working order and he drove it as the manufactuer intended.

How is this different from a person who simply doesn’t use the working brakes in his/her car?

Here’s the definition of criminal involuntary manslaughter:

“In order for a person to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person;

Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and

Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others.”

You would only need to prove that the defendant knew that the brakes were in poor working order to prosecute him criminally.

Here’s the definition of criminal negligent homicide:

“…negligent homicide, is the killing of another person through gross negligence or without malice. It can also be considered a death that is the result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, which includes the operation of a boat or snowmobile. In some states, the term negligent homicide replaces the terminology of manslaughter (involuntary) with similar defining. Unintentional killing(s) in which the actor(s) should have known they were creating substantial and unjustified risks of death by conduct that grossly deviated from ordinary care summarizes the relationship between the definitions of these terms”

I see no inconsistency with defining the operation of a motor vehicle with poorly working brakes as negligent without making that action illegal. I’m noticing that you have a very cynical view of our criminal justice system.

Even if the judge orders a settlement, he can still declare personal bankrupcy and not pay a dime. Bottom line is someone is dead and there was little to no incentive on the part of the public to prevent that death.

Declaring bankruptcy is not something that people enjoy, it is its own disincentive. The ability to declare bankruptcy is always present in civil cases though, so I don’t see your point in bringing it up. Civil cases are still a disincentive for all kinds of actions.

The gun/car analogy has limited usefulness. To the vast majority of the public, the gun is primarily a recreational item, while a car is not. Plus, a car is intended for use in a public area, while a gun is not. The analogy falls apart under scrutiny.

I agree. Let’s not use it.

On a side note not related to discussion: Enzo Ferrari was rumored to have declared good brakes had no place in his race cars, because a race car's mission was to go faster, not slower. When the disc brake equiped Jaguars began to pass if Ferraris in the braking zones, he finally began fitting his cars with disc brakes.

Sounds like the problem was solved via the free market. I’m glad that the government didn’t step in and require that Ferrari increase the performance of their brakes to make sure nobody got hurt.

Why? Just admitting the car may be dangerous would open themselves up to liablity in the first place. They can easily say the car met all federal and state safety guidelines for a road vehicle, and they'd be right.

Do we have to have federal guidelines for everything to be able to hold a company liable? I guess we should have federal guidelines for the temperature that a coffee pot can get coffee, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to hold the company liable if I burned myself. Oh wait, I shouldn’t be able to hold the company liable.

It’s one thing if a company misleads a consumer, but if the corporation tells the buyer that the car has no brakes, and the buyer goes out and crashes the car… it’s the buyer’s fault. You don’t need federal regulations to be able to hold people at fault, only laws that say you have to operate your motor vehicle without killing people.

Danoff, you DO realize the horn was originally intended as a safety device, right? So that someone who may not see you can at least hear you and be alerted to your presence in time to avoid a collision? I know my horn has saved me from several.

Yes I do realize that. Should it be required??!!?? Active stability management might save you from an accident, should it be required?? Volvo has lots of automated safety features in their cars… will they be next? How much are cars going to end up costing just so that the government can mandate that everyone own the safest car?

I took driver’s ed. at one point. I know what the purpose of the horn is, but I don’t think it should be required on cars just like I don’t think everyone should own runflat tires and a vehicle with a 5 star government crash test rating (which shouldn’t exist anyway).

The windshield wiper is a no brainer to me. Why wouldn't you want to make sure people aren't effectively blind when it starts to rain hard?

Jesus Christ man!!! Require people to have working windshield wipers?! What kind? How well do they have to work? Are we required to actually use these wipers when it rains. What if I only drive my car when it is sunny and it’s against my religion to own windshield wipers? Do you honestly have so little faith in humanity that you think that if windshield wipers weren’t required on cars nobody would own them? To the best of my knowledge here in California I’m not required to have working wipers on my car. I still see people with them blazing away when it’s raining.

 

[miata13B]

Originally posted by ///M-Spec
Well, let me amend that statement. It was spoken in some haste. Its not just people I actually come into direct contact with, but rather everything I read and hear about.

I pretty much never get uptight about what I read HERE at GTPlanet, because what goes on here doesn't really impact much of anything in the real world.

I'm much less cynical today, btw. My wife going out of town and leaving me alone with the kid was definately stressing me out.

Actually, I must reinterate what I stated there myself. . . A haste thing too, and especially coming from the other side of the rabbit hole here. I do not have any children. I do have friends that have children too. Mind you I do want kids, but Kristien and I discussed on a few occasions about how many, She wants three and I want two. I know that will probably change after sometime and especially after the first child. . . Throughout high school I always use to boast about how horrible this world is and how I would never want to bring someone into it. To keep this on track ///M Remember that thread about the lady killing her daughter and daughter's friend getting 18 ro 36 years in prison? It is stuff like that which scares me of bringing some into this world. I am scared for our future, I am scared that the level of societies out there really have not done anything to better themselves and I am scared of our future "leaders" whomever they are. I truly think it is wonderful that you can look at your little lady and feel that comfort. . . I am somewhat envious of that, but I understand one day I will feel that. . .

If a doctor said that to me, I'd put him on his own operating table.


M

Let me also Reinterate that staement as well. . . The SOB would not be on the operating table, he would be gator food

 

[///M-Spec]

Danoff, I'll divide my post into two parts. The first and more important part focuses on the core issue at hand while the rest deals with specific arguments.

The way I see it, the core issue is (and often is) how much government interference into the affairs of its citizens is acceptable in the name of public safety? Specifically, how does this issue apply to automobiles?

We already accept many forms of government rules and laws when it comes to operating our motor vehicles. How fast? Where? When do I stop, when do I turn? This is all stuff that Uncle Sam has figured out for us so our daily commute doesn't turn into a Mad Max sequence. We even let the DOT take ugly pictures of us so we can be readily indentified when and if we break these rules.

To me, a working brake system, lights and sidemarkers, windshield wipers and yes, a horn are all part of the same package. It makes no sense to accept one without the others, because each are TIME PROVEN safety measures that enhance public safety. These items are inexpensive and do not add un-due cost or complexity to a car. I even believe the government was right in mandating LATCH child-seat attachment points.

On the other hand, items that are costly or complex which exist ONLY TO ENHANCE safety items (ABS, ASC, airbags) that already exist should be up to the car maker and the public.

I deeply would like to believe that the general public is smart and educated enough to always make good, safe choices. But it is not. For every person that makes a good choice, there is someone who doesn't. And even good people make mistakes sometimes as well.

So I state once again: I do not believe punitive action alone is sufficient in detering someone from acting in a reckless manner---in this specific case. NO AMOUNT OF PUNITIVE ACTION CAN RETURN A LOST LIFE.

Now, for the details....

Originally posted by danoff
How is this different from a person who simply doesn’t use the working brakes in his/her car?

Here’s the definition of criminal involuntary manslaughter:

You would only need to prove that the defendant knew that the brakes were in poor working order to prosecute him criminally.

Here’s the definition of criminal negligent homicide:

I see no inconsistency with defining the operation of a motor vehicle with poorly working brakes as negligent without making that action illegal.

I don't claim to know the numbers and we can look them up if you wish, but I'd wager that if you looked into the actual records, you will find that many people are not criminally prosecuted for traffic incidents resulting in death or injury. This is because while you or I may not have much trouble determining blame and subsequent punishment for an offender on a discussion forum, it is much, much harder in real life.

As a personal adecdote, a co-worker of mine's 17 year old son lost control of his truck last year, and ended up killing a man. The truck was in good working order, the boy was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol and he was not speeding at the time. There was no clear reason for him to have lost control of his vehicle, yet he did --and it cost a man his life: a father of two children, someone's son, someone's husband. No charges were ever brought on my co-worker's son and if there is a civil case pending, I don't know about it. This sort of stuff happens all the time, because while laws are clear defining criminal negligence, proving it in court is a whole 'nother ball game.

Originally posted by danoff
I’m noticing that you have a very cynical view of our criminal justice system.

Possibly. But it is just as likely that you have an unwarrantedly optimistic view of it. My M3 was rear ended 2 years ago by a women who had no insurance. The damage was less than my deductable so it was essentially money out of my own pocket because it would have cost me more to take her to court, seek settlement and then the likelyhood I would actually COLLECT was almost nil. Thankfully my wife or her passenger was not injured, otherwise it would have become a real nightmare.

This lies at the root of our disagreement and is why I am having so much trouble accepting your 'no brakes automobile'. Our laws governing traffic violations and responsibility is extremely lax. In fact, our entire judical system is notoriously leniant.

A country where the justice system was tough enough to truly persuade people from endangering each other through punitive means alone is a scary sounding place to me, however.

Originally posted by danoff
Declaring bankruptcy is not something that people enjoy, it is its own disincentive. The ability to declare bankruptcy is always present in civil cases though, so I don’t see your point in bringing it up. Civil cases are still a disincentive for all kinds of actions.

I personally know someone who is in the process of declaring bankruptcy for the second time in her life. She is almost 60. The people she owes money to will never see it. The disincentive was clearly not enough for her.

Originally posted by danoff
Sounds like the problem was solved via the free market. I’m glad that the government didn’t step in and require that Ferrari increase the performance of their brakes to make sure nobody got hurt.

Well, the anecdote refered to race cars, not street cars, but I understand your statement anyway.

Originally posted by danoff
Do we have to have federal guidelines for everything to be able to hold a company liable?

I wish we didn't.

Originally posted by danoff
It’s one thing if a company misleads a consumer, but if the corporation tells the buyer that the car has no brakes, and the buyer goes out and crashes the car… it’s the buyer’s fault.

Yes, you and I can agree there. But it is cold comfort for the victims, isn't it?

Originally posted by danoff
Yes I do realize that. Should it be required??!!?? Active stability management might save you from an accident, should it be required??

I already said yes, they should be required. ACS and other features do not, because they enhance systems already on the car.

Originally posted by danoff
Jesus Christ man!!! Require people to have working windshield wipers?! What kind? How well do they have to work? Are we required to actually use these wipers when it rains. What if I only drive my car when it is sunny and it’s against my religion to own windshield wipers?

Danoff, did I say something to upset you? This kind of outburst is not like you. Wipers are, IMO baseline technologies that should be required at time of purchase.

Originally posted by danoff
Do you honestly have so little faith in humanity that you think that if windshield wipers weren’t required on cars nobody would own them?

I believe that there are many good, responsible people in this world. I also believe that there are many bad, nasty, or just plain dumb people as well. I think the government needs to take reasonable steps to strongly discourage certain people from hurting other people. That is the whole story, danoff. The only thing we really disagree on is WHICH STEPS.


M

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by miata13B
I truly think it is wonderful that you can look at your little lady and feel that comfort. . . I am somewhat envious of that, but I understand one day I will feel that. . .

It's corny, but my faith in humanity on the whole is restored every time I look at my child. We are all born with the capacity for so much.


M

 

[Danoff]

///M

Yea, you said something that upset me. I'll make a more elaborate response in a little while, but I'm still shocked that someone like yourself would think that a horn should be required on a car. I understand your (flawed ) logic, but you've defeated the same logic in different subjects.

I'll write more as soon as I can.

 

[Danoff]

We already accept many forms of government rules and laws when it comes to operating our motor vehicles. How fast? Where? When do I stop, when do I turn? This is all stuff that Uncle Sam has figured out for us so our daily commute doesn't turn into a Mad Max sequence. We even let the DOT take ugly pictures of us so we can be readily indentified when and if we break these rules.

Agreed. The government controls lots of aspects of the car, like how many lights are on it, where they need to be, what color they have to be and so on. This is all to make sure that other people are properly protected from you and you from them.

To me, a working brake system, lights and sidemarkers, windshield wipers and yes, a horn are all part of the same package. It makes no sense to accept one without the others, because each are TIME PROVEN safety measures that enhance public safety. These items are inexpensive and do not add un-due cost or complexity to a car. I even believe the government was right in mandating LATCH child-seat attachment points.

Lights and sidemarkers help other people see you. They are necessary to protect other people from hitting you while driving at night. By the way, who gets to decide what is an un-due cost or complexity?

Windshield wipers, horns, and brakes are all to help the driver in one way or another. Windshield wipers help the driver see, brakes help the driver control the car, and horns help the driver get other people to notice him. Horns are not intended for other people’s safety, they’re intended for your own safety. If horns were intended for other people’s safety, they would be automated and there would be regulations about when you have to use them.

Other devices that are designed for the driver’s safety include:
Safety Belts
Steering wheels
ABS
ASC
Airbags

And then there’s car seat belt latches which aren’t even for the driver’s safety, but for utility purposes only.

On the other hand, items that are costly or complex which exist ONLY TO ENHANCE safety items (ABS, ASC, airbags) that already exist should be up to the car maker and the public.

I don’t understand this argument. What difference does it make if it enhances a current system? The shoulder strap on a seat belt enhances the seat belt. ASC doesn’t enhance anything, it’s a new feature altogether.

I deeply would like to believe that the general public is smart and educated enough to always make good, safe choices. But it is not. For every person that makes a good choice, there is someone who doesn't. And even good people make mistakes sometimes as well.

And we all have to live with that, regardless of how many regulations you slap on auto manufacturers.

So I state once again: I do not believe punitive action alone is sufficient in detering someone from acting in a reckless manner---in this specific case. NO AMOUNT OF PUNITIVE ACTION CAN RETURN A LOST LIFE.

I agree that punitive action cannot return a lost life, but I believe that it is effective in deterring many people from acting in a reckless manner. So is the possibility of criminal charges.


Let me ask you this ///M, so many people get killed every year in auto accidents, is it even worth having the freedom to drive at all? Yes.

Are a few more deaths worth having the freedom to turn on your own lights when it gets dark? Yes.

How about more for having the freedom to use your federally required horn when you feel like it rather than having it automated? Yes.

How about more for having the freedom to use or not use your windshield wipers? Yes.

How about letting a few more people die to give them a choice whether or not to buy a car with airbags, ABS, ACS, horns, windshield wipers, seatbelts or brakes.

There are many reasons why someone might not want to buy all the safety equipment and who are you to tell them that in order to drive, they have to?

Also, is it necessary for people who never intend to have children to buy latches for car seats they’ll never use? That doesn’t make sense to me. How about leaving it up to the auto manufacturer.


I’ll get to the rest in a bit.

 

[TurboSmoke]

good post there dan my man...

but i disagree with what you said here..

Originally posted by danoff
Horns are not intended for other people’s safety, they’re intended for your own safety. If horns were intended for other people’s safety, they would be automated and there would be regulations about when you have to use them.

to quote the Highway Code..

Horn: Use only while your vehicle is moving and when you need to warn other road users of your presence.

that to me would indicate that you pose the threat to them, not the other way round. i know it can be interpreted in a number of ways but i have always used my horn to let cyclists and drivers know that i am here lest they swerve out in front of me...just a light tap on the horn is all thats required, not a long blast.

 

[Danoff]

There is nothing that says that you can't use a horn for other people's safety, but the quote you posted

Horn: Use only while your vehicle is moving and when you need to warn other road users of your presence.

Would indicate to me that you're trying to keep other people from hitting you - protecting yourself and your car.

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by danoff
I’ll get to the rest in a bit.

I'll wait for the whole thing.... I'm GFD anyway. Danoff, before these posts become excessively large, can we agree to not rehash the same disagreement over and over again? There only so many ways we can argue over a simple, fundamental difference --where a line is drawn. I see this quickly headed towards an en passé.

If I've somehow offended you, please accept my apology. (EDIT unless you're just offended that we can't agree, in which case, tough doo-doo ) I don't know what it may have been, but please understand it was not intentional.

Have a good weekend.


M

 

[Danoff]

Ok, I looked at the rest of it and there's not too much to respond to.

You haven't upset me, I was just shocked to see that you want so much government invovlement. Thank you for apologizing but there's nothing to apologize for. We're cool. I was just surprised.

The brakes thing is stupid (even though I'm right) so let's agree to drop it. Neither of us wants to see any cars on the road without brakes, nor does anyone else, so it's really totally moot.

I take issue with the horn, wipers and childseats though for different reasons.

I don't believe in protecting people from themselves. If someone wants to buy a car without a horn or windshield wipers and they’re less protected because of it, I don’t see a problem with that. The same person could buy a federally regulated car and simply not use those options, so it’s not like the world would be less safe if manufacturers weren’t required to offer those things.

Your statements that say things like “It doesn’t cost much and it improves safety” don’t make any sense to me. Who cares how much it costs or whether it improves safety? How does that make it right to force people to buy it? Carbon monoxide detectors don’t cost much and improve safety but I’m not required to buy one.

I know what the core of your problem is here. You’re wanting to force other people to be careful and not hurt you. Some of that is ok, where to draw the line on that one is a fuzzy place. My problem is when you allow that to spill over to protecting people from themselves.

 

[///M-Spec]

In summary, here are the outstanding issues in our discussion.

While we agree it is nessessary to enforce some rules and law on carmakers and consumers regarding safety equipment, we don't agree on which items.

Items not in contention as required (yes, need them): Head/tail lights. Sidemarker lights.
Items not in contention as NOT required (nope, don't need them): Safety belts, ABS, ASC, Airbags.
Items in contention (I say yea, you say nea): Steering wheel, brake system, windshield wipers, horn, LATCH child seat system.

My argument is that the last group of items dramatically reduce the likelyhood of the driver being a menance to others on the road.

---

You ask:

By the way, who gets to decide what is an un-due cost or complexity?

You also ask:

Who cares how much it costs or whether it improves safety?

To which my answer is: ultimately, the public does. Federal regulations regarding transportation laws are determined through the electoral process --indirectly, but there is a connection.

You ask:

What difference does it make if it enhances a current system? The shoulder strap on a seat belt enhances the seat belt. ASC doesn’t enhance anything, it’s a new feature altogether.

To which my answer is: ASC enhances the steering system. ABS enhances the brake system. A shoulder strap is PART of the safety belt system, not a separate feature. Enhancements are up to the carmaker and consumer. As long as a system exists which the driver can steer and stop the car, I don't care.

---

We still disagree on punitive damages being an effective deterant against certain types of reckless behavior.

---

I take issue with these statements:

Let me ask you this ///M, so many people get killed every year in auto accidents, is it even worth having the freedom to drive at all? Yes.

Are a few more deaths worth having the freedom to turn on your own lights when it gets dark? Yes.

How about more for having the freedom to use your federally required horn when you feel like it rather than having it automated? Yes.

How about more for having the freedom to use or not use your windshield wipers? Yes.

How about letting a few more people die to give them a choice whether or not to buy a car with airbags, ABS, ACS, horns, windshield wipers, seatbelts or brakes.

Reason: they are misrepresentations of my position. Two of those are just plain silly: I never said those things. I want a horn in cars, not one that will go off on its own.

---

Here is an interesting remark:

There are many reasons why someone might not want to buy all the safety equipment and who are you to tell them that in order to drive, they have to?

Answer: I am a citizen of the United States and I have a right to participate in my government and influence the creation of laws. I have as much a right to insist on a functioning horn as much as you to insist on functioning headlights.

---

You are surprised I want so much government invovlement. Actually, I don't. In fact, I don't want to HAVE ANY LAWS. If I had my 'druthers, they shouldn't be nessessary. But I don't, so some are.

I want four safety additional items to exist in cars certified for street use. C'mon, dude; I'm not trying redistribute wealth here, I'm trying to keep people from killing each other.

---

We DO both agree that laws designed to protect people from themselves are dumb and unessessary. Yea. Go us.

---

I take deep exception to this statement. In fact, I find it offensive:

I know what the core of your problem is here.

Let me make something perfectly clear, danoff. I don't have a problem. We are having an intellectual discussion. Someone who is not convinced your thinking is correct does not automatically have a character defect. If you don't understand this, then this discussion is pretty much over.

---

Finally,

My problem is when you allow that to spill over to protecting people from themselves.

I already stated that I am not inclined to support laws that protect people from themselves. I thought I made that clear in other posts.


M

 

[Sage]

I don't plan getting as deeply involved in this conversation as the two of you, but here's the issue I have with brakes (and steering too)...

Say Joe Smith is jogging, and is running along a through street that has a 3-way intersection in it. When he's running through, a car coming from the outlet street, without brakes, is unable to stop and hits and kills Joe Smith.

So, is it okay that Joe Smith was killed, even though he had nothing to do with buying a car without brakes?

Brakes are for the driver's safety, the passenger's safety, and everyone else's safety around the car. Even as a Libertarian, I can't see how de-regulating brakes could provide any tangible benefits.

 

[THE GAME]

keeping in mind, airbags were desigined to protect ADULTS, not children, which is why I think this law is good.

 

[Danoff]

Let me make something perfectly clear, danoff. I don't have a problem. We are having an intellectual discussion. Someone who is not convinced your thinking is correct does not automatically have a character defect. If you don't understand this, then this discussion is pretty much over.

First of all, poor choice of words. My statement should read “issue” not “problem”. My turn to apologize if I have offended you. I didn’t mean to suggest that you have a problem, I was only trying to discuss your motivation. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Even as a Libertarian, I can't see how de-regulating brakes could provide any tangible benefits.

Which is why I said: “The brakes thing is stupid (even though I'm right) so let's agree to drop it. Neither of us wants to see any cars on the road without brakes, nor does anyone else, so it's really totally moot.”

Still, Sage, you’re misinterpreting the situation slightly. I’ll try to clarify what I mean further below.

Answer: I am a citizen of the United States and I have a right to participate in my government and influence the creation of laws. I have as much a right to insist on a functioning horn as much as you to insist on functioning headlights.

///M, you do have a right to participate in your government and influence the creation of laws. Our government has and will pass laws that remove personal freedom. That doesn’t necessarily give you the right to exercise that power. My question was aimed not at questioning the public’s capability, but rather, the moral justification.


…moving on.

The fundamental disagreement here seems to be this, you categorize brakes, steering, windshield wipers, horns, and child seat latches, as devices that will protect someone else. This is why you think they should be required and you site the same logic that I use about the lights to make that claim.

Each one of these items could be thought of in a way as to make them appear to protect others. Brakes help you stop and not kill other people (as Sage pointed out), windshield wipers help you see and not kill other people, horns help other people hear you and not hurt themselves, and child seat latches protect the children riding in the car.

So far, I’m pretty sure you’re with me.

Each one of these items is a utility that the driver can employ while driving. They are functions of the car that the driver can choose to use or not use at will. Ultimately it comes down to the will of the driver, just as it would come down to the will of the driver at the dealership when buying the car. This is the biggest reason I can see that removing the restrictions on these items would not cause any greater harm. Virtually all drivers chose to use those features daily and would not purchase a car that didn’t have them for fear of hurting themselves or others.

That’s one angle… that drivers currently make the choice to employ those systems. Here’s another.

Companies have been successfully sued for the death of small children because they made children’s toys that have small parts and chocked children. There are no federal regulations that I know of that require children’s toys to be a certain size. My conclusion from this is that companies would fear litigation if they were to make cars that were less safe for the driver and would not opt to make cars that didn’t have these features. Rather, they would do what they are currently doing and voluntarily make their cars more safe than they have to be.

Here's another angle.

These devices (except the child seat laches) are not intended to protect others, but rather, to protect the driver. To show this I point to the fact that the driver has to voluntarily employ these devices in order for them to work. This voluntary act is an act of self preservation (the best motivator), not an act of benevolence.


Here’s one more, just about car seats.

Some people do not intend to ever have children and therefore have no need of a car seat latch. They should not have to buy the latch they will never use, regardless of whether or not you feel that it is an insignificant cost.

Hopefully I’ve made it clear why I contest the devices that we can’t agree on. I would like to poke you about consistency of your “enhancement” argument.

The basic seat belt goes across the waste. I call it this because it is the simplest kind of seat belt that exists in cars today and that I know of. That would indicate to me that one shoulder strap is an enhancement of that system, and that an H harness would be a further enhancement of that safety system. I fail to see the how the one shoulder strap is the basic seat belt and multiple is not.

Now to THE GAME's post

airbags were desigined to protext ADULTS, not children, ehich is why I think this law is good.

They were designed to protect average sized adults and end up harming short adults and children. So how can the law be good if it not only removes some freedom but puts groups of people at greater risk in the process?

 

[Sage]

Companies have been successfully sued for the death of small children because they made children’s toys that have small parts and chocked children. There are no federal regulations that I know of that require children’s toys to be a certain size. My conclusion from this is that companies would fear litigation if they were to make cars that were less safe for the driver and would not opt to make cars that didn’t have these features. Rather, they would do what they are currently doing and voluntarily make their cars more safe.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that. 👍

 

[THE GAME]

They were designed to protect average sized adults and end up harming short adults and children. So how can the law be good if it not only removes some freedom but puts groups of people at greater risk in the process? [/B]

exactly my point, because airbags were designed in about the 1960's and 70's, but back then there was no safety measure behind the safety measure, meaning that air bags mostly ended up killing people rather than saving them. Plus, add to the fact that wearing seat belts were not even required back then, so auto deaths were (and i did some research on this) more common back then than they are now. That is, of course, one of the many wonders of automobile technology today, fewer accidents. I think if you want to ride in the front seat, you should be at least 6 years old. If not ride in the back. Although i disagree with what you say about more groups of people being put at risk. I think this will drastically cut down on deaths. Then there's drunk driving, which is a different story, which i believe there also need to be better laws against.

 

[Crayola]

In my family we always had the rule: If you're not as tall as the head-rest you can't sit in the front. Seatbelts have been compulsory for as long as I can remember, whats it like in the States?

[Edit] This was GTPlanet's 1 millionth post. [/Edit]

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by danoff
First of all, poor choice of words. My statement should read “issue” not “problem”.

Thank you. I was hoping that's what it was.


PART I: WHEN ARE LAWS MORALLY JUSTIFIED?

Originally posted by danoff
My question was aimed not at questioning the public’s capability, but rather, the moral justification.

The same moral justification we use to have stop signs and traffic lights. You cannot attack my argument by calling into question its moral validity; that would be "begging the question".

From a logical standpoint, that would be like reasoning a dollar purchase was not worth it because it deprived you of a dollar. What you bought was never brought into question.

Danoff, I'm not some 15 year old doofus that just finished reading the Communist Manifesto for english class or some clueless chucklehead from the drifter forum. I am quite aware of the ramifications and consequences of good laws and bad laws. Please avoid the whole "but you're holding a gun to someone's head" spiel. I don't need it.


PART II: HEADLIGHTS AND WIPERS ARE IN FACT, THE SAME

Originally posted by danoff
The fundamental disagreement here seems to be this, you categorize brakes, steering, windshield wipers, horns, and child seat latches, as devices that will protect someone else.

Each one of these items is a utility that the driver can employ while driving. They are functions of the car that the driver can choose to use or not use at will. Ultimately it comes down to the will of the driver, just as it would come down to the will of the driver at the dealership when buying the car.

Headlights and sidemarker lights have an off/on switch. Why do you make an exception for those, but not wipers?

In addition, I think I need to clarify something here. It is my position that the already mentioned safety items be present on a car when it is certified for public road use, not when it is built, transported or sold. My position is that it is the owner and driver's responsibility to ensure his car meets the law, NOT the car maker.

Automakers sell stuff for cars that are not road-legal all the time and market them as "Off Road Use Only". This is perfectly fine with me. I mention this to avoid conclusions later on that I'm interested in telling a car company what it can and cannot build: I'm not.

Originally posted by danoff
These devices (except the child seat laches) are not intended to protect others, but rather, to protect the driver. To show this I point to the fact that the driver has to voluntarily employ these devices in order for them to work.

Again, all this can be said about lights.

Also, you accept that the law tells drivers how fast to go. Where to drive. When to stop. When to change lanes. When to yield right of way. When to assume right of way. But requiring he drive a car with a windshield wiper and use it when it rains is out of the question? It is morally unjustifiable?? Talk about inconsistancies, that makes no sense to me?


PART III: HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS

Danoff, say you were a cop....

1) A guy drives down the street at night with no lights on. He HAS headlights, they're just not on. Do you stop him right there and then? Or do you wait until he has a collision. If he doesn't have one by the time he reaches his destination, do you move on and leave him be?

2) A guy drives down the street. It begins to rain. He neither turns on his headlights NOR does he turn on his wipers. Do you stop him? Do you wait till he has a wreck?

3) A guy drives down the street. It is a beautiful, sunny day. His car has no headlights of any kind and not even a windshield. Do you stop him? What do you stop him for?


PART IV: TOYS AND CARS

Originally posted by danoff
My conclusion from this is that companies would fear litigation if they were to make cars that were less safe for the driver and would not opt to make cars that didn’t have these features.

This is a really bad analogy. Toys are supposed to be inherently benign. Cars are inherently dangerous, but made safe enough for public use. The expections involved in playing with toys and driving cars is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If toys started to randomly explode and kill people on a regular basis, there will be laws passed.

Going by this logic, I should be able to operate a bomb factory or a nuclear waste management facility across the street from a day care center without adherence to public saftey regulations of any kind.


PART V: ENHANCEMENT

Originally posted by danoff
I would like to poke you about consistency of your “enhancement” argument.

I don't see any inconsistencies. I said cars should have a braking system. ABS is not required to stop a car. I said cars should have a steering system. ASC is not required to steer the car.

What's the problem?

Originally posted by danoff
The basic seat belt goes across the waste.

This is really a moot point, since I've already conceded that seat belts should not be a mandated item. But if I DID advote seat belts, then you'd be right, the shoulder portion would be an enhancement. But I don't, so where do that leave this?


M

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, I'm not some 15 year old doofus that just finished reading the Communist Manifesto for english class or some clueless chucklehead from the drifter forum. I am quite aware of the ramifications and consequences of good laws and bad laws. Please avoid the whole "but you're holding a gun to someone's head" spiel. I don't need it.

I am well aware that your statements should not be taken lightly and I assure you, I am not.


This statement stems from a misunderstanding that happened several posts back. I’ll try to illustrate.

I said something about you not having the right to tell someone what kind of personal safety equipment they should buy for themselves. I stand by that still. You countered by saying that you have the right because you are a citizen of the US and participate in your government. I countered by saying that the nature of that law is not morally justified. What I failed to add was that it is because the personal safety equipment is to protect themselves and regulating what kind of risks people are allowed to take is not morally justifiable. I think we agree on this last point. We went around in a circle and I don’t think it was necessary.

The same moral justification we use to have stop signs and traffic lights. You cannot attack my argument by calling into question its moral validity; that would be "begging the question".

I shouldn’t have bothered talking about the moral justification because as I pointed out in my last post, we have classified these vehicle features differently. If we had classified them the same way (protect the driver vs. protect others) we would completely agree. So the moral justification really can really only come into play if you had classified them as I had. I’m sorry for the confusion about this, but the whole thing is beside the point. We agree on policy theory here, but we disagree how these safety features should be classified.

Headlights and sidemarker lights have an off/on switch. Why do you make an exception for those, but not wipers?

I should have been more clear about this. Headlights are required by law to be used at a certain time of day. The rules are set and it is enforceable. Windshield wipers are never required by law to be used, they are there purely for the driver’s utility and used at his discretion. That’s the distinction in my mind.

In addition, I think I need to clarify something here. It is my position that the already mentioned safety items be present on a car when it is certified for public road use, not when it is built, transported or sold. My position is that it is the owner and driver's responsibility to ensure his car meets the law, NOT the car maker.

Automakers sell stuff for cars that are not road-legal all the time and market them as "Off Road Use Only". This is perfectly fine with me. I mention this to avoid conclusions later on that I'm interested in telling a car company what it can and cannot build: I'm not.

I understand that auto manufacturers sell cars that are not for street use all the time. I understand how my comments lead you to believe that I did not understand this, though. I was simplifying the problem for auto manufacturers only concentrating on their largest market. So when I refer to manufacturers having to make a car a certain way, I mean that they have to do that to participate in the major market. Sorry for the confusion.

Again, all this can be said about lights.

Just to make sure this is all clear. The difference between the items in question and the lights are that the items in question have no rules about when they must be used, they only exist for the driver’s utility to be able to comply with other traffic laws.

1) A guy drives down the street at night with no lights on. He HAS headlights, they're just not on. Do you stop him right there and then? Or do you wait until he has a collision. If he doesn't have one by the time he reaches his destination, do you move on and leave him be?

There is a regulation that says people must use their lights after dark. I would pull him over and give him a ticket for not complying with traffic laws.

2) A guy drives down the street. It begins to rain. He neither turns on his headlights NOR does he turn on his wipers. Do you stop him? Do you wait till he has a wreck?

If I think he is being unsafe (mostly depends on how dark it is), I’ll pull him over for reckless driving, otherwise he is in compliance.

3) A guy drives down the street. It is a beautiful, sunny day. His car has no headlights of any kind and not even a windshield. Do you stop him? What do you stop him for?

Yes, but only because headlights are required for vehicle operation on the road.

Going by this logic, I should be able to operate a bomb factory or a nuclear waste management facility across the street from a day care center without adherence to public saftey regulations of any kind.

Public safety regulations designed to protect people from others make sense to me, so I don’t believe this should happen.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Crayola
In my family we always had the rule: If you're not as tall as the head-rest you can't sit in the front. Seatbelts have been compulsory for as long as I can remember, whats it like in the States?

Who the hell let him get the one-millionth post?

 

[Sage]

I know it's been discussed before, but why's there a huge discrepency between that post # link and what the front page says? (Posts: 990,016). It's, like, 10,000 posts off.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Sage
I know it's been discussed before, but why's there a huge discrepency between that post # link and what the front page says? (Posts: 990,016). It's, like, 10,000 posts off.

Because when the site moved from whoever used to host it, the frontpage changed to zero while the posts kept counting.