This is my first post to this site but I couldn’t resist given the topic. Yes, airbags save lives…or at least they saved this one in Maine. On Nov. 26th I hit a logging truck that was backing into a driveway at night and in the pouring rain without any flags, flashers, or warning lights AND it was on the crest of a hill. The cab was facing south and blocking the southbound lane while the trailer was completely blocking the northbound lane. The police have said that by the time I saw the truck, I would not have had time to hit the brakes. At any rate, I hit the truck at (I think) 45-50 MPH and but for my airbag I would likely be dead. Instead I only had multiple compound fractures of both ankles…but I am alive. And in the “nothing is ever 100% certain” world, I was not wearing my seat belt because I am about 4ft. 10in. and it has always cut across my throat. The EMTs said it was a good thing I wasn’t wearing it considering the kind of accident it was. I know that the rule for my next car (my 2001 Saab wagon was totaled), will be safety first, and I will also explore extenders or something for the seatbelts as you never know…
There was one safety device idea which was featured on a tv news spot a few years ago. It was a car seat that, upon the impact of a crash, would pivot the front of the seat up. This would keep the driver from “submarining” under the lap belt and allowing all that harm to his legs and lower body. I’ve not heard a thing of this idea, since. Too bad.
It is quite simple, some of the items you describe are clear violations of individual rights. Making cars safer doesn’t infringe on anyone’s constitutional rights.
I agree that freedom is precious and that those who would give up their freedom for security deserve neither freedom or security. However, having safety equipment in all new cars doesn’t make me any less free. It doesn’t infringe on my rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Mandates are fine if they make sense and don’t infringe on my rights.
Some people can take an issue and make a big deal out of it no matter how good of an idea it is.
“Mandates are fine if they make sense and don’t infringe on my rights.”
I find that position very scary, the slope can get very slippery (e.g., the “patriot” act). I prefer to minimize their involvement in all aspects of my life.
Emergency room doctors have seen more severe traumatic injuries to lower extremities since air bags have saved people’s lives who otherwise have have died from upper body injuries. If the people had been killed from their upper body injuries, then, their lower body injuries wouldn’t have mattered (and noted) since they were dead.
Injuries are suffered to the lower extremities (legs) when the body submarines under the seat-belt. The moving body pushes the legs into the lower dash and floorboard with high g-forces causing massive injuries to the legs.
If the seat bottom tilted up at impact, the body would not submarine under the seat-belt, and would not load the legs to bone-shattering loads. Crumpling and deformation of the foot-well causes further injury. Foot-wells have been made stronger to lessen deformation.
So, what happened to the anti-submarine research?
“I prefer to minimize their involvement (of mandates) in all aspects of my life.”
Not me. I like the one that abolished slavery. I also like the ones that criminalized murder and rape. There are lots of mandates that are completely logical and necessary (too many to list here). The solution to bad government isn’t no government. The solution is good government, which we occasionally get in spite of obstructionists.
You say that you don’t think that we should live in a bubble by trying to reduce danger in our lives. Yet your position on mandates seems to be based on fear of what might happen. Ironic, isn’t it. I say let the people (as a whole via a majority) speak. Democracy has good and bad features, but I choose to let logic, not fear, dictate my decisions.
“You say that you don’t think that we should live in a bubble by trying to reduce danger in our lives. Yet your position on mandates seems to be based on fear of what might happen. Ironic, isn’t it.”
Good point, outside forces do not scare me, but governments scare me very much. There is considerable history to justify that concern. The U.S. certainly wasn’t formed by folks who wanted a more intrusive government, they are probably rolling over in their graves saying, “what was the point?” The only thing I want from this (or any government) is for them to stay out of my way.
Emergency room doctors have seen more severe traumatic injuries to lower extremities since air bags have saved people’s lives who otherwise have have died from upper body injuries.
This reminds me of the study done during WW1. After helmets were issued to the soldiers, head injuries went up dramatically.
I’m too old to be an anarchist, I just want them to leave me alone as much as possible. I still think Mr. Paine said it best.
I do think government has some legitimate regulatory functions, I actually spend a lot of my time consulting for a federal regulator agency. However, I do feel that they are way over the line in many areas at this point; and I have never heard of a government voluntarily relinquishing authority once they have taken it. That’s what scares me.
Statistically, yes, because school busses are used in ways that minimize the threat to its passengers. Look at it this way. As a driver you are more likely to see a school bus than the average sedan. It would also take a vehicle a lot larger than the average car to do signifigant damage to the average school bus.