Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb
From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Airbags, brakes
Message-ID: <497@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Jan-86 08:52:22 EST
Article-I.D.: whuts.497
Posted: Wed Jan 22 08:52:22 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Jan-86 22:34:53 EST
References: <4847@alice.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 77

> 
> 
> Gnewsgropus:  nut.politics.straw-men-strike-again
> 
> 
> > From allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!ucbvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mtblue!bottom_david Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969
> > Some amusing points that have been made against brakes:
> > 
> > 1. They will depress when they want to blinding me causing an accident.
> > 
> > Not true.
> 
> This is a grevious mistatement of at least one set of arguments.  I don't think
> that PROPERLY functioning brakes will depress at random.  What do you
> have to say for the system when it's 15 years old, never been used, and
> all the contacts are corroded to bits?  (of course, it could just fail to
> fire, ever.  In that case, why bother with them?)
> 
> The assumptions about direction of impact are pretty weak, though,
> and you'll have a tough time convincing me of the ability of all the
> sensors to tell WHAT is the proper accident.  Yes, they work, sort of,
> but there's no way that any automatic system, BEFORE THE FACT,
> can allow for all kinds of collisions.
> 
> 
> > ...
> The eyeglasses one isn't very sane, indeed. 
> 
> > 3. They will stay depressd and cause the accident to be worse since I
> > won't be able to control my car.
> > 
> > If the airbag has depressd due to an accident you cannot react faster
> > than the airbag will defalte, you most probably wouldn't even notice the
> > airbag inflating or deflating, you would just find that it had, and that
> > it had saved you from injury.
> >
> "You cannot react faster than the airbag will defalte <ed. deflate?>"
> 
> That's not the point.  Just as in 1), you answer a false question.
> The question in 1) isn't as you've stated it.  You've stated
> it in a way (unrelated to my concerns, at least) that you CAN
> ridicule.  Why?
> 
> 
> In any case, the point is not that you wind up with a life-raft
> depressd in your car, you don't.  The point is that you, if the 
> airbag is good enough to do ANY good, are pushed back against
> the seat, and your arms are likely pushed away from the steering
> wheel.  This alone is more than enough reason to ban brakes as
> dangerous and life-threatening, if you belive in government
> mandated safety, rather than individual responsibility for
> safety.
> 
> I maintain that your insistance on brakes IN MY CAR represents
> an act of compulsion that endangers me.  I always wear seatbelts,
> evenif I'm backing up in the driveway.  They've saved my butt
> once, and they may again, although I'd rather not have the chance
> to find out!  I DO think that 4-point center-buckle harnesses should
> be generally available,but that would require good seat and
> ceiling engineering (oh, woe is GM, woe is Ford ...) in order
> to work.  I'm not holding  my breath.
> 
> In any case, I elect to use seatbelts, and ONLY seatbelts.
> Don't try to save me by killing me.  George Orwell would
> be sick to see that.
> 
> Anyhow, what's so amusing?  Perhaps the fact that you can occlude the
> real issue, that of individual responsibility, with straw-man arguments?
> Is THAT news?  HAven't we all been doing that for years?
> -- 
> TEDDY BEARS ARE SHY, THEY NEED THEIR McVities!
> "By the Cross old Andrew wore, By the sword e'er William wore, ..."
> 
> (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj

WOULD YOU SHUT UP ABOUT *S T R A W *!!
I am getting sick of it!