The government and their handling of cars pisses me off to no end. Why should we have to have airbags, or traction control or etc if we as consumers don't want?
The government and their handling of cars pisses me off to no end. Why should we have to have airbags, or traction control or etc if we as consumers don't want?
Who is John Galt?
93EXCivic wrote: The government and their handling of cars pisses me off to no end. Why should we have to have airbags, or traction control or etc if we as consumers don't want?
Because two million Americans are injured and over 30,000 are killed in auto accidents every year, so the general consensus is that something has to be done to save us from our own stupidity.
nderwater wrote: ...so the general consensus is that *something* has to be done to save us from our own and each others' stupidity.
Small addition 
nderwater wrote:93EXCivic wrote: The government and their handling of cars pisses me off to no end. Why should we have to have airbags, or traction control or etc if we as consumers don't want?Because two million Americans are injured and over 30,000 are killed in auto accidents every year, so the general consensus is that *something* has to be done to save us from our own stupidity.
Hey, howabout better driver training? How about laws that hold us accountable instead of laws designed to save us from ourselves? The government has a habit of looking (and throwing our money) in the wrong direction to solve or appear to solve a problem.
93EXCivic wrote: The government and their handling of cars pisses me off to no end. Why should we have to have airbags, or traction control or etc if we as consumers don't want?
most consumers do want it.. that is the problem
bravenrace wrote: Hey, howabout better driver training? How about laws that hold us accountable instead of laws designed to save us from ourselves? The government has a habit of looking (and throwing our money) in the wrong direction to solve or appear to solve a problem.
Silly man. Insurance companies and product manufactures have nothing to gain by educating drivers. There are no Driver's Education lobbies with deep pockets.
So Germany doesn't have auto accidents right?
bravenrace wrote: Hey, howabout better driver training?
That could only be a good thing. Along with more stringent licensing requirements.
How about laws that hold us accountable instead of laws designed to save us from ourselves?
That makes sense for protecting manufacturers from people who drive themselves into trees. But if someone who's distracted by their frappucino and angry birds game T-bones me, holding them accountable for my funeral bill isn't going to make my family feel much better. And the people seem to be more concerned with angry birds than with a lot of other things.
The government has a habit of looking (and throwing our money) in the wrong direction to solve or appear to solve a problem.
That's fundamentally true. However, I believe that manufacturers will only place as much emphasis on safety as pays off at the bottom line (whether it's liability avoidance or marketable differentiation), and from there it follows that there needs to be regulation of safety features.
I should note that I'm sure that there are many individuals at work at manufacturers who care very much about the safety of the cars they build, but all the decisions are run through the financial gauntlet.
nderwater wrote: so the general consensus is that *something* has to be done to save us from our own stupidity.
make drivers test MUCH harder...
weed out those who cause accidents... by losing ones license for major infractions (besides just alcohol/drugs)
make bi annual drivers tests for all under 25, and all over 60
Germany might be using outdated tools like logic and reason to decide what is and isn't a good solution to a problem. We have switched to a greed-only model that allows us to ignore these inconveniences.
I'm pretty sure that 98% of drivers would choose to pay for mandatory airbags and traction control instead of choosing much harder and more frequent driving tests and huge penalties for accidents, nor can I imagine elected officials enacting anything like that.
In reply to nderwater:
You're probably correct, but I don't have to like it.
Okay. I'm not kidding here. You guys know I tend to fall on the left of the political spectrum. But the whole air bag thing is driving me nuts! Along with the bumpers, side impact protection, mandatory seat belt laws... all of it. Don't get me wrong, I wear my seat belt and I think air bags should be available to anyone who wants to buy them. But why force me to have air bags when I drive 3 miles, never over 35 mph on my way to work and at almost 44 years of age have never been cited for an accident. I haven't been in an accident at all since I was 17, and that wasn't my fault. The me of today would have avoided that one too, I'm quite sure. We can get loads of people all fired up about government control of this and that- why can't we do something about this nonsense?
And the thing that bugs me most is, as mentioned above, the way motorcycles can get away with anything! I can't buy a car witout an air bag, but I can ride a motorcycle on the same road with no helmet?! [/RANT]
T.J. wrote: Who is John Galt?
A fictional character with a super-natual ability to put you to sleep.
nderwater wrote: I'm pretty sure that 98% of drivers would choose to pay for mandatory airbags and traction control instead of choosing much harder and more frequent driving tests and huge penalties for accidents, nor can I imagine elected officials enacting anything like that.
Really? It isn't an either/or problem though. We could have neither or both.
Also, airbags were optional once - less than 98% of people bought them.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: Okay. I'm not kidding here. You guys know I tend to fall on the left of the political spectrum. But the whole air bag thing is driving me nuts! Along with the bumpers, side impact protection, mandatory seat belt laws... all of it. Don't get me wrong, I wear my seat belt and I think air bags should be available to anyone who wants to buy them. But why force me to have air bags when I drive 3 miles, never over 35 mph on my way to work and at almost 44 years of age have never been cited for an accident. I haven't been in an accident at all since I was 17, and that wasn't my fault. The me of today would have avoided that one too, I'm quite sure. We can get loads of people all fired up about government control of this and that- why can't we do something about this nonsense? And the thing that bugs me most is, as mentioned above, the way motorcycles can get away with anything! I can't buy a car witout an air bag, but I can ride a motorcycle on the same road with no helmet?! [/RANT]
And if you consider the Lotus automobiles this thread was originally talking about, why in the world should these limited volume, specialty cars be required to have airbags?
I'm not against airbags at all, despite how it might sound. But I also think I should have a choice.
I want my wife to have an airbag in her car, but I don't want one in mine. And I especially don't want 10 of them in one car! I'm like you, never been in an accident that was my fault, and haven't been in an accident since I way 17 also. I want to avoid the accident. And what if my car is still moving after my airbag comes out? How do I get control of the vehicle when I can't see or an stunned by the airbag and the accident itself? We're talking split seconds to make a decision in some cases, and I don't want to deal with an airbag if I can save myself.
bravenrace wrote: And what if my car is still moving after my airbag comes out? How do I get control of the vehicle when I can't see or an stunned by the airbag and the accident itself? We're talking split seconds to make a decision in some cases, and I don't want to deal with an airbag if I can save myself.
This actually happened to me - I hit a deer and the car was still doing 60+ when I couldn't see because it was full of smoke. My nose was bleeding out of both barrels from the airbag but the bumpy ride thru the median ended fine... I went both feet in and hoped for the best. It could have ended in oncoming traffic or a bridge abutment pretty easily though.
And so as not to threadjack any further:
Lotus Exiges rule!
bravenrace wrote: I want my wife to have an airbag in her car, but I don't want one in mine.
Does your wife want you to have an airbag in your car? 
In reply to nderwater:
She trusts my judgement.
You'll need to log in to post.
