Air bags – those government-mandated “safety” devices force-built into every new car made since the late 1990s – have killed again.
ARC Automotive – “pioneering safety since 1948” – says it “can’t say for sure” whether the inflators (as the explosive devices built into air bags are styled) won’t “cause future incidents.”
Those “incidents” being deaths and maimings. But what are a few deaths and maimings when so many lives have been saved? This is the Usual Argument presented by advocates of forcing people to assume the risk of having an explosive device built into the steering wheel (and dashboard and door panels) of the car they buy. It is in its basic reasoning the same argument – the same justification – presented by Stalin about having to break some eggs to make an omelette.
The eggs, of course, get no say.
They certainly are not allowed to say no – which is the crux of the moral problem here. Not the mechanical problem of the explosive devices built into the car. They are no more the problem, as such, than high-fructose-corn-syrup and canola-oil-laden “food” at the supermarket is a problem, as such. No one is forced to buy liquid diabetes – sodas infused with HFC – or to eat their way to metabolic disorders via a steady diet of canola-oil-laden processed foods.
You are free to assume the risk, if you like the taste.
Put more finely, no one else is forced to assume the risk. It is this latter that is the real problem with the explosive devices built into the steering wheel, dashboard and door panels of every new car, truck and SUV.
If there is a risk associated with something, it ought to be up to the individual assuming it to decide whether it is worth assuming it.
Skydiving, for instance. People who choose to do this understand that they are assuming a certain risk. It is not high – assuming the parachute is properly packed and everyone involved exercises precautions. Almost always, the skydiver does not die – and does have a good time.
But there is a risk that does not apply if you do not get into that airplane – and do not jump out of it. Those who choose to get in the airplane – and then jump out of it – do so because they accept the risk in return for what, to them, is the reward. The value the thrill of skydiving sufficiently to be willing to accept the risk that the airplane might crash or the parachute might not open.
If it does not, then it’s a tragedy.
But what would it be if the person had been forced into the airplane – and then pushed out of it?
Then it would be murder, would it not?
How is it meaningfully different to force people to sit in front of an explosive device that might explode in their face? That has done exactly that? That will always have the potential to do just that? How do the odds that it probably won’t justify that?
Just ask Stalin.
People like Stalin infest what is styled “the government,” a term used to banalize what is in fact a gang of office-holders who have acquired the legal power to impose risks – and costs – on other people. That is the essence of the problem – not the fact that air bags can kill. Nor that they can also “save lives.
Both of those being entirely beside the point.
Maybe having an air bag in your vehicle will save your life one day. This is certainly possible. It is also possible the air bag will end your life. Both possibilities are inarguably real. The question is – or ought to be – who gets to decide whether the potential benefit is worth the potential risk?
This is a question many Americans no longer ask – which helps explain why America is no longer the country it once was. It was – once – a country – that respected the right of free people to decide for themselves whether a cost was worth the benefit. That objected to the obnoxious notion that other people ought to be endowed with the legal power to countermand those decisions and impose their decisions on everyone. It is why – when air bags were first developed, back in the early 1970s – they were available.
As opposed to mandated.
You could chose to order your car (from GM and Chrysler, which both offered air bags in some of their cars) with them or choose to skip them. It was up to you.
Then along came Stalin, with an urge to make some omelettes. Not exactly Stalin, of course – but the same type. People who think it is their business to order other people’s affairs and if there’s a problem, that’s their problem.
This problem has been institutionalized.
Too many Americans now accept that they are eggs – and that if they get broken, then it’s a kind of natural calamity for which no one is to blame. Worse, many of them seem to revere these who are to blame. Whom they see – having been taught to see them – as “keeping them safe.”
They are like Stalin’s chicken.
It etiolates everywhere. Most recently during what was styled the “pandemic.” And it was, of course. Just not in the sense generally meant – by the idiot-innocents who blithely use the term in just the way those who taught them to use it intended.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at [email protected] and I will send you a copy directly!
How about those Walrus omeletts? Do you all remember Netflix got the “money shot” of walrus falling to their deaths from climate change?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_N_xF7IUdA
It was staged, a man with a rifle went up around them walrus suntanning themselves and pushed them off the cliff, while the camera crew, previously positioned on the beach, got the money shot. They even had the girl on the team cry while she mumbled about climate change. Yep, that really happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNZ_K14iT-Q
The idea to massacre the walrus was not even original, that idea was lifted from the Walt Disney movie “White Wilderness” showing lemmings jumping off the cliff. The backstory: the film crew paid the local indian native boys to catch them, 50 cents each per lemming, and they built a box then pushed the lemmings off the cliff. So effective was that scene, the lemming meme became a cultural idea – and was copied to kill walrus for climate change propaganda.
Maybe the government should mandate that all walrus who climb cliffs be outfitted with air bags to save them from the fall. And just to make them walrus safe, give them all a covid shot or two.
Just remember folks, if it is on TV it is fake. Most of the Hollywood actresses are trannies, many pop icons too, like Taylor Swift, is a male (in a viral video you can see ‘her’ penis). And never forget, the moon landing was a Hollywood production. Remember the LEM, the lunar lander? You should call it the looner lander, and astronauts astroNOTS.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/yKWmT9i3C279/
Ted Kennedy was driving drunk, drove into the drink, Mary Jo was in the car, couldn’t save her after attempts to save her, couldn’t do it.
Go back to the hotel to sleep it off, tell the authorities in the morning.
Everybody makes mistakes, some even ignore them.
Some animals are more equal, money talks, seems that way.
Ted’s a victim, too, ya know. Hope he had some accident insurance.
Bill Janklow, a politician in South Dakota, same story, about, someone died because of negligence.
Involuntary manslaughter, must be it. You didn’t intend to cause a death, but it did happen.
What good is an airbag if you are submerged in water? What good is an airbag if the joker driving plows into your motorcycle after running a stop sign?
Airbags save lives when necessarily deployed, they also cause deaths, risk on both sides of the equation.
After a couple of beers, it’s time to ride the lawn tractor to mow down the weeds and grass. Plants are tenacious. If you don’t mow the bluegrass, in a wet year, it will be five feet tall by July. You make hay with it unless the horses are there mowing it down.
Then over to the tractor to cultivate some cucumbers and zucchini, cabbage and potatoes. Takes two more beers. No beer in Heaven, no such thing up there.
Machines make a big difference in how you can accomplish very simple tasks. You need oxygen molecules for a machine to run with a motor using hydrocarbons to raise carbohydrates.
No oxygen, hydrocarbons will fail to perform. Forget carbon dioxide, no combustion, no carbon dioxide.
Grasses would grow on Mars with a teaspoon of water, plenty of CO2 up there in the Martian atmosphere.
Had an old friend (perhaps ‘had’ being the operative word) who we recently visited. He started on this narrative he’d absorbed from FB about how airbags are worse than land mines. How the shrapnel from deployment was creating havoc and killing people. He had all kinds of pictures and was all ate up about how horrible it was.
When I tried to steer the conversation back to the root, that being choice, vs forced compliance, he went scorched earth. Refusing to address the fact that these dangerous devices are mandatory he brought out the old ‘if it saves one life’ argument. I reminded him that HE was the one complaining about the dangers and loss of lives. Also, how if we were truly free and had a choice, that would easily solve this problem. When backed into the corner of his own making he showed his complete lack of critical thinking ability. His argument became; Republicans, taking campaign contributions from the air bag makers is the real the problem, not the forced compliance by GovCo and a lack of choice in the matter.
We’ve been friends for 35+ years and he wasn’t always like this. I observed something that was ‘Fascinating’ from this exchange; I’m beginning to believe I know how Low Info Shitlibs are created. Its just a theory, but it seems they all have an inability to deal with trauma/ adversity, and at some point they give up and just embrace the suck. In his case the death of his mother last year, along with the addition of ‘some orange goo’ has reprogramed him on a level alien to me.
Norman,
‘If it saves one life’: Christ, how I loath that idea.
If it’s a choice between “saaaafety” and freedom, I’ll choose freedom every time.
You know what? True freedom IS dangerous. The only choices truly worth making are those you can fuck up: Those that have consequences.
I’m in a war against it, now: this safety cult. Perhaps we all are, if we don’t “just embrace the suck”. In Az, our Governor Select Hobbs vetoes every good bill coming out of the state congress, which is rare enough in its own. The reason, every time: “Saaaaaafety!”.
Well fuck safety. I WANT things to be dangerous. I WANT to feel like I’m still alive.
Those soul-sucking, teetotaling, puritanical misanthropes can go straight to whatever hell they’ve created and “be safe”. Leave me the hell out of it!
Sorry about your friend, Norm.
Nice comment BaDnOn, I’ll take the animating contest of freedom over the tranquility of servitude as well.
Clammy Kate is the worst governor ever. Diversity is her only defense. Did you know Az has had more women/minority governors than any other state? In just a little over 100 years, we surpassed everyone. California should just bugger off with all their BS until they have that kind of DIE (DEI?) record. I hope Slobs chokes on a pubic hair. I’ll be the first in line to piss on her grave.
BTW, the psychic hate directed against ADOT seems to be showing some progress. The whole stretch from Flag 20miles south is now fixed on one lane, the other has been removed down to the sub grade, looks like it will be good to go soon. My wife says I should give them some props and good feed back. Not sure about that. Why the hell should they be given attaboys for doing their only job? I feel more like I should be asking what the hell took them so long?
Glad to hear it, Norman. Things are being repaired around here as well, though the 40 is still shit in many areas. Much work is being done on the 17.
As far as giving them positive feedback… I’m not sure, either. If I’d have let things disintegrate to the degree they have with any of MY jobs, I would’ve been fired.
To the government, the ruling class, and safety cultists we are livestock.
All that matters in their calculations is the livestock cost/benefit. This means if it costs less to have the safety stuff on a herd basis, we do.
The reason motorcycle helmet laws remain in grey area is that the costs don’t work out. People who would have died without a helmet live but have astounding medical costs, often for the rest of their lives. But airbags apparently reduce costs to them. We pay for the airbags of course.
Everything makes sense once thought through the lens of an industrial farm.
The reply function does not always seem to work properly. I was replying to the poster that bragged about driving drunk.
As I have said numerous times. We do not live in a free or libertarian type society. Under our current system the “people” are allowed the same rights as an individual. That’s the law, not me talking.
This if it’s okay for a private person to require someone on their property to carry insurance to protect the property holder against accident or damages it is also okay for the people ie “government” to do so.
The times this would not apply is when the laws governing the rights of the people prohibit it. Thus you could if you want require “gun” insurance for someone to carry a gun on your property. But the law for the people is that they have a right to bear arms uninfringed.
If you built a road on your own property that people wanted to use you could require people have auto insurance to use it. Same option exists for the roads that the people built and own.
The “people” does not exist. The “people” is not a synonym for government. The word “people” is simply the plural of individuals. The 2nd Amendment, which recognizes and affirms the longstanding individual right to bear arms, is a good example of this point:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people, shall not be infringed.”
If “people” meant “government,” the 2nd Amendment would mean that only the government has a recognized right to bear arms.
Also, what you refer to are private property rights, which would allow you to condition an individual’s ability to come on to your property. On the other hand, a government gun insurance mandate would be an un-Constitutional infringement to keep and bear Arms.
Yes I pointed out the exception for guns.
The People has dual use in law, sometimes referring to citizens other times the government as representing citizens. I’m sure you been before a judge many times and heard the bailiff announce “The People vs. Mister Liberty for obnoxious trolling or some such…” In law the government is also the people with rights similar to an individual.
So the “people” is and isn’t the government then? Do you see the shell game that you’re falling for?
The neighbor’s car is sitting out on the street, missing most of the driver’s side rear wheel. Just spokes attached to the spindle. And the side curtain airbags are hanging down from their compartment above the doors. Doesn’t look like any other damage. Not quite sure what happened, but what appears to be a somewhat minor repair became a whole lot more expensive thanks to the airbags deploying.
The Zuckerberg Dossier has resurfaced – if you want to know where Facebook came from, or how Elon Musk got to where he is, it is a must read.
Mark’s real name is Greenburg, related to David Rockefeller and he doesn’t know how to write code, is a front man for a CIA military intelligence collecting operation:
https://brutalproof.net/2023/06/rockefellers-grandson-renamed-mark-zuckerberg-appointed-to-head-facebook-doesnt-even-know-how-to-write-code/
“I can honestly say that, at this point, there are no “insiders” who have any faith in Mark to run the company, or to even speak in public. We believe that even after Larry Summers, the father of Facebook, who planted Sheryl Sandberg at Facebook to shut Mark up and stop revealing that Facebook is the tool of the Democrat agenda for globalism, cannot fix the company. This is one of the points I am most angry about. Mark has become, over the years, no friend of America. In fact, he hates America and rants on about how proud he is to avoid U. S. taxes and to cheat the American people – whom he considers to be animals.
Mark believes he is a higher being – above human beings. He now believes it was all his work that made Facebook. He is completely deluded by his own propaganda, which is nothing but lies. It is because Mark is now a danger to himself and the world that I must tell the true story of how Facebook and social media have become the enemies of Americans and the world.”
—————-
Elon Musk is also a front man, set up to push EVs on us. He is also a con man like Trump and Zuckerberg. Musk became rich because of EV subsidies, and thus he must accept the climate change agenda, yet today he tweeted he was against the wood fired pizza shutdown – calling it “utter bs” to stop climate change. But man made climate change is also utter bs – but Musk can not say that because he is farming climate subsidies.
I am proud to say that I have never used Facebook or Twitter. My initial reason was the lack of privacy. In 2020 it became obvious there was a huge leftist bias and censorship, so they are permanently banned in this household.
It makes no sense for a Jewish family to change their surname from Greenburg to Zuckerburg. Why would anyone f do that.
Elon Musk is in business only for Elan Musk, and that means promoting EVs and batteries. I do not trust his claims about free speech at Twitter.
Manmade climate change is not BS or a hoax. I have studied the subject for 25 years. Manade causes of climate change — there are several — are real and harmless.
Earth’s climate warmed from 1975 to 2014 for a variety of reasons, including CO2 emissions and more sun reaching Earth’s surface from less air pollution after 1980 and less cloudiness.
More important is that global warming stopped in 2014, when other variables offset the mild warming effect of CO2.
Measured in a laboratory, CO2 has the potential for +4 degrees C. of global warming (CO2 actually works to impede cooling, and mainly affects night temperatures). But roughly +3 degrees C. of the +4 degrees C. has already happened. Mainly from the first 50ppm of CO2 (0.005%).
That means CO2 only has the potential to cause another +1 degree C. of global warming, which is similar to what the best “skeptic” scientists ON OUR SIDE predict, such as William Happer and Richard Lindzen.
They predict no more than +1 degree C. of warming if CO2 doubles from the current 420ppm (0.042%) to 840ppm (0.084%). With CO2 increasing +2.5ppm a year recently, the increase from 420ppm to 840ppm would take 168 years. Which no one would notice, and that is certainly no climate emergency.
That’s the real science of CO2. Laboratory data are in both the HITRAN and MODTRAN databases for all the greenhouses gases, from water vapor, to CO2 and methane. None of this is a mystery.
It’s not productive for conservatives to claim the science of CO2 is BS, contradicting our best “skeptic” scientists.
It’s correct to say manmade CO2 emissions have never harmed anyone in the past, and are very unlikely to harm anyone in the future.
Over 3,000 scientific studies prove that more CO2 in the atmosphere improves the growth of most plants, and greens our planet. More CO2, for that reason, is beneficial. Greenhouse owners use their own money to triple the CO2 content inside their greenhouses.
quote: “Manmade climate change is not BS or a hoax. I have studied the subject for 25 years. ”
I have studied it for 25.1 years, and it is 100% hoax, and it is impossible to know if man is affecting the climate from a change in CO2 concentration.
The last glacial maximum ended 18,000 years ago – the earth warmed for 10,000 years, the peak of interglacial warming was 8,000 years ago. Man did not cause that. There is no evidence that man is causing temperature to change at any point in the Holocene, see chart.
What part of this Holocene temperature chart was caused by man?
http://www.pasqualerobustini.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/cooling-holocene.png
And there is no evidence that CO2 changes cause atmospheric temperature changes. That is myth promoted by the liars with a political agenda.
Thanks for making it very obvious that you have never studied climate science.
You refer to past climates BEFORE there were manmade CO2 emissions.
Climate change was 100% natural for about 4.5 billion years. That tells us nothing about the effect of a +50% increase of CO2 caused entirely by manmade CO2 emissions since 1850.
The manmade CO2 emissions were low until about 50 years ago, so could not have had much effect. Even now, other climate change variables can offset the warming effect of CO2, as they have done since 2014.
The effect of CO2 is measurable and has been observed after the 1960s. You just don’t care to learn about the subject, and therefore dismiss all contrary information with a strong confirmation bias. You are claiming 99.9% of scientists are wrong about the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is part of it. That 99.9% includes almost every “skeptic” scientists who has our back, fighting the prediction of a climate emergency. It must be an ego-boost to think you are smarter than 99.9% of scientists living on our planet.
There are measurements of an increasing greenhouse effect — increasing downwelling infrared radiation — with CERES satellites.
Look them up.
There is also the EXPECTED pattern and timing of greenhouse gas warming:
— Mainly affects nighttime low temperatures (TMIN),
— Mainly affects temperatures in the six coldest months of the year, and
— More CO2 can not warm most of Antarctica because of the permanent temperature inversion there.
Global warming from more solar energy reaching the surface would mainly affect days (TMAX), mainly during the six warmest months of the year, and both Antarctica and the Arctic would be affected for at least six months a year, which they are NOT now.
Once again, thank you Dr. Shillstein for regurgitating the MSM greenhouse hoax. The earth is not a greenhouse, the science is not settled, 99.9% do not believe in the greenhouse effect. (which is why you repeating the Al Gore 99.9% meme is laughable and why you richly deserve the Dr. Shillstein title.)
Every scientist knows that the 99.9% meme is media fakery – and only a fool would believe it if Al Gore said it. Furthermore, science does not work by consensus, and the 999 could be wrong and the 1 scientist right. Every scientist knows that.
And you totally missed the point I was making, the earth warmed melting the ice 18,000 years ago – which you agree was not caused by humans – thus how can you claim any warming now is caused by CO2 emissions when you don’t know what the baseline is?
Earth’s climate is changing from cold to hot to cold, and for your “greenhouse” CO2 theory to be valid, you would have to show how man made CO2 is causing a change to earth’s own temperature variability – but no scientist can do that – so it is not known if the current CO2 increase is having any effect – because it can not be measured independently of the natural cycle.
This is much discussed with scientists. The CO2 increase can be measured, but the CO2 causal effect of warming can not be measured.
The climate computer models have ALL failed, not a one worked – because the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature do not exist.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/03/the-great-pause-lengthens-again-global-temperature-update-the-pause-is-now-18-years-3-months/
That is one reason why temperatures are currently going sideways while CO2 goes up. The causal link between CO2 and temp is false. To continue believing it is an act of insanity. Greenhouse is a theory, a failed theory, and this is what Physicist Richard Feyman says about that:
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Temperatures are not conforming to the greenhouse theory, thus, the theory is wrong. Climate change is a religion, not science, and those that cling to it are beyond insane, they are damn dangerous.
And there are other theories that should be considered, a rival theory claims that earth’s temperature long term average is caused by atmospheric pressure, with no regard to composition.
“You are claiming 99.9% of scientists are wrong…”
“That 99.9% includes almost every “skeptic” scientist who has our back…”
“…to think you are smarter than 99.9% of scientists living on our planet.”
Don’t care anymore. We all just don’t care anymore what the 99.9% say.
If we learned anything from the Covid psyop it’s that 99.999% of the technocratic class — doctors, scientists, virologists, every “ists” —
will lie for money,
will not question anything for money,
will not do “real” science for money,
will write false scientific papers for money,
will knowingly harm and even kill people for money.
The 99.9% should not have been and never should be trusted again. (Fool us once, twice, etc…)
Start here: https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
Strike at the root, not the branches.
Well there you have it, folks. Richard Greene has spoken. The debate is over and the “science” is settled. Move along. Nothing left to see here.
Come on guys, its all HITRAN and MODTRAN these days.
Have you noticed he always repeats the tribe’s talking points? It seems to me to be a genetic predisposition.
If facebook is a CIA information gathering tool the only thing it gathers is information the government already has. If government wants to know who I went to school with, guess what, it already knows because it runs the schools. If they want to know If government wants to know who I worked with, it already knows through the IRS. If government wants to know where I lived or live, again, the IRS. If government wants to know my political views, it already knows through the NSA data centers monitoring traffic to and from websites (like this one for example). If government wants their information on me polluted then facebook is perfect because I lied to facebook on personal information.
I suppose government laziness would drive the facebook project but it’s still a gather and look up when people become troublesome system and rather redundant. Twitter much the same. There’s nothing on twitter I haven’t mentioned here or elsewhere.
The best candidate is Ramaswamy. Kennedy doesn’t have a prayer. Props to his physical fitness though.
Who is Ramaswamy?
Agree on Vivek
“He can make 16 arguments in the time it takes Joe Biden to wander through a sentence and Kamala Harris to butcher a paragraph.”
Quote from a New York Times opinion piece:
.https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/23/opinion/vivek-ramaswamy-2024-president.html
Agree that this guy is the best (as far as positions) candidate in 30 years.
I see you linked to a NY Times article, aren’t all of that rags articles behind a pay wall?
I don’t expect many posters here have a paid NY Times subscription.
Better than Ron Paul’s? Not even close.
Non-paywalled link: https://archive.is/yOYlH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoF_a0-7xVQ
Thought the 1961 Ford Galaxie 500 with the non-OEM front grille deserved a few more seconds in the final cut.
Otherwise, bravo!
True confession: I’ve no idea whut ‘500’ meant.
Or ‘Galaxie’ either. 🙁
Jim,
That’s a 1964 Galaxie.
According to the insane, wood fired pizza is bad for the environment – and New York State is shutting it down – carbon emissions they say.
Burning wood is bad – for pizza – (((they))) say – but what is the real science? The sun makes wood, and burning wood is releasing stored solar energy – wood is not a fossil fuel. Wood is a sun fuel, and the sun is good – unless you are a minion of Satan who works at the New York state house. And we know who runs New York, don’t we?
Did you know rotting wood over a long period or burning it quickly releases the same number of BTUs? Same number of CO2 molecules also. What about forest fires which burn billions of tons of wood? How does shutting down a wood fired pizza joint compare to forest fires?
Another unknown factlet. All CH4 (methane) ends up as CO2 and H2O. What they don’t tell you is that the earth makes methane – any organic matter rotting with out oxygen present makes methane – but the earth is not drowning in methane – because it is further oxidized by natural process. Every swamp on earth is making methane, and it all disappears over time, every single molecule.
And have you every thought what happens to all that heat when you burn anything? Let’s say you have a big bonfire out in the back woods – where does the heat go? It all goes, one way or another, into space – and is lost forever. Every BTU of every piece of wood that every was on earth went into space.
Zero carbon is an extinction level event based on false science. Those who push it are either misinformed or just plain evil.
‘And we know who runs New York, don’t we?’ — Yukon Jack
Why, yes … yes, I do believe we do: Mortitia Hochul.
“God did answer our prayers. He made the smartest men and women, the scientists, the doctors, the researchers — He made them come up with a vaccine. That is from God to us and we must say, thank you, God. Thank you.”
I ran like hell from Satan’s horsefaced handjob mistress, never to return.
I have relatives that live in non NY city New York. They will continue to burn wood. Lots of it available. They will ignore the comrades running the cities. It will get ugly if the comrades try to stop folks from heating with wood. New York city controls the state, but guess where the water and food comes from.
In the UK they burn wood pellets made from US trees and call that a green fuel. It releases more CO2 than any other fuel and it takes 40 years to grow a new tree. They might as well paint coal green and burn that too.
Every microgram of carbon released in the burning of wood is net zero, as all that carbon was assimilated from the air and soil to begin with over the life of the tree. At worst, per your figure, it’s just a 40 year displacement.
If one fears CO2, burning a tree now and then waiting 40 years for a new tree to absorb an equal amount of CO2, makes no sense.
I’ll leave others to debate the relative risk/reward ratios of airbags. One thing we almost all agree upon is that in a perfect world, airbags would be optional, and all buyers could have it their way.
But I’d really know how long we can expect airbags to last? Nobody ever addresses this. How long can we expect the electrical sensors and activators to function correctly. And perhaps most critical….how long will the detonator and explosive substances be able to do the same?
Five years? Fifteen years? More? Or less?
Major thanks to anyone who can enlighten us on this!
Many automakers such as Mercedes-Benz placed airbag replacement labels on all vehicles sold in the U.S. through 2002. Those labels called for airbags to be replaced after 15 years. But after much research, automakers have concluded that airbags produced after 1992 will last the lifetime of the vehicle.
I believe a lifetime is defined as 200,000 miles because only 1% of vehicles wu ill exceed 200,000 miles.
But your airbags might be recalled long before 200,000 miles.
A total of 67 million airbags have been recalled, and at the end of 2022, 11 million were still yet to be replaced. At the heart of the problem is the airbag’s inflator, a metal cartridge loaded with propellant wafers, which in some cases has ignited with explosive force.
There have been serious problems with existing air bags, which is another reason to use your seat belts and lobby for airbags as an option.
While I’m shocked to see you write, ” lobby for airbags as an option” and at least you do not seem to be in favor of imposing them upon mankind (nevermind the, beg your overlords part)…. when you write, “serious problems with existing air bags, which is another reason to use your seat belts” why in the hell do you think seatbelt use is a cure for the injury from air bags?
If you wear seat belts, you don’t need airbags for most crashes. And the air bag will “beat up” your face less if you sit as far away from it as possible, and use seat belts too.
Being able to buy a car without airbags would be the best solution for the cost and damage often caused by airbags deploying.
But people who do not wear seat belts, like EP, are taking a risk by not having air bags. There are data to prove that.
Good drivers who have never had an accident can get hit hard by bad drivers and drunk drivers.
Richard,
I have never “needed” an air bag or a seatbelt. Because I have never been in a serious crash. You posit the possibility – which I grant. It is also possible I might slip in the shower and bust my head open. It is a risk I am willing to tale.
But it is beside the point as regards this discussion – which your wheedling about “saving lives” attempts to deflect attention from.
“Need” is a subjective. According to whom? It is something only the individual can rightly weigh and it is an obscenity to use an assertion that he “needs” something to force something upon him.
The government – which is just some people who have arrogated power and titles – has no legitimate business telling me or anyone else how “safe” (as defined by them) my car must be. I have the right to decide whether a car that is very light, very simple and very expensive is of more value to me than the hypothetical value of a car that might “keep me safe” if I crash – at the very real cost of added weight, complexity and cost.
Richard,
Everything you write misses the point – which is that people are being placed at risk by a device they are forced to have installed in their car. The degree of risk is not relevant. You go on to write – with your usual superciliousness:
“There have been serious problems with existing air bags, which is another reason to use your seat belts and lobby for airbags as an option.”
Like use “your” mask. The seatbelts in my truck are not “mine.” They were foisted upon me. I don’t wear them because I do not want to. Period – and that is more than enough reason, for me. Your reasons mean nothing to me.
Anyone who compares mandatory airbags with Stalin can not be taken seriously on the subject!
Richard,
Anyone who does not understand the implicit sameness of the threat cannot be taken seriously. Such people are childish in their understanding, simple-minded. Useful Idiots, as Lenin styled them. He did so for a reason. A very cynical one. He understood that many people just cannot imagine that a small thing – seemingly harmless or at least not luminously objectionable – will lead to a bigger thing.
It’s “just a mask.”
And then: “It’s just a vaccine.”
And (almost): “It’s just a QR code that proves you’ve been vaccinated.”
Sheep cannot see this. Are you one?
Greene is the kind of guy that would vehemently claim that he opposes “trans” ideology, but then inadvertently concede the entire argument by referring to himself as a cis-gender male within the same sentence.
I don’t know what a cis-gender male is. I would prefer that all gays, lesbians, trans people and straight people go back into the closet and stop blabbing about their sex lives. Whatever happens in a bedroom should stay in a bedroom. … And no trans-men in women’s sports.
Stalin, Hitler and now Lenin comparisons. What about Mao.
Mandatory masks are far from Hitler’s yellow star armbands.
Mandatory pretend to be vaccines and QR codes are not.
You have to learn to discriminate, and stop comparing everything you don’t like to vicious dictators. Everyone is not a near-anarchist like you are.
Richard,
The point I keep trying to make is that if you allow “x” then you have conceded the principle justifying “x” and so have already conceded “y.” Stalin – like all collectivists – justified everything done to the individual in terms of the “good” it (supposedly) furthered for the collective. Do you see?
And it just halts me, sometimes, that you – a Jewish person – cannot appreciate that what was done to people who refused to wear the god-damned “mask” was horrifically similar to what was done to Jewish people in the Reich. They were set apart, as a diseased class – a danger to the Volk! They were literally characterized (as by Hitler) as a bacillus. This gave the general public permission to treat them as such. Just the same as those who did not “mask” were treated here.
And we came this close to people who refused to “mask” – and be “vaccinated” – being herded into camps.
All facts. Yet you seem unable to see. Or you simply do not wish to see.
Watching the “battle” between you and Dick reminds me of that scene in City Slickers where Billy Crystal is explaining how to operate a VCR to Daniel Stern.
Bruno Kirby rides by on his horse and states, “He doesn’t get it, he’ll never get it. The cows can program a VCR at this point”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQGgaI-BcI4
Hi Richard,
Thanks for that info!
Not a bad comment, MikePizzo.
Seem like you’re asking, “when will the aging ticking time bomb go off in moms lap and knock her eye out of her socket or just plain OFF her?”
Not IF, but when?
Never-mind a rock or a bird hitting a perfectly new sensor?
But, I digress.
I think, it’s all going according to plan.
After-all, “Doin’ good, ain’t got no end.”
Hi Helot,
Yes, I was asking how long it might take for an airbag to go off when it shouldn’t, and also how long before it might Fail to go off when it should.
O/T – Now they are coming for your drive-thru sandwiches.
https://www.wlwt.com/article/drive-thrus-creating-problems/44335811
Anon
I would prefer airbags to be optional, but I am not sure if I would order them — probably not.
Whether I would order front air bags as an option depends on their cost, the potential savings in auto insurance fees, and potential advantages for the car’s resale value.
ARBAGS SAVE ABOUT 30% of lives in non-belted accidents. They save fewer than 10% of lives in belted accidents So they do benefit society.
But airbags add cost, especially the multiple air bags used now, And they deploy too easily, at great expense for repairs.
Most important is the damage they can do to shorter people who sit close to the steering wheel or passenger side dashboard. Especially shorter people who wear eyeglasses.
My very short, elderly mother in law was in an accident while in the passenger seat. She was fully belted so the airbag did not save her life. It knocked out her front tooth, which was very expensive to fix, and it gave her a black and blue face. We saw her the next day and it was obvious the air bag caused ALL of the damage in the accident. Looking at her airbag damaged face was very disturbing.
THAT IS THE MAIN REASON WHY I do not prefer being forced to buy air bags in cars that I buy. An elderly woman “beat up” by an air bag is not a sight one can ever forget.
Unfortunately, there was no choice with my 2016 Camry. My only response is to sit as far away from the air bags as possible, with the seat all the way back. But that is not the best answer.
Airbags should inflate at 25+mph, not at 10+mph
They can save lives, but only at high speeds, not at 10mph.
It would also be nice to have 5mph bumpers that actually worked, like in the old days. The cost of repairing the plastic fascias after low speed damage is way too high. My wife tends to back into poles, as a hobby.
“So they do benefit society.”
The siren song of all great statists.
So right you are James N, “Doin’ good, ain’t got no end”
Eh?
I think of it all as the Puritans among us. Pod People. Not quite human.
Those airbags statistics are derived from actual results of traffic accidents. Do you resent data that you do not like to hear?
Data derived facts are always better than emotional appeals such as comparing airbags with Stalin, and comparing masks with Hitler’s yellow stars for Jews. But emotional over the top appeals seem more popular than they should be here.
Airbags save lives, especially those people in unbelted accidents. That is a fact. Saving lives reduces the cost of auto insurance. We are all forced to buy auto insurance. Therefore, all drivers who purchase auto insurance (aka “society”) benefit, especially the families of those drivers and passengers who would have died, unbelted, in car crashes. That is a net benefit to our nation (aka “society”), whether you like it or not.
Richard,
“air bags saves lives.” They have also taken them. And they have not “saved” mine – yet I have been forced to buy the damned things.
I have already tried to explain to you that “masks” served the same basic purpose as the yellow stars – only the case of “masks,” it was those who didn’t wear the damned things who were the “filthy Jews.” As far as Stalin: The whole point of the reference to point out the common tendency, which you obtusely refuse to see. You call it “over the top.” And yet, look where we find ourselves.
“Saving lives reduces the cost of auto insurance.”
Bullshit. The cost of replacing cars totals cars that would otherwise be economically repairable. This has dramatically increased insurance costs.
Hitlers masks discriminated against Jews. Coc vid masks were worn by almost everyone — vaxxed and unvaxxed — they were nothing like yellow stars.
Airbags reduce medical costs from accidents. that is a fact. Those savings are more than the cost of replacing the airbags. Medical expenses are extremely high if you are taken to an emergency room after a car accident.
Airbags are not supposed to deploy if seat belts are not being worn. This is because they can cause serious injury in such deployments. This is not a failsafe mechanism though. Sometimes people bypass the system by using plugs for their seat belts to switch off the alarm. Or sitting on the attached seat belts to stop the no seat belt alarm. Those are the people most likely to benefit from air bags in a frontal crash. They will be injured by hitting the air bag, but that is better than hitting the windshield.
Richard,
I cannot imagine you are actually this dense – so I must assume it is something else. The “masks” were used to turn the people who refused to wear them into pariahs – people who were targets – just as Jews were so transformed in National Socialist Germany. It was made “ok” to turn those who did not wear the loathsome devices out of work, to kick them out of stores… does it have a familiar ring?
Or is it that you do not object to other people being treated as Jewish people were treated?
“Airbags reduce medical costs from accidents. that is a fact.”
No, it is as assertion. In many accidents there are no “medical costs” – because no one is injured. This is a fact. And it is a fact that air bags add expense to the car as well to the cost of “covering” it. Even if there is never an accident.
Dealing with your wheedling is tiresome.
“And it is a fact that air bags add expense to the car as well to the cost of “covering” it.” Because their deployment usually totals the car. Which means insurance providers have to charge more for coverage. Which means otherwise perfectly serviceable cars are sent to salvage. The cost is a LOT higher than air bags as an optional purchase would be.
Exactly, John –
And if the damned things were optional, then those who chose to equip their cars with them would pay the additional cost of “covering” such a vehicle. As opposed to all of us being made to pay for it.
I sometimes think I ought to begin demanding a law that forces everyone to exercise (as I do). I’d almost like to see Richard forced to do some sit-ups every day, so as to keep him healthy and thereby reduce the costs “society” would otherwise bear…
If I die young, which will soon be impossible, my medical costs, via Medicare, will end, and save money for Medicare.
Richard: You need not make these arguments as I think I covered most or all of them on your behalf below.
I am a white American, however, I know the anger that people of color must have had when they were in the deep south in the 1960s or so. I was tossed out of stores simply for not wearing a face diaper. I was almost told to find other work because of potential vaccine mandates. Not wearing a mask was similar to having a Jewish Star in Hitlers period. No, we werent walked to gas chambers, but the drumbeat for that was growing by the day.
I will freely use the analogy of Hitler’s stars or whatever to point out that the mask wearing and the vaccine mandates would lead the the genocide or enslavement of mankind. People need to pull their head of their ass and see what is going on.
Considering that Canada and Australia had (have?) actual concentration camps for the unjabbed, why exactly, is the comparison to Nazi Germany not apt?
Something about being killed?
Well the old handicapped lady did manage to survive being intentionally trampled by a horse, I’ll give you that.
Can you prove that there were zero deaths due to the jab in Canada and Australia?
You were talking about the unjabbed being treated like the nazis treated jews, therefore they would not have gotten the jab. So your question about deaths from the jab doesn’t make any sense.
“We are all forced to buy auto insurance. Therefore, all drivers who purchase auto insurance (aka “society”) benefit, especially the families of those drivers and passengers who would have died, unbelted, in car crashes. That is a net benefit to our nation (aka “society”), whether you like it or not.”
Perfectly encapsulates the ignorance of Dick in one paragraph.
Richard,
Nothing “benefits society” as only individuals can benefit (or not) from something. “Society” is a rhetorical device, not an entity.
The government has zero business decreeing what is “safe” as regards cars. If there is liability, as for a defective car, then that can be handled via the civil and criminal courts. But a car that does not have air bags or “advanced driver assistance technology” is not “unsafe” if it drives in a controllable manner.
Richard. You are a piece of work. Hard to reason with the unreasonable.
Care to explain why, or do you prefer simple insults, Ugg?
Eric: “…who have acquired the legal power to impose risks…”
No federal “legal power” was acquired. It’s all illegal.
Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Rules passed within the limits of the Constitution are known as
Amendments – there are 27 of them. If no Amendment, the
actions are unconstitutional.
So the quoted statement needs amending to “… who have usurped the legal power to impose risks …”
Funny how ‘usurp’ has fallen from favor. The Founders used to hurl it at their opponents like rolls at a bun fight.
“Biden” being a poster-boy usurper installed by a tainted election, every “official” act of his since Jan 20, 2021 is hereby declared null and void. Out with you, vile impostor!
👍 👍
Eric says ““the government,” a term used to banalize what is in fact a gang of office-holders who have acquired the legal power”
But where did government come from, how did gangs create government? Religion is the source of the government. Governments were born of religions. A religion which says you must believe in the one true “all powerful” god becomes you must obey the one all powerful government.
The Old Testament is quite explicit about which God is the correct one, and what to do for those who refuse to convert to Yahweh. To know what “god said” just consult the online Bible hub:
https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/6-15.htm
Deuteronomy 6:15
The Greatest Commandment
“…14Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you. 15For the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God. Otherwise the anger of the LORD your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the face of the earth. ”
Governments often fight each other, and when they do you’d better follow god’s rules. Please note that the United States of Amerika (i.e god) does not want you to follow that other god, the Russian Republic. And if you were to worship this other god, the USA god will wipe you off the face of the earth – just like the Old Testament.
Exodus 34:14
13Rather, you must tear down their altars, smash their sacred stones, and chop down their Asherah poles. 14For you must not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.”
God is jealous, don’t ya know. Funny how God of the Bible has human emotions, and this almighty God needs your help in destroying his unbelievers. It never dawns on the faithful that such stories come from the minds of jealous men, invoking god to get you to do what they want.
Before we had the Republic of France we had the Holy Roman Church – which was the government in France for a very long time – and note how these priests to his holiness persecuted anyone who did not bend a knee or believe.
Ayn Rand (born of Russian Jewish parents) has a brilliant mind and clarified this government stuff for us (what she said is easy to find online, just consult the online Ayn Rand Lexicon):
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html
“The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.”
But the government cheats at the vote and the Jews control the media (and perceptions, and thus who is allowed to run) – so elections (especially in ZOGmerika) are farcical exercises in futility. Every election is Ziowhore A vs. Ziowhore B and all presidential candidates start their elections at the Wailing Wall:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=presidential+candidates+at+the+wailing+wall&ia=images&iax=images
So unless you are extremely stupid, Jews do control the election process in Judeo-Christian Amerika. They own all of the candidates, and make them all sign pledges to Israel:
The very brave Congressman Cynthis McKinney tells you the truth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImFMcbF2MYY
Now what you have to also know is that most people have been brainwashed by church and state, and they do believe in authority, and they vote for it. So good luck Libertarians – you are a tiny minority that does not believe in the state, problem is, everyone else does.
Obviously, if you believe in authority outside of self, you can not also believe in personal freedom. Ayn Rand wrote a fictional novel called Atlas Shrugged in which she imagined free men fleeing to Galt’s Gulch and creating their own prosperous society. Of course that is fiction, and can never happen – because if you don’t organize to defend yourself from the state, one tank can roll over your freedom. Think Waco.
Once one group of men create government, all must, or they will be wiped off the face of the earth. This is what happened to Iran, a religious backwater theocratic kingdom, unarmed, and then oil was discovered, and the west controlling them with the Shad and now is trying to wipe them out, and Iran is forced to rapidly modernize with state of the art weapons just to survive.
God beget the state, and now the state acts like God.
God didn’t beget the state. Nimrod did. And he was one of the bad guys in Genesis.
Is that sweet grandmotherly lady the one and only Joan Claybrook in drag? It was so nice of Carter to appoint her NHTSA secretary. We got to endure the 85 mph speedometer and many more years of heavy handed 55 mph enforcement.
Nice one
It’s her, Swamp!
Interesting, isn’t it, that government attracts ugly women nine-point-nine times out of ten?
Eric:
I’ve heard it said, politics is Hollywood for ugly people. They weren’t wrong …
Posed this question to a psychologist once. Why are so many of those in government ugly, and why are the most tyrannical the MOST ugly. He informed me that mental illness will change the way you look. In other words, it’s a natural symptom.
Indeed, John –
I also think (trigger alert – sexist comment coming) that it is unnatural for women to not marry and have children – and that those who don’t focus on their families are warped creatures, who focus on something else. Something fueled by resentment – of family (and men, especially). It is why sea-hags such as Hillary are a kind of archetype.
On the bight side the 85 mph speedo was easier to bury in my 1983 Escort
I agree. There is no reason to mandate any safety options. It should be on the individual person to accept those risks. If you have already mandated insurance then that issue should be between you and your insurance company (increased rates for increased risk for example).
I know someone who works for a rehab place. They have lots of closed head injury patients, almost all from auto/motorcycle accidents. I think the air bag role is not so much to save lives, as the seat belt does that (most fatalities are from getting thrown out of the car) but to prevent violent shocks to the head from windshield, steering wheel, dashboard, side pillar, etc. For an insurance company it may be cheaper for you to die then to need many years of round the clock care. I think that is why the airbag thing is pushed so hard by the insurance companies in their bribery of legislatures.
Thanks for your take on the matter, Flo.
I spent the bulk of my career working for a major insurance company. I know, hold the applause. Through my position, I was privy to multiple reports and studies completed during my tenure. Of course, insurance companies are always concerned with risk assessment. One study looked at the issue of airbags, and while there were numerous details in the report, one point stood out that I’ll always remember. We determined that the average driver would need an airbag every 110 years. In this case, “need” was defined as having a significant impact on the reduction of injuries sustained in a crash.
If drivers/passengers use the available restraints in the vehicle, it’s very unlikely they will gain much advantage from airbags over the course of their lifetime. Do airbags save lives? Of course, they do. But, considering the cost added to current vehicles, how many would opt out if given the chance? I know I would.
Hi, James N,
My brother, now retired as a claims specialist from State Farm, tells me that “air bag(s) deployed” is often what pushes a wreck into total loss category. In other words, it is frequently not economic to repair a vehicle which has deployed airbags.
Perhaps you can confirm?
The good part is that fewer people will be driving “patched up” cars.
The bad part is that more total losses probably means higher insurance premiums.
Speaking for my own experience, airbag deployment gave me
a) minor, insignificant bloody nose
b) concussion (evidenced by retrograde amnesia)
c) vertigo (messed up bones in the inner ear, which resolved itself in ~30 days)
None of which would have happened, absent the airbag. I was, naturally, wearing the shoulder belt, which, if it functioned properly (very likely, in a 1 year old late model car), should have prevented my head from impacting the steering wheel.
Just sayin…
Gee, what a coincidence. I also worked for State Farm and started my career in the Claims Department, but moved on to other areas in 1999. You’re correct that the deployment of airbags can total a vehicle following a crash, especially if it’s over 5-7 years old. Obviously, it doesn’t require a significant impact to have this happen. A number of times the cost to replace the airbags is greater than the $$ amount of the body/frame damage. It will only get worse as EVs continue to proliferate in the market.
Hi James,
Yup. My ’02 pick-up has government mandated driver/front seat passenger air bags. If these deployed, the truck would be totaled because its “book value” is around $5,000 (maybe) and the cost to replace the bags alone would easily amount to half or more of that value, before any body damage was repaired.
I intend to remove the damned things. I have an old Trans-Am Formula steering wheel I want to try to use instead!
Never do I want my vehicle lined with explosives. Senseless madness.
In a related matter, I thought this was interesting:
https://twitchy.com/justmindy/2023/06/25/desantis-kennedy-spar-over-marijuana-decriminalization-n2384826
Briefly, “Ron DeSantis declined to commit to decriminalizing marijuana.”
Then RFK Jr.: “DeSantis’ opposition to marijuana decriminalization is wrong. I will decriminalize cannabis at the federal level.”
So, DeSantis is making my shit-list, here, and a point to RFK Jr.
But, I will say that, for proper drug policy, it’s important to legalize sale, manufacture and possession, so as make those involved accountable for producing anything outside what is advertised.
Furthermore, like the mandating of airbags, the legalization of drugs is not about whether they are good or bad for you. It is about the ability to assume risk. Whether or not you choose to employ the use of airbags or methamphetamine, the ability to assume risk needs to be solely the domain of the user. Not some bureaucrat. Not your neighbor.
Lastly, that doesn’t mean you let people camp, shit and discard their used needles on the sidewalk, either. I believe that is being done on-purpose, associating such horrific sights with “decriminalization”, ultimately with the goal of demonizing libertarian principles.
Hi BaDnOn!
The more I find out about RFK, Jr. the more I respect and like the guy. Maybe I am allowing hopium to cloud my judgment, but he seems to be a genuinely decent man. Thoughtful. Empathetic. I have yet to detect in him the vicious narcissism that’s Trump’s signature quality – much less the psychopathy that defines that thing in the White House.
Hey Eric,
I think you may be correct! I know he has his policy flaws, but he does seem to be a magnanimous person. Also, though I initially liked DeSantis to some degree, he’s seeming increasingly authoritarian to me. And the Orange Man was ALWAYS of that ilk.
Yup on Desantis. Just like that he gets the endorsement of FL’s largest popo union.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/floridas-largest-police-union-endorses-desantis-after-supporting-trump-in-2020-choice-could-not-be-clearer
Crude calculations. Same situation with that Noem character in SD, who fought legalization tooth and nail on behalf of the Prohibition make work program for AGWs in her state.
However misguided he may be on some issues, he appears to be otherwise genuine and honest. Which I much prefer over some psychopath that tells me what they think I want to hear.
Not that I intend to vote of course.
Now just hang on. RFK, Jr. does seem like a genuinely decent guy and is saying all the right things right now. However, he has been a pretty staunch leftist in the not-so-distant past. I can’t help but be skeptical about him. He seems too good to be true. Is he expecting to lose the Democratic nomination only to run as an independent in order to split the Republican vote by peeling off the libertarian and freedom-minded non-left vote so Team Left can retain power?
Here’s what the loathsome, but inciteful Ted Kaczynski said in his “manifesto” about the Left:
“In earlier revolutions, leftists of the most powerhungry type, repeatedly, have first cooperated with nonleftist revolutionaries, as well as with leftists of a more libertarian inclination, and later have double-crossed them to seize power for themselves.”
The anti-Trump National Review is begging begging RFK, Jr. to run as an independent: https://archive.fo/Ga9Or
I don’t think so. With election integrity completely non existent, third parties, even “iiiiiileeeegal immigrants” voting won’t make a difference. Beginning in 2017, I started to notice the outright election theft take place.
They pretend to give us a “choice of candidates.”
We pretend to “vote for our preferred candidate.”
They pretend to “count the votes.”
“You take Sally, and I’ll take Sue. There ain’t no difference between the two.”
“All the world’s a stage, and we but players on it.”
Anyone who owns both horses in a two horse “race” is unlikely to care which horse (or horse’s ass) “wins” the “race.”
Good stuff, Adi.
RFK is a total statist, he is Ted Kennedy with better driving skills. He just seems so much better than others because he has not been in the limelight lately, and the rest of the crowd is so objectionable. He enthusiastically campaigned for Hillary. So naive!
You may be right on this, Cashy. However, if that’s the case, RFK, Jr. is a great actor, because he’s saying all the right stuff to appeal to the non-Left. He’s has been in the limelight for the past 2 years or so.
By the way, you mean DRUNK driving skills.
You may be right, Cashy –
But the bar is low, eh?
RFK is a leftist loser pretending to be something else, just like Obama in 2008. Never trust a politician running for office — they tell you what they think YOU want to hear.
RFK has extremely low character and repeatedly cheated on his wife. When she found out the huge extent of his philandering, in his “sex diary”, she committed suicide. I would not vote for RFK if he as running for assistent dog catcher
You like him because he is anti-vaccines, might be anti-war (probably not true) and works out with weights, IMHO.
https://nypost.com/2013/09/08/rfk-jr-s-sex-diary-of-adultery/
You may be right, Richard –
Again, the bar is low. It is a measure of just how tired so many of us are of narcissists and psychopaths. Especially those who push “vaccines.”
This is practically the only place I have seen on the internet where an informative discussion of these types of things takes place. No one else dares discuss whether or not we really need airbags, emissions regulations, saaaafety regulations, eeevvvs, and the like.
It is good to revisit the airbag debate from time to time. Although there is a marginal benefit to having the airbag to prevent fatalities, I think that the chances of injuries are actually higher with bags than without.
Let me give an unrelated example, but an instructive one. Back in 1993 or 94, I was traveling to work before sunrise. I was passing a car at about 85-90 mph in the 65 mph zone outside Lexington. I came up on this truck with no taillights. All I had time to do was slam on the brakes in my 87 Acura Integra. I skidded off the road for about 50 feet and ran into an open median. The medians didn’t have those cable barriers then. I regained control of the car and drove it back on the freeway. My car was intact and didn’t need so much as a wheel alignment after the incident. Had the road had cable barriers, I would have likely hit one and had about 2k worth of body damage and a paint job and maybe have been injured from the impact. For every life saved there are likely 5 incicents like this that occurred.
Same with airbags. In a low speed crash, if the airbag deploys, your injuries are likely worse than if you had just remained belted only.
I think that it is up to the individual whether or not they want these systems in their car.
While airbags may lower the fatal accident rate by 8 percent, they likely don’t help with property damage and injury crashes. Too many people have been harmed by inadvertent airbag deployment. In addition, airbags and safety equipment are driving insurance costs higher with complex repairs.
At 68 I remember cable barriers as a kid, here in WA. They were eventually outlawed as too dangerous so on to formed metal guard rails. The ends of those were deemed too dangerous so they added swept sections that curved away and the ends buried in dirt berms. Better to ride your car up onto the rail than get jousted thru with a steel beam.
Apparently too much work, now there are blunt end rails with a collapse section, good luck. Oh and the cable barriers are back, everywhere. I shudder riding past those on the motorcycle, certain death going off pavement and tangled into those on a scooter.
The problem was switching from expensive but precise and durable sodium azide to a cheap mining explosive (anfo)that is neither precise nor consistent/durable over what may be decades inhospitable conditions.
Anfo is fantastic for cracking big rocks on your own property btw…. And essentially free….
This the vital “devil in the details” info we should all be informed about, the drive by media is either too uneducated and/or lazy to dig out these details. Frankly, it’s more like “phone it in” media at this point.
This explains why older units worked without the shrapnel effect. I remember decades ago a news story two older gals driving a Caddy got hit head on, over 50 MPH if I recall. She’d bought the car used turns out it was a very early rare airbagged Caddy and was old when it got hit. Bags worked perfectly and they survived with minor injuries.
Really pisses me off, they mandate this s**t then shrug “oh well” when deficient substitutes make the equipment worse than not having it. Gov/business complex hums and haws for years yet we’re the bad guys if we disable the bags.
If they offered a 4-point harness, I would definitely pick that over a steering wheel airbag.
An airbag at the bottom of the dash to keep your knees from being broken might be useful.
Anon
Co worker was hit head on 45-50 MPH, no bag but was wearing the three point lap shoulder belt. Bruised sternum from the shoulder belt, no other issues.
Here in central WA the recent residents from way down south pile up cars and trucks at an amazing rate. Many fatalities since it seems to a cultural thing to NOT wear a seat/shoulder belt – the usual repeated statement on the news “died after being thrown from the vehicle, not wearing a seatbelt”. Then the news clip of the county gendarmerie haranguing the public “don’t drink and drive, wear your belt”. I just laugh, you’re wasting your breath Copper!
Had one deploy in a minor 5 mph incident. Did nothing but total a perfectly fine car. I believe the Takata airbags were especially notorious for killing people.
I’ve disconnected the airbags and the ABS on both cars I own. Hook them up for the ten minutes of getting my saaaaafety inspection and then disconnect them again the minute I’m back home. Bite me NHTSA.
I remember back in the 80/90’s, while living in Michigan, and ABS was just starting to be added to cars. A car salesman asked me if I wanted ABS and I didn’t know much about them. He explained how they work this way.
“If you start to lose control on the ice during a snowstorm and apply the brakes, you’ll slide into the snowbank straight.” Thought that was kinda funny.
I don’t think I’d order airbags. A study of airbag effectiveness was conducted in the early 2000’s on the effectiveness of airbags.
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/153/3/219/80361?login=false
These devices maybe reduced the chances of dying in an accident by 8 percent over using a lap and shoulder belt. By contrast, using a lap and shoulder belt reduced mortality by 72 percent. The only time an airbag appreciably saves a life is if you travel unbelted, where it reduced the chances of being killed by 63 percent.
To save $1500-2000 on a car, I would forego the airbags. For me, airbags do nothing.
Here, I’ll say it so Greene and Cashy don’t have to:
Butt, butt, butt. . .Eric, the CDC says that 92% of the 73% of those during the pandemic were required to be locked-down because the the size of the aerosolized droplets could be controlled by masks and vaccines. This was necessary because my doctor required that i wear a mask incessantly, but I only wore it under my chin because masks don’t work and it wasn’t a vaccine, but the pandemic killed 7 million people and Biden would have been elected anyway. Eric calls me mean names and I’m butt hurt, but I’m a hard right winger and this stuff is totally out of control, but the airbags must be mandated because a really bad crash can require an ambulance trip and a hospital visit which will cost the government (the “people” or “us”) lots of money because the healthcare workers are heroes and NHTSA says that airbags are 98% safe and effective. Oh, and I’m not ok living in Somalia you know. This is America where we don’t leave the dead and dying by the roadside!!! I’m rubber you’re gluuuuue.
Thanks for the at-bat, Mister!
Not so fast, buddy. On behalf of Greene and Cashy, here’s a rebuttal to your angry counter-argument:
It’s undeniable that Hitler didn’t mandate airbags in VWs and neither did Mussolini. You make this tin-foil hat claim that fascism is the merger of corporations and government, but I just don’t believe that because there’s no evidence of it and Antifa (anti-fascism, duh!) says its fighting for social justice and equity. Hitler and Mussolini didn’t mandate airbags; therefore, you’re a fascist because you don’t want airbags mandated. This is irrefutable!!!!!!
LOL.
Thanks for the morning humor, Mister Liberty. 🙂
Comprehensive, though I would add the libertarians are utopians accusation as well as the year since or number of years self identified as a libertarian or member of the LP.
Do you mind if I write my own comments?
I think it’s much more efficient and succinct if I do it for you. Your scrambled, contrarian positions are very predictable.
You’re quite an unpleasant person on the internet, I doubt anyone would want to share a free society with you.
You are right where you belong, an anonymous coward hiding behind an internet name to insult and be obnoxious.
If that insult was aimed at me, Cashy, I want you to know that I am not anonymous.
Richard Greene
Bingham farms, Michigan
It was not aimed at you but at Mister Liberty who has insulted numerous posters in the short time I have been on the board. I have found your posts to be intelligent and informative, keep up the good work.
Hi Cashy,
Things sometimes get heated; people take things personally. I much prefer an intelligent conversation and appreciate it as well when we can have that.
Come on, Cashy. Lighten up a little. We’re just having some fun and a vigorous debate. I only called you Flo because you seem fixated on mandatory insurance.
Ok. I promise I’ll stop now.
“You may be right” is the closest to a complement from EP that I have ever received. I’m adding it to my resume.
I don’t think airbags should be associated with Stalin.
I’ve never really given any thought as to whether I’d add airbags if they were optional, not mandated. Guess the key factors to noodle through are:
a) the price
b) I’ve never had one deploy
Hi Mike,
I regard the risk of an air bag saving my life as slim to nil – as I don’t wreck and most wrecks are not “accidents.” They are avoidable. I have avoided them for 30-plus years. I would also buy a small, very light car – without the air bags or the ABS, etc. – because to me the actual value of a simple, low-cost, fuel efficient car far outweighs the hypothetical benefit of “safety.”
“nil”?
Didn’t you once say you don’t use seat belts?
if so, the airbags are likely to be worth more to you than “nil”.
Unfortunately, airbags are more likely to deploy at lower speeds when you don’t need them, leading to a very expensive repair and a bruised face.
You ought to wear seat belts, if you don’t wear them. Someone could hit you, and you would hit the windshield. We would hate to lose you.
Richard,
I get to decide what air bags (and anything else) is worth to me. It is a value judgment. No one else has the right to make such judgments on my behalf, contrary to my will.
Air bags are worth nothing – to me.
I despise seat belts and never wear them. On principle. I have also taken to riding my bike without a helmet – again – as we used to be able to do, legally, before the Clovers took over.
What’s the point of adding all that risk to your life? Make some abstract point? It sounds kind of stupid. The cars have the bags no matter what, the seatbelt takes a second to put on, and a helmet offers some protection to your head. What’s the downside? All to make a statement that makes no difference to anyone and in worse case adds lots of grief to your life?
Seatbelts can cut you in half in a wreck or trap you in a roll over.
Helmets offer zero protection from concussion & lower the ability to see and hear danger.
I’ve known plenty of people who died while wearing a seatbelt or a helmet, perhaps we could ask them what the upside was to wearing them?
…Do you wear a helmet when you step into the shower or bathtub? Surely, you must.
You cannot be serious? Are you incapable of understanding math? No safety device is 100% effective, it’s all about the percentages. Virtually no one gets cut in half by a seat belt, and they would not have survived the accident if they weren’t. How can helmets not offer extra protection? Why do football players wear them? Why do NASCAR drivers wear them? If you know plenty of people that died while wearing a seat belt or a helmet you would know many more that were saved. It’s one thing to not want to use them based on some person preference but to make believe that it is in some way safer is ridiculous.
It seems, you prefer to be willfully ignorant.
“Why do football players wear them?”
Are you not even aware of the prevalence of concussions among football players?
I’m not incapable of understanding math, serious injury and even death results from bathroom falls all the time.
Why wouldn’t you wear a helmet when you bathe? …Answer, please.
P-E-R-C-E-N-T-A-G-E-S they really aren’t hard to understand, just some addition and multiplication with a little division. You increase your chances of surviving and not being seriously injured if you are wearing a seatbelt. Same for helmet use. If football players get concussions with helmets they would get skull fractures without them.
About 26,000 people died in auto accidents last year 360 in bathroom falls. See what a significant difference in percentages that is?
It does not make a difference to me which you choose. You should be free to make the choice. But the safer choice is clear.
Yes, “be safe”.
And, may your chains rest lightly upon your shoulders.
“If football players get concussions with helmets they would get skull fractures without them.”
Yah, you’ve chosen, willful ignorance.
Cashy,
“Percentages” are the tyrant’s way to stomp the individual under the mass. Exercising and eating “healthy” also increases the percentages – in favor of a longer, healthier life. Shall those be government-mandated as well?
“About 26,000 people died in auto accidents last year.” A small percentage of the total. Yet you favor imposing things on everyone in the name of risk mitigation.
This is what a “dissident” on the “right” considers to be different from the mainstream Left?
Also, I have had zero people tell me they were ‘saved’ because they were wearing a seatbelt or helmet.
Zero.
I do wear a helmet when I comment here.
Your claim that seat belts and helmets cost lives is completely false. They are both significant net life savers.
Are you really that dense?
My comment was: I don’t know of anyone – ever – who said a seatbelt or a helmet saved their lives. No One!
Yet, I know many people who died while wearing a seatbelt or a helmet. It Is A Fact!
“significant net life savers” <- words of worms afraid of living and in favor of being ruled by others.
Richard,
You write: “Your claim that seat belts and helmets cost lives is completely false.”
Untrue. It is a fact that people have been killed as a result of seat belts (and helmets). For example, being trapped within a burning car. I grant not many, but that is not the point.
You write: “They are both significant net life savers.” And so is exercise. Shall that be forced on people, too?
Provide data or stop with the wild and wrong speculation.
data free claims are meaningless.
According to the CDC, motorcycle helmet use saves more than 1,800 lives each year. Helmet use might save an estimated 800 more lives if all riders chose to wear motorcycle helmets.
EP predictable response: It’s the CDC — everything they say is a lie. I know better. I have no alternative data, but I just know.
It’s been a long time since I looked into motorcycle helmets but the question wasn’t saving lives, they did. But they changed fatalities into severe disabilities.
The point being, after the last three years nothing the CDC (marketing branch of Pharma) says can be believed. Whether you have figures to refute it or not is irrelevant. Just because they have the only pertinent figures does not validate them.
Richard,
Helmets have no “saved” my life. I am alive. I avoid wearing them. QED.
Yes, they can save a life (singular) if the wearer wrecks, if the wreck is severe. Note the factual qualifiers. I despise generalities being used to justify impositions. My head is my head. If I wish to risk it, that is my right.
How about these risk factors:
Do you drive fast?
Have you had accidents in the past?
Do you drink and drive?
risk factors?!
You’re an older guy, absolutely you should be wearing a helmet whenever you step into a shower or bathtub! And, you should strap on some padded hip protectors, old people are highly prone to hip fractures, you should probably Never bathe without hip protectors. …And, wrist braces.
You might also want to consider some kind of bungie suspension system to hold you upright as you bathe.
It’s just too damn risky to do otherwise. By your own reasoning.
Should there be laws put in place to make sure you do the above?
Perhaps, install some cameras in your bathroom to make sure you’re complying?
You know, just like a speed camera. You like those, …right?
So, you do wear a helmet while bathing?
If not, why not?
I always drive fast.
One accident I slid into ditch during a bad snow storm when I was 19.
I always drive when I am drunk. No problems.
That’s why I think auto insurance is a good idea. Idiots like you.
RE: “That’s why I think auto insurance is a good idea. Idiots like you.”
…Because, insurance is like wearing a garlic necklace to protect you from vampires?
Yeesh, insurance will protect you, you’re in ‘good hands’.
Psft. Not only do I think you’re willfully ignorant, I think you’re a wuss and afraid of living.
Insurance isn’t a garlic necklace to prevent one from accidents, it’s to provide financial protection caused by scumbags that drive drunk.
Cashy,
Do “drunk driving” laws prevent “scumbags” from “driving drunk”?
And: There is nothing preventing you from buying “coverage” to protect against the risk of such. But your position is that I and everyone else must also be forced to.
Can you understand the distinction?
Cashy,
I am going to try – again. Let’s take your statement above and modify it, just slightly:
“Insurance isn’t a garlic necklace to prevent one from gun violence, it’s to provide financial protection caused by scumbags that shoot people.”
Italicized words are mine – replacing yours.
Can you see?
You style yourself as someone who holds “dissident” views. That you are on the “right” (politically). That you were once of libertarian bent.
How does justifying the use of government force for the profit of private corporations square with any of that?
I wish you’d focus – and try to explain – rather than just reiterate your approbation of mandatory “coverage.”
Cashy,
It seems all you have is ad hominem – personal attacks when you are frustrated by facts and cannot respond to them with contrary facts.
That’s rich! The name calling I have been exposed to since I’ve started posting is more then I’ve seen used on any other boards towards a new poster. And I’m not the only one.
Someone that brags about driving drunk when you consider all the innocent people murdered by drunk drivers deserves being called an idiot.
Cashy,
Where have I “bragged about driving drunk?”
You accuse me of name-calling. But at least I don’t make up things about people.
I have railed against inept/impaired driving for decades. I have long advocated that people who injure others via their ineptitude or reckless action be held fully responsible for the harms they have caused.
What I have argued against is using an assertion that harm might result to harm people who’ve not actually harmed anyone. I have argued that this establishes a loathsome and dangerous principle; i.e., that someone else’s fear of risk justifies punishing people. And if you do not believe that forcing people to hand over thousands of dollars to an insurance mafia when they have not harmed anyone is not punishment, then I cannot help you.
Definitely thin skinned.
Over half the people killed in car accidents are killed by sober drivers. Would you therefore require all drivers take at least one shot of liquor or one beer before driving? Or do you prefer to use only those stats that support your notions?
I guess you don’t understand how math works. Over half the people are killed by sober drivers because the percentage of people that drive who are sober dwarfs the number who are drunk. So there are millions more sober drivers then drunk ones at any one time. But the ones that are drunk have a much higher rate of accidents.
Cashy:
What were the causes of crashes involving sober drivers?
What were the causes of crashes involving drunk driver?
What is drunk driving? BAL 0.01 for under 21s? BAL 0.05, 0.08 or 0.1 or 0.2 for 21 or older?
Was the amount of blood alcohol really the cause of these crashes?
How can you know?