It was enough that a handful of kids were killed by drivers who were unable to see them when they inadvertently backed-up over them for the federal government to mandate that every car be fitted with a back-up camera system.
It is not enough, apparently, that a number of people have been killed by defective/aging air bags to reconsider the mandate that requires every new car made be fitted with multiple air bags.
Including the three kills confirmed by Stellantis, parent company of the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram truck brands. The most recent of these reportedly occurring on May 13, when an airbag killed the front seat passenger who was riding shotgun in a 2003 Ram 1500 pick-up.
Now Stellantis is urging people who own older Ram trucks (as well as Dodge and Chrysler vehicles) equipped with the potentially lethal “safety” devices to not drive them until the explosive devices in the steering wheel and dash can be replaced with new explosive devices.
Many people think of air bags as cushions – which they are, in part. It is the other part that has the potential to kill. That has killed.
And will kill, again.
That would be the explosive part.
In order for the air bag to cushion the person facing it from an impact with the steering wheel or dashboard it must inflate within fractions of a second after the car impacts (or is impacted by) something, such as another car. This requires explosive force (generated by fast-burning chemicals) which is supposed to be dissipated almost immediately, once the air bag, itself, has been inflated.
But for this to work properly, it is necessary that everything always work as designed – and that there are never any defects in the design. Neither risk can be eliminated entirely because nothing made by human hands will ever be – much less remain – perfect. It is defective air bags that are blamed for the recent spate of deaths but the fact is that airbags have also killed when they worked as designed.
It is as misleading to think of these devices as cushions as it is to think of the gene-therapy drugs that were pushed on people as “vaccines.” But there is a commonality in that both of these things have been pushed on people, who have been effectively forced to assume all of the risks – as well as the costs – for the sake of “benefits” regarded by others as worth the risks.
This is pretty halting thing, when you think about it a little.
If something can hurt you – if that something has proved hurtful to others – then no one else, arguably, has a moral right to pressure (much less force) you to assume the risks. For it is not the ones pressuring (and forcing) who pay the costs – in mayhem and money – if those risks prove to be actualities.
Maybe if the government promised to cover those costs a better case could be made for government imposing the risks. It would still be immoral in principle for the government to place people at risk. But at least the people forced to assume the risks would not be left holding the bag for the costs of those risks.
Millions of people literally face such risks – as regards air bags – every single day. Each day that passes increasing the chances they will one day pay the costs. This latter is an important fact not being conveyed to people – for essentially the same reason that the facts about the gene-therapy drugs not being vaccines weren’t conveyed to them.
Air bags – including the explosive components – age. Just as we do. Just as cars do. Over time, the odds of something going wrong with the air bags increase, just the same as the odds of developing heart disease or a bad knee go up as we age. The wiring gets brittle. Connections fray. Materials deteriorate. Sensors go faulty. Eventually, something’s not going to work as designed.
It is an inevitability – because it is just a matter of time.
So it’s not just the several hundred thousands “affected” Stellantis vehicles (including the Ram 1500) that could kill you. It is every single vehicle that came with an airbag – because every vehicle is affected by the passage of time.
It is probably true that most air bags won’t malfunction before the vehicle is so affected by the passage of time that the time has come to junk it. Just as it is true that most air bags are not defective. But that will be cold comfort if it turns out that one of those air bags – the one in your car – malfunctions.
Or was made with defective parts.
The government – the bureaucrats and politicians – do not care about any of this, of course. If they did, they would accept that it’s rightfully your business to decide whether the risks are worth the (supposed) benefits. And they would cover the costs of any injury or damages caused by their making you assume the risks.
From the point-of-view of these bureaucrats and politicians, you are a statistic. One of many – over whom they haughtily wield the power of cost-benefit.
As well as life and death.
. . .
f 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!
Anyone familiar with surfboards knows that foam bonded to fiberglass is incredibly strong, but neither individual component is.
Imagine you have a surfboard in your car and you get t-boned, the surfboard will protect you way better than any bag filled with air.
What a car needs is door panels built like surfboards. The sheet metal bonded to foam – and not just some rectangular foam blocks glued in place, but the whole inside of the door foamed – so that the occupant is inside of a composite metal-foam cocoon. Now that would be some protection.
And a foamed car would stay warm/cool. A car has zilch for insulation. I am surprised cars are not built this way already. Road noise reduction would also be substantial if the inside of the door was foamed.
If you want to do an experiment – take some bubble wrap and put it between some cardboard – like an oreo cookie – then punch it.
GM actually did use foam filler on some vehicles in the late 60’s and early 70’s, to dampen sound echoes, particularly in the trunk and rear quarters. The result was that the body cavities could not circulate air and dry out, so the rear quarters rusted out in roughly 1/2 the time as others that were not foamed.
I don’t doubt it, making any change will create new problems – another Murphy’s law.
But one could switch from sheet metal to aluminum or carbon fiber.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=foam+core+carbon+fibre+auto+door+body&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images
Where is Richard. After the non stop bs by Cashy, I long for Richards painful but usually fairly logical posts, granting his premises. Is Cashy really a Chatblah bah AI bot? Get ready for that. Artificial generation of lot of articles on all kinds of subjects. May need to go back to snail mail or in person to be sure the poster is a person.
How do we know you’re a real person? Chat bots can be programmed to post dumb stuff.
Cashy with the devastating response of: I’m rubber you’re glue!
Lol!
Indeed. Have you looked in the mirror lately?
Indeed, Ugg!
If it gets too obnoxious, I’ll resort to personally vetting posters. The criteria will be that they must be a person and must be coherent. I know, it’s asking a lot.
eric
July 13, 2023 At 1:55 pm
Cashy writes:
“First of all you are overreacting. No one was ever forced at gunpoint to buckle their seat belt or take the vaccine.”
Absolutely, verifiably false – as regards seat belts.What will happen if you refuse to “buckle up” when a cop orders you to? Will he just shrug? Will he do more than just write a ticket – and then leave you alone when you still refuse to put it on? What will happen when you don’t pay the fine? They will take your license and then, if they
“catch” you driving, they will arrest you. If you “resist,” they will draw a gun on you.
Millions were threatened with loss of job, career, pension – the ability to pay their bills – if they did not get “vaccinated.” This is functionally the same as force.
I cannot believe you’re this dense. Are you, truly?
——————————-
I just saw this post, having to wade through all the verbiage you guys write! Sheesh where do you all find the time? LOL
However I must concede a point to you. And I think you owe me one.
You are right, at the end of every government law is the threat of a gun. Not always likely but certainly possible. That’s true of any law.
However you go on to equate this with people that were under threat of getting fired. That’s a different situation. Companies are private organizations and should be free to set whatever requirements for employment they wish. Even bad ones like vaccine requirements. I think as a libertarian you would agree with that.
Hi Cashy,
Here’s the problem (one of them) with the “vaccine” push. It was just that. A push. Not a suggestion. Also, government and corporate pushing has become essentially an iteration of the same thing. I made this point when discussing mandatory insurance – the government as the enforcer thereof.
As a libertarian, I vehemently disagree with the doing of that.
The whole seat belt thing is a prime example of good intentions run amok, and I’ve always worn one, due to simple lgysics ro avoid the “internal collision”. But it was at first MY choice.
I remember the old PSAs with the seat belts, including folks and their excuses, and the aftermath of a collision where presumably they hadn’t worn theirs. Or the RAPPING Crash-Test Dummies and their “Buckle Up!” video. But it didnt stop with being entertained or annoyed. About 1988, California enacted a mandatory seat-belt law, but as “secondary” enforcement. That is, a motorist couldn’t simply be pulled over for not wearing the belt; there had to be another reason. About ten years after that, the Legislature changed it to primary enforcement, because (1) predicted citations weren’t generating enough revenues, and (2) cops wanted it as a PRETEXT to pull over and “investigate ” (“I smell ‘weed’ or “have you been drinking?”), and search w/o need for a warrant, and often seize CASH or valuables (“Civil Assset Forfeiture”)
As head Demonrat Killary said, ‘never let an opportunity go to waste’. Any adult who claims ‘it wasn’t for any monetary gain’ is either a govt. shill or a liar, and probably both.
As a White law-abiding individual of many decades, I still fear for my life if and when I am stopped by a police officer, much more than that of the police officer fearing for his life. The police officer holds “all of the cards” against us mere civilians and is judicially immunized from responsibility for his actions.
What say you about the attempts by politicians to restrict the types of weapons that can be possessed by non-police officer civilians?
What say you about the attempts by politicians to outlaw the civilian possession of body armor?
Such attempts are being made, as we speak. Many states are attempting to restrict the types of weapons and magazine capacity limits that civilians may possess while giving “carve-outs” to police officers and other “connected” public officials.
New York state has already outlawed the civilian possession of body armor. California is about to do the same thing.
The problem in both cases is these moves by politicians destroy the concept of “equal justice under law”, making it illegal for ordinary civilians to possess “hardware” that police officers and other “connected” politicians are allowed to possess.
Let’s not forge that police officers can use computers, cell phones, and other distractions while driving while us ordinary citizens are ticketed for doing so. We are told that “they are specially trained”…Yeah, right…
There should be no “carve-outs” for police officers or others. California already exempts police officers and other public officials from bans on so-called “assault weapons” allowing them to possess such weapons while the “rest of us” ordinary civilians are saddled with restrictions which are clearly unconstitutional.
One more aspect of law that needs severe scrutiny and curtailment is the concept of official “immunity”.
Prosecutors have total “immunity” while police officers and other public officials have “qualified immunity”. This, again, destroys the concept of “equal justice under law” and must be abolished.
Immunity absolves the holder of consequences for his or her actions. This encourages immunity holders to act with reckless impunity as they KNOW that in most cases, they will not be held responsible for their actions.
Any ordinary person who attempts to sue an“immunity holder” has a very high bar to cross as lawsuits against individual immunity holders are generally prohibited.
In today’s jurisprudence, one has to seek to know the immunity holder’s “state of mind” and establish intent for “violations of (an individual’s) civil rights”… lawsuits that are almost always unsuccessful. In the meantime, the “immunity holder” carries on as if nothing occurred.
There is a simple solution…require every public official and police officer to be “bonded”. This is common in many professions, a “bond” being purchased from an insurance company or other entity. The basic cost of the bond would be borne by the municipality while any “surcharges” due to misconduct or lawsuits would be borne by the individual bondholder. Failure to obtain and hold a bond would be grounds for immediate dismissal and loss of employment without recourse. No bond=no job.
In a nutshell…
1. No “carve-outs” (special privileges) for police officers and all other public officials. Laws must apply to ALL equally.
2. Abolish both absolute and qualified immunity for ALL police officers and other public officials. Establish a “bond” requirement for all police officers and other public officials.
3. A Constitutional Amendment to wit: “Congress shall pass no law that does not apply to itself, all members of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, its agencies, departments and subdivisions”. This one move would close a massive “carve-out”.
Equal justice under law is (supposed to be) a cornerstone of American jurisprudence.
Let’s restore the concept.
Hi anarchyst, Great comment.
I love the idea of ‘congress passing no law that doesn’t apply to itself, all branches of Government, agencies, departments and subdivisions.’ So much bad legislation would have never been passed if they had to taste the bitter fruits of their labor. Not sure how we get them to do that.
Your idea of bonding police officers is right on. Maybe they would act more like peace officers instead of copfucks. Bonding isn’t a hard thing. I had to do it for decades as a requirement for my plumbing license. The worst police would cost a municipality much more than ones that behaved themselves. The number and types of claims, like in traditional insurance is supposed to go into figuring that cost. Although today that model seems to be going away. Actuaries don’t seem to be able to figure out the proper risk reward formula anymore with the ‘we’re all in it together BS.’ When I look at the cost of my bond/insurance they should be paying me. Since I’ve never made a claim or had one filed against me in thirty years.
Equal justice under the law is what we should be agitating for. The two tiered just-us system doesn’t look anything like a true justice system. This is easier to demonstrate to Normals now than anytime in our history. The depravity of the elites, along with their pure tyrannical lawlessness makes this an easy sell to many.
Um, Cashy,
except the 1st ‘company’ to do so was GovCo., Fed and State alike. Then any ‘companies w/govt. contracts & affiliations, and so on down the line. Financial extortion/strangulation can be as effective, even more so, than any firearm, under the given circumstances. You speak as if none of one had any bearing on the other, and this just isn’t so. As a Virginia business owner/operator somewhat under the thumb of the woke leftist hypocrite Governor at the time, I can personally attest to this. And no, I’m not giving you any details beyond that, lol! If you don’t get it, consider yourself lucky to be blissfully ignorant. That seems to be the position you prefer on any matter regarding personal freedom and accountability anyway. Just let GovCo. call the shots, and live with the consequences.
Cashy,
You being the emotional type, how would YOU like to categorized as ‘over-reacting’ had you or one in your care, been disfigured and or mutilated by this mandatory claymore to the face?
If I was a betting man, I’d say you would be screaming bloody murder, even if you survived.
Provided you still had a voicebox with which to scream, that is.
I’d just as soon go without ANY ‘safety device’ than to opt for something which has this frequency and severity of malfunctions. And don’t give me that ‘math’ bullshit reply again either, because I know more of the inside details than you could ever glean from the media. When you are the one left with hamburger where your face once was, statistics don’t mean a damn thing, and you would feel the same.
Ask any ER nurse at the MCV trauma center, and they can all testify that there are things worse than death.
Cashy;
looking at the amount of time and the posts you put up you are either an AI or someone that lives under a rock (or in a basement) with a computer and fantasizes a lot. I suggest you divert yourself with porn rather than trying to interact with adults.
Ugg;
I was about to invite him to ‘rub one out’ on a more suitable website, myself, but you beat me to it, lol!
Great minds.
It doesn’t take a lot of time to respond to morons.
Cashy:
Cops Kill. That is their job. Let that soak into your no doubt addled brain. The cells that are left.
You need corroborating evidence!
From 1963 to 1973 the number of traffic fatalities per 100,000 population ranged from 21 to 26.
2009 to 2019 the number of deaths per 100,000 population ranged from 10 to 11.
Less than half the number from 1963 to 1973.
Them the facts, Jack.
Four-lane highways and better driving skills do make a difference.
I doubt airbags have halved the number of deaths per 100,000 population.
Don’t drink and drive.
Unless you get lost on the back roads, have at it then.
“Very deep in the heart of Uncertain, Texas
I tried hard to leave there
But never did could” – Guy Clark, Uncertain, Texas
Well, you’re full of crap.
“Seat belts save lives” is a naked assertion full of unproven and generally unsupported assumptions. When I state that seat belts have never saved a life it’s also a naked assertion, but supported by facts and logic.
As to vehicle fatality/injury/accident stats, a thinking person has to consider technology changes.
Bias play tube tires on non safety rims vs tubeless radials on safety beads. Buggy springs vs coil. Manual drum brakes vs power disk brakes. Armstrong manual steering vs power rack n pinion. Wraparound bucket seats vs vinyl bench seats. LED headlights vs sealed beams vs bulb vs acetylene lamps. Buggy springs and solid axles vs coil sprung independent suspension. Hydraulic shocks vs friction. Padded interiors vs painted steel. Safety glass vs plate. The list is many times longer.
But if you believe safety comes from or is the business of government, nobody can help you. You worship a false god and have no respect for reason or wisdom.
You don’t see how being belted in and held in place will make you safer than being tossed around or out of the car in almost all cases? Thinking like that is full of crap.
I see you’re another one on this site that attacks the things that government does not because the government forces you to do them. I am perfectly okay if you believe that your freedom is more important than saved lives. But don’t then discount the actual and commonsense results of the forced safety devices. That’s my whole argument. I understand it is an imposition on personal freedom to legislate this stuff. But on the whole it makes you safer. There is no question about that, no matter how much you guys blather on about some personal incident where you avoided an accident so who needs the device. Or the few times that one malfunctions so the whole concept should be thrown out due to the rare exception. That is flawed reasoning. You guys got to get better on that!
Cashy writes:
“You don’t see how being belted in and held in place will make you safer than being tossed around or out of the car in almost all cases? Thinking like that is full of crap.”
Regular, strenuous exercise and maintaining a healthy weight also “make you safer” – in terms of reducing the risk of chronic sickness and premature death in almost all cases. So – shall we make it a legal requirement for everyone to exercise strenuously and regularly? To hassle them with fines and so on if they don’t?
You continue to bleat “makes you safer.” I have repeatedly pointed out the fact that it’s not necessarily so. That it is a hypothesized assertion. The fact is that I have managed to keep myself safe by not wrecking – and for decades. Seatbelts and air bags had nothing to do with this.
Actually, I’ve been a first responder for 30 years. And I have seen seat belts kill. I have also detonated air bags so I am very leery of having them around me- they are violent and powerful.
“You don’t see how being belted in and held in place will make you safer than being tossed around or out of the car in almost all cases?” No I don’t. When you are part of a highly kinetic event like a car or plane wreck or a gunfight, how you come out is a matter of luck and god’s will.
“But don’t then discount the actual and commonsense results of the forced safety devices”. Sorry, I can and do and sense is not common but nonsense is epidemic.
“But on the whole it makes you safer. There is no question about that…” There is plenty of question about that, thank you. The easiest thing to check is how many lives were saved when the NHTSA started pushing states for mandatory seat belt “laws”- you will find there is no statistically significant change despite the thousands of man-years of life stolen by the state’s enforcers with their click it or ticket bull.
Another anecdote! Hey- I saw a seat belt save a life. So it’s now 1 for 1.
Look I have not been able to examine the details of every fatal accident over the last 40 years. And neither have you. I would have to defer to the records which I imagine are somewhat accurate. I would also think that not being thrown out of a car or bounced into and out of the windshield is probably an advantage. Fatalities and injuries have gone down since back then and there are a lot more drivers and cars and miles driven. Maybe it’s because we are importing better drivers then the old American stock that drove back in the day? But I don’t think so.
Injury severity has decreased since the 50’s and 60’s, but frequency has definitely not. 4-lane highways, radials tires, crush zones in cars, as well as barriers, is as much responsible for this as anything else. One thing to take note of recently, even the director of the NTSB announced, recently, that the substantial weight increase of a mid-size EV has resulted in them being capable of as much, or more collision damage to other conventional gasoline vehicles as a full-sized pickup, van, or SUV, of even the same year of manufacture.
And the fact that Teslas have auto-drive availability pretty much allows a driver to even fall asleep at the wheel. Driving skills, even the most basic ones, such as staying awake, are in jeopardy due to presumed ‘safety’ and automation.
I can personally vouch for one seat-belt atrocity that you apparently have no clue of yourself. VW seat belt latches up to about 1973/74 were mechanical nightmares and a bitch to get unclasp by nearly anyone without hands built like vise-grip pliers. You were far better of just going without than the prospect of burning alive in one you couldn’t extract yourself from. Their air cooled engines leaked oil, got much hotter, and were more fire-prone than any Pinto.
And that is no ‘anecdote’, so laugh all you want at what you never had to witness in person. Better yet, spend 6-9 months with the Volunteer Rescue Squad, and tell us all how safe and pleasant that makes you feel! I did so when I was 19, and it takes a special person to stay in that line of work, which I definitely was NOT. It did, however, give me an appreciation for what driving competence and proper maintenance can prevent, so that’s where I put my efforts.
You really have no idea the physics of motion and the fragility of flesh and blood, do you?. You think car safety devices and govt. regulations trump skills and competency? I’m not even going to elaborate on aviation fatalities. People don’t even get that the victims of the Titan ‘submarine’ implosion were reduced to varying grades of viscosity, ok? And that was purely one man’s overindulgence in what he perceived was cutting edge technology, while completely disregarding established physics and engineering of deep-sea diving.
Watch one of several documentaries on the “Byford Dolphin” incident, and then come all tell us all how ‘competency is not so much a factor as safety devices and govt. regulations.’
You really do need to get out more and stop oversimplifying & compartmentalizing such things as you have done here.
Real stories based on experience from a person with knowledge are not anecdotes. It is testimony by an expert in the field with real hands on knowledge. An anecdote is a story related by one that probably did not experience it to explain a point.
Fine for a PSA advocating seat belt use. In that regard, you’re preaching to the choir. And I see no issue with an assert that a tort claim may, upon sufficient proof, mitigate damages against an at-fault driver.
But where I part company with you are (1) that use of seat belts is PROVEN to save lives, and (2) that FedGov has any authority to mandate their manufacture, installation, and use.
Although there certainly has been an overall reduction in the FATALITY rates as compared to vehicle-miles, seat belts and/or air bags have not been shown to be a significant factor.
Hi Douglas,
I agree – but will take it a little farther!
As I have tried to explain to Cashy, the core issue isn’t whether wearing seat belts is “safer.” It is that if the principle behind this is accepted, government bureaucrats have the right to impose anything upon us in the name of the same. As for example the wearing of “masks.” As for example not driving at all. It is literally open-ended because there is no end to it, other than the willingness of people to tolerate more and worse restrictions and impositions (which the government will continue to “propose”) in its never-ending quest to keep us “safe.”
Let’s say seat belts “work” – per Cashy. Well, so does regular vigorous exercise. How about fines for those who don’t? How about government-mandated health checks – and fines for those who are overweight? Why not? It isn’t “healthy” and would be “safer” if they kept in shape and worked out.
Cashy will not get it, of course. He is one of those “realists” who believes government power can be exercised and kept in check at the same time.
“(which the government will continue to “propose”) in its never-ending quest to keep us “safe.”
While at the same time being the most dangerous criminal organization there is. Governments kill people by the millions-hundreds of millions. Often their own citizens. Compared to government, the common criminal is merely an inconvenience.
The only thing governments are really good at is killing people, and they are VERY good at it.
Cashy,
I have always worn a seat belt. As a teen driver at 120 lbs, I needed it to keep my ass behind the wheel, having spent half the time going perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of my automobile, by choice, and very much in control. I passed high-school physics not just on paper, but pushing the limits of every means available to me. I grew up in GA, and was well acquainted with the physics of 3 dimensional transportation long before then, even. (we wear belts in GA nearly all the time, for reasons you can’t even comprehend as a ground-crawler)
Again, I propose you actually get out there and DO something besides fantasize on what’s ‘best for everyone else’. Otherwise you profundities are about as relevant as a fart in a hurricane.
Cashy,
GA is short for General Aviation, not Georia, in case you haven’t figured that out yet, lol!
Georgia, that is. And yes, my typing skills are atrocious when wearing shop gloves, lol!
Autoweek in ~1973 had an article about how Swedish tests of airbags on piglets caused 8 of the 24 test subjects to die from the concussion of the explosion.
Nadar acolyte Claybrook ignored the science and mandated them anyway. A pox on her house.
Where’s the Thumbs Up button?
“8 of the 24”
There’s some numbers.
…But, they’re not, “stats”. …So, they don’t count?
Were they piglets at 48.cents apiece.for.rail freight charges, or “pets” at 44 cents?
” I do not want an air bag in any of my vehicles.”
Hi Eric,
Just curious….do you plan to cut the seatbelts out of all your cars too? 🙂
Gee, I didn’t that seatbelts had explosive devices integrated into them to make them work. I bow to your superior intellect..
I didn’t KNOW
Just FYI I know for a fact that Mercedes used exploding bolts to lock their seat belts way back in the 1970’s. But it is a different thing- they fired to lock the mechanism, not to try to push back the victim directly.
Hi Mike,
The Trans-Am has seat belts; I have never used them in the 30 years I’ve owned the car. My ’02 Nissan hasn’t got them, either – and ditto. Bless it, the Nissan doesn’t harass me with obnoxious buzzers if I don’t “buckle up.” In all the new cars I test drive, the first thing I do is buckle the belt – and then sit down on top of it!
Hi Eric,
Thanks for your answer. Your next sentence raises another question.
” In all the new cars I test drive, the first thing I do is buckle the belt – and then sit down on top of it!” Do you believe that airbags are “less” dangerous when a driver or passenger is not buckled in?
I wonder if that are any stats that indicate whether airbags are less, more, or equally dangerous when a one travels unbuckled?
Better than just buckling it is go to a junk yard, find a buckle that matches. Insert in seat belt assembly and you now have a cheater without the uncomfortableness of having to sit on it.
You can buy a little insert from the Mighty Amazon and other places that clicks right in and stops the buzzer. Couple of bucks as I recall.
RE: “I wonder if that are any stats that indicate…”
Always the, “stats”.
Like, if you do ‘this’ or do ‘that’ you’ll live forever. Psft!
“Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.”
― Helen Keller, The Open Door
Hi Mike,
My understanding is that modern air bags are designed to work with seat belts. The original, non-mandated bags assumed unbuckled occupants. This was why many were hurt when air bags were first mandated; because they erupted with greater force, to compensate for the unbuckled occupant being thrown forward. Modern air bags assume the occupant is buckled (part of the reason why the buzzer goes off if you put a bag of groceries on the passenger seat and have to buckle it in to shut it up).
I understand I am assuming some increased “risk” by not wearing seatbelts. But my counter to those who are appalled by this is to drive attentively and thereby avoid “accidents,” in air fingers quote marks because most are avoidable. By avoiding “accidents,” one avoids the need for seat belts and air bags.
Just the same as taking care of one’s health and being fit will generally help you avoid being chronically sick.
It’s not a guarantee, of course. But – other than death and taxes – what in life is guaranteed?
You will live until you die, and that’s about it.
“drive attentively and thereby avoid “accidents,” in air fingers quote marks because most are avoidable”
And even if you are involved in an impending “accident” you may be able to drive out of it, but not if the airbag has deployed. I do wear a seatbelt, for that express purpose, to keep me behind the wheel, and my passenger out of my lap so I CAN drive out of it. But that’s my choice, not the state’s.
Either should be Eric’s decision, not a “s-a-f-t-e-e-e-e” feature mandated by a Government “fatwa”.
You are of course right, the decision whether to include safety equipment should be up to the individual. However air bags unquestionably make you safer, regardless of an occasional incident where they do not function correctly.
By the numbers you are way more safer with the bag then without.
It’s a question of numbers, any safety equipment will have some occurrence of failure or malfunction. Nothing in life is 100%. You know if you go for a walk on a cloudy day you might get hit by lightening?
There is no scenario where you are not better off with airbags, but yes you are less free and forced to pay more.
Hi Cashy,
You write:
“However air bags unquestionably make you safer.” No, they don’t. What makes you “safer” is not crashing. In that case, whether your car has an air bag – or doesn’t – is irrelevant.
My 1976 Pontiac has been as “safe” as any of the thousands of new, air bag-equipped cars I have driven over the past 30 years I’ve owned the Pontiac. I have never crashed it, you see.
QED.
I understand, of course, what you’re saying; i.e., that if you crash in a car equipped with an air bag, the probability is the air bag will reduce the odds you’ll be badly injured or killed. But that is not the same thing as the air bag making you safer!
It’s that numbers game he, and many like him, play.
How they determine where the threshold is, I have yet to understand.
If -only- 320 deaths occur from falling in a bath tub, that’s not a high enough ratio for that type of person to put on a helmet whenever they enter a bath tub, yet if somehow things became worse, at some point the numbers would switch and they’d be yelling that it’s too unsafe to enter a bath tub without a helmet on.
It’s All totally without real reasoning. Devoid of practicality. Perhaps, it’s a gamblers mindset? Idk.
There you go again. You have this strange idea that because you don’t know the numbers behind a decision that the people that do, don’t know either. You do realize that the NTSB employs thousands of people to pour over the information on accidents and safety?
Now maybe a guy with a degree in statistical analysis and all the data at hand isn’t as learned as random guys on the internet that know stuff like you, but it probably helps them in their job.
I’m not going to post any statistics because you also don’t trust numbers that don’t back up your world view, but auto safety features over the last few decades have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Now maybe it would be better if they were all dead and we were freer for it, but I don’t think it’s a completely bad thing that amount of human suffering was avoided. I think that was the reasoning behind it.
Hi Cashy,
How much human suffering can be laid at the feet of government? How much waste and loss? Air bags provide a study in contrasts. They may save “x” lives. There is no objective way to be specific. On the other hand, air bags have cost every person who has bought an air bag-equipped car thousands in increased direct costs (for the car) plus insurance costs ( due to the generally higher cost of repair/replacing air bag-equipped cars). Not to mention the unquantifiable costs, such as the uglification of car interiors and – of course – the cost of having to buy something you may not want.
Cashy, Sorry but please fix your spelling and grammar- we all make mistakes but if someone is pouring over the data we need to know what they are pouring- their alcoholic beverage? Or are they poring over the data?
Secondly it is irrelevant whether they are experts allegedly more learned than some random guy on the internet, on at least 2 counts. It’s not a democracy and it’s not up to anybody to choose your safety, except for you personally. And it’s irrelevant because the random guy on the internet inevitably IS smarter and more learned than the government expert.
Agree. I am a random guy guy on the internet. I have several degrees, my parents believed in education. I read the Colliers Encyclopedia for fun when I was in grade school. I know a lot more than many “experts” and have the ability to become an expert in many fields with a little study. Have done so. If you cross examine an “expert” you better know the area better than the “expert”. A little known factoid is that most, not all “experts” in various fields used by lawyers in litigation, are essentially hired guns (before you pay them make sure they will give you the testimony you need). Hit men, some of course are better than others. You get what you pay for.
Don’t be a grammar nazi. You make mistakes too, people just don’t waste their time to correct them. And you’re wrong on just about everything you said. It is relevant that experts are more learned then blatherers on the internet because they make decisions on your safety like it or not.
We do live in a democracy, safety decisions are made for you, and random guys on the internet are not smarter then engineers that study safety.
Imho (sad to say) these are the words of a dyed in the wool Fascist, “experts are more learned then blatherers on the internet because they make decisions on your safety like it or not.”
Not much else to say, there.
Cashy,
“Experts” who were “learned” also “made decisions” regarding “masks” and “vaccines.” One could go on – but is it necessary?
These “experts” are not omniscient. And sometimes, they are malicious. Regardless, they are not our parents – and we are not their children. They have no right to presume to treat us as if we were idiot children. It does not matter whether a number of people have voted in favor – i.e., “democracy.” That is a dangerous argument, for reasons that ought to be obvious.
Finally, principles (and precedents set) matter. If it is legitimate for the “experts” to force us to buy air bags and use seat belts then we have already conceded to them that driving – at all – is something that could be restricted or outlawed altogether in the name of “safety.” For example, it is snowing. Or raining? How about a driving “lock down” due to the weather? Why not?
Responding to points made with “blatherers on the Internet” is not an argument. It is ad hominem – a personal attack.
We used to be a Republic. Try getting that fact right. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Where the 51 can rule over and destroy the other 49.
“saved hundreds of thousands of lives”
No, they haven’t. They may have lengthened or shortened lives, but no one is getting out of this alive. No life has ever been “saved”. Period.
Cashy, how much ‘human suffering’ did the Demonrat Governors inflict on EVERYONE during Covid? How much do they STILL inflict upon everyone within their reach for any and all reasons even after?
Look at the crap Californians are being subject to by the power grabbing asshat they have for a Governor. He is even attempting to tax business that have left California altogether. If you can’t acknowledge the obvious cases of extreme government abuse at play, then you are definitely the many that enjoys using the government as your cudgel to control other people by proxy for your own personal insecurities.
“However air bags unquestionably make you safer, regardless of an occasional incident where they do not function correctly.” -Cashy
Was it unquestionably safer on May 13, when an airbag killed the front seat passenger who was riding shotgun in a 2003 Ram 1500 pick-up? The “numbers” didn’t seem to work out so well for this passenger, huh? Also, what about an airbag deployment which causes the driver to be distracted and lose control of the vehicle after a minor crash? Might this be less safe than without an airbag?
I guess you are not up on that thing called “averages”. Nothing functions 100%. An occasional incident like that is a freak occurrence and cannot be used to judge all situations.
I guess you are in favor of banning hand guns too since sometimes they misfire and kill people?
Hi Cashy,
The point – as regards handguns – is they’re not forced on anyone. If they were, then the fact that they can (and sometimes do) malfunction, causing injury to the user as well as others, would be the imposition of risk – however slight.
That is the issue with regard to air bags.
Your handgun analogy is simply not applicable here as, among other things, nobody is mandating their use. The fact is that government mandated the airbag in that 2003 Ram 1500 pick-up. Assuming that airbag caused the death of the passenger on May 13th, government was partly responsible for that death as a result of this “occasional incident” (great euphemism). Of course when you’re making omelets you’ve got to break some eggs, right?
You say on “average” people are safer with airbags. In other words you’re willing to trade that passenger’s life (and occasional others’) for a purported greater good. That’s a bit callous and grotesque, don’t you think? What if that passenger were you son or daughter? Would you be so blasé about trading their lives for the greater good?
Here’s Madeline Albright using the same logic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tihL1lMLL0
So you’re willing to trade the hundreds of thousands of lives saved for the one life of an accidental victim? That seems much more callous to me.
Cashy:
So you are are a seer, one able to foretell the future. I bet you feel your life is more important than all those being murdered by the dictates of the state. You can use the airbag if you want.
To me you sound like a pretty young person, that has not experienced life, as in working your ass off to support your family and all that goes hand in hand with that. I raised 6 children, all are employed and have more than a few grandchildren. Lots of life experience. Lots of dealing with the devil. Such smooth lies he tells. He does exist and is searching for someone just like you to feed his thirst for fresh meat.
Glad you are here, listen there is much wisdom to be gained by opening your ears and thinking, pondering, ask why. The question you get from your young children. Why? The wrong answer is “because I said so” any other answer is the right one as they may ask more questions, but they are thinking, even if it is a PITA to you. Patience is a virtue, especially in parents. Keep asking questions, Socrates was correct.
I would never be so arrogant as to think I should decide whose lives should be trader for others’. Individuals are the ones who should deciding as to what risks they are willing to take. Forcing risk on others should not be up to you, me or any government worker, whether an “expert” or not.
Last time I looked, no loaded firearms with auto-triggering sensors were installed in cars. You picked a very bad example in attempt to debunk what is a serious hazard created by the automobile-safety cult. A Cult comprised mainly of do-gooders like yourself. So what if a few hundred people get maimed by airbags, so long as it saves your sorry ass the one time you ass-end someone else whilst finger-fucking your ‘smart’ phone, instead of driving.
“finger-fucking your ‘smart’ phone, instead of driving.”
I like that one.
Forthwith hence, all who I see doing so, I’ll think of that line.
LMAO, I will never see the texting-and-driving morons the same again….
Change the word “unquestionably” to “statistically” and you might have a point. For $5k off of the sticker price of a car for so called safety “advancements” that we have been subjected to over the last 30 years, I will gladly assume additional risks of being killed in a motor vehicle accident. Air bag effectiveness is a matter for debate. For unbelted occupants, they reduce a potential fatality to a very serious injury. For unbelted people, the reduction is on the order of 50%. When you wear your seatbelt, there is virtually no reduction in fatalities whether or not your car has an airbag or not. The additional deaths from malfunctioning airbags are presumably not included in the stats.
Just because you have a safety device installed in your car or there is some kind of collision barrier on the road, doesn’t mean that you, the individual is measurably safer.
In early 1994, I was on my way to work traveling at an admittedly high rate of speed. I came on a truck in the left lane with no taillights. All I could do is slam on the brakes. I ended up steering my car in the median and eventually brought my vehicle to a halt. After that I rowed it through the gears and accelerated back onto the highway. I didn’t even need a whell alightment. I can only imagine what would have happened had I hit one of those cable barriers that were designed to protect you from entering oncoming traffic. My car would have been torn up and I would have likely had to file an insurance claim to fix the thing. The reward for the years I had spent paying premiums would have been for the insurance company to raise my rates.
No thanks. I don’t want any part of it.
Keep the airbags and the barriers. Rumble strips would likely protect drivers from collisions much better than those barriers anyway
“Just because you have a safety device installed in your car or there is some kind of collision barrier on the road, doesn’t mean that you, the individual is measurably safer.”
It absolutely does mean you are safer. Is all your reasoning of the world based on personal one-time examples? Are you unable to understand statistics that highways with barriers saved many more lives than highways with non-barriers? Do you understand that one-time examples or personal anecdotes don’t tell the complete story of auto safety? That there are statistics that clearly show those safety measures make driving safer.
Here’s a question: Is it Better that Ten Guilty Persons Go Free Than that One Innocent Person be Convicted?
Easy answer for me maybe not for Cashy. Let the innocent NOT be convicted. Unfortunately our legal system is exactly the opposite in fact, not in nomenclature.
I have a serious problem when the government decides it wants to help make me “safe”. Especially when I did not ask for it. When the Feds suddenly want to “help” me, that should be any thinking person’s clue to run like hell the other way. Hmm, cue a Pink Floyd song. For those of us old enough to remember-ha ha.
“No one told you when to run,
You missed the starting gun.”
The government is charged with providing rules and laws regarding public safety. That’s the core function of government, provide for the common defense, and set standards and measures, build and maintain roads. You may disagree with the results but that is what happens whether we like it or not. And you would like it much more then a society without any government.
Cashy writes:
“The government is charged…” well, by whom? I certainly did not “charge” it to do anything – either to me or others. The fact that others did does not make it right.
“Public safety” once meant dealing with people who cause harm to others. Not “keeping people safe” – as from asserted risks arising from their own choices.
Words matter. Choose them carefully.
Eric, some people just don’t believe there is such a thing as ‘govt. over-reach’, like M.A., for example. Especially when they are convinced said ‘over-reach’ is in their personal best interest, regardless of whomever else it may hinder or harm.
Government derives it’s just power from consent of the people. It’s in the Constitution! It’s not a mystery. You could choose to live elsewhere or dedicate your life to overthrow or changing the current government. Otherwise make the best of it.
As far as traffic safety is concerned of course the government has a role to play. It’s where do you draw the line. Do you want the government to require headlights and brake lights? Do you want “regulations” on what side of the road you drive on? Of course. Those all were safety issues at one time.
We can argue about airbag requirements but we have already conceded that safety regulations are decided by our representatives through legislation.
Jesus, Cashy!
“The people.” Which ones, exactly? Do you really not understand that “the people” is poetry? Not actuality?
You assert – as if it were a fact – that “As far as traffic safety is concerned of course the government has a role to play.”
Says you. Says some people. Other people do not say so. What gives those who say so the right to impose their say-so on those who say otherwise? That they have the power is beside the point.
“Our representatives.” I have given no one proxy power to act in my name – much less in the name of others. And it isn’t even these so-called “representatives” who make these rules. It is government bureaucrats in regulatory apparats – whom no one voted for.
Eric, you may as well be talking to a ‘flat-earther’ with this guy. You cannot reason with someone who is convinced he is better off when others control everyone else’s lives for his personal well-being. In other words, you cannot reason with a delusional, self-righteous hypocrite.
Hi Graves,
I know… sadly. I know. But sometimes, dissection is necessary for the advancement of knowledge!
PS: Will holler after I get out from under.
An issue that the Founders would say was the exclusive domain of the several states. The very notion that some DOT bureaucrat could legislate with the stroke of a pen over the entire nation would have seemed preposterous and repugnant to them.
Where to begin? American governments are only granted the privileges specifically delineated in their constitutions. Your various comments betray a very immature worldview, a worship for government and a disdain for natural rights.
To be clear, government, the servant, has strictly limited authority to regulate public matters, like which side of the road we drive on or what altitude we fly at east and west, north and south. It has never been granted the authority to legislate private matters (the prerogative of the master, the free individual) like my personal right to choose to not wear seat belts or helmets. Or to choose what kind of weapons I keep and bear, until I harm someone or their property.
The simple truth is, government is servant, individual is master in his private matters. Any deviation from this state is illegitimate and tyrannical.
Ditto!
Ernie:
“Where to begin? American governments are only granted the privileges specifically delineated in their constitutions. Your various comments betray a very immature worldview, a worship for government and a disdain for natural rights.
to be clear, government, the servant, has strictly limited authority to regulate public matters, like which side of the road we drive on or what altitude we fly at east and west, north and south.”
Ok so you grant that the government has authority to regulate. Then it is just a matter of where and how much. You say it ends at telling you where and how to drive. But none of that is in the Contstitutions. You just made up where you want the line drawn. Other people think it extends farther. How to decide? Hmmm, go to war, or have elections? Which do you choose?
Shut up, troll.
Cashy, your cocksure naïveté is on display again. You give us the high school text book explanation of government, but it’s nonsense. I have never consented to government power over me. Have you?
Also, what’s with the “we have conceded that safety regulations are decided by our representatives through legislation?” Who’s “we?” Not me.
“Also, what’s with the “we have conceded that safety regulations are decided by our representatives through legislation?” Who’s “we?” Not me.”
Yes you have. You do nothing to stop it except to bitch about it. You lead no protests, you don’t run for office. You are not organizing a revolution. You do nothing effective about it. All anyone would see from your actions (not words) is that you are okay with the system.
Cashy,
Your argument is that because the victim did not resist, the victimization is legitimate. It isn’t. What’s at issue is whether a given thing is right – or wrong. A wrong thing does not become right because it is “the law.” Or because it was not effectively opposed.
What am I bitching about? Only about your apparent and militant cocksure naïveté.
What happened to the Articles of Confederation? Was that terminated? If so how?
“Yes you have. You do nothing to stop it” -Cashy
This argument works for robbery or rape if the victim did “nothing to stop it,” right?
I believe you to be either very dense or a disingenuous troll.
Cashy,
Has it ever occurred to you to simply live by setting the example? What a ‘revolution’ that would be, no? Perhaps even a ‘revelation’? We do not run for office, lead a protest, or start an insurrection (hint: widen your vocabulary a tad), because we are busy with or daily lives of productivity & leading by example. Speaking of which, I need to get back at it, so give it rest ok?
Cashy,
you seem eager to ‘concede’ on other people’s behalf as if you were somehow empowered to do so. Please check your hypocrisy at the door upon entry, or expect to have it fed back to you forthwith.
Man, there it is again, Jumgarian Synchronicity.
I’ve never in my life used the word, ‘forthwith’ until today, prolly about a moment after you did. …Strange little thing, that.
A bi-product of over-education that is sorely lacking in today’s dialogue, lol!
Please show me where the US Constitution authorizes the Federal government to do that. Or that it has powers conferred upon it by the several states to ensure “safety”. I’m waiting….but I’ll give ya one big fat hint: read the Tenth Amendment.
Oh someone that believes in the Constitution? Usually when I quote from that people here get all up in arms and talk like libertarian anarchists.
How about: Congress is authorized to regulate interstate commerce under the U.S. Constitution. This means that travel between the states is subject to federal laws and regulations.
Cashy,
“Commerce” is exclusive of private transport. The 1st Amendment addresses our individual freedom of movement within the U.S. borders, or do you just pick and choose that which you can to threaten others that do not bend to your will?
You exhibit the traits a closest Leftist if I’ve ever read one. You sound as ignorant as the Lefties that think abolishing their choice of Amendments on paper eradicates the actual liberties declared therein.
If you’re suggesting the Founders meant that Congress, or the President by executive decree, had virtually unfettered powers by virtue of the ability to regulate interstate commerce, not even Alexander Hamilton wod have signed the Constitution, and no state would have ratified it. The intent, as clearly shown in Federalist and anti-Federalist writings, was to ensure the free flow of goods and movement of persons, without tariffs or customs, NOT as an excuse for Uncle Sam to claim authority to do as He pleases.
The “commerce clause” was unconstitutionally “stretched” to cover intrastate commerce. Look up Wickard v. Filburn. A wheat grower who engaged in NO “interstate commerce” was forced to pay an “excess product penalty” to the federal government because his wheat product MIGHT end up in interstate commerce. Congress should have invalidated Wickard v. Filburn as soon as it was opined.
Hear! Hear!
No one argues with that. What’s your point?
Anecdote, I was one of 9 children. We were not rich, though when growing up I had no idea. Somehow my parents were able to pack all 9 of us in the car sometimes a station wagon sometimes a sedan and go to visit grandma or on vacation “up north”. Wonder we all survived!
I can remember many times my entire summer league baseball teem riding to an out of town game in two pickup trucks. In the bed. With no seat belts. Much less an air bag. This was considered normal. We did this several times a season, and for several years. A dozen or more of us. No one was injured or killed.
You just brought up a memory. I miss seeing people riding in tye beds of pickups! You used to see it in the summertime. They had smiles on their faces. Out summer league team has to rent vans to travel out of town or a limo bus. Pretty expensive and people worry about “the risks”. And insurance. I miss the old days and being young because we worried less about everything and just did.
…and no fear that some nosy neighbor or helicopter parent would be turning you into CPS for child endangerment, either.
Unfortunately many children were killed. That’s why rules were instituted. Once again your personal anecdote of how you drove in an unsafe manner and survived is not how public policy should be decided.
Accidents don’t happen all the time, they happen suddenly and unexpectedly. The numbers tell the story. Legislation concerning traffic safety has saved hundreds of thousands of lives, an immeasurable amount of human suffering has been avoided. Your complaint that it is a hassle to spend 2 seconds to buckle up is ridiculous when considered against the alternative.
Cashy,
And how many were killed by the “vaccines” that “public policy” practically forced most of the population to take? It is interesting that you and those of like mind always ignore it when “public policy” harms people, ruins lives while at the same time fellating the superior wisdom of the “experts” – when it suits.
It is not about the “hassle” of wearing a seat belt. It is about the right to decide. You support taking that right away. So you support (in principle) forcing people to buy air bags and (implicitly) any other measure that you assert will “keep them safe.”
You have said you are a “conservative.” In which case, you might want to reconsider your views as they all fundamentally agree with the premises of the Left you may think you oppose. It is why “conservatives” are losers, politically.
You know who a loser is? Someone that constantly bitches that they should be living in a utopian world that has never existed and never will.
You live in a society of humans. There will be organized force to try and create order out of chaos. It has always been and will always be. The challenge is to create as much freedom as possible. Asking you to buckle up is not a great threat to your freedom. And you can choose not to do it easily as well. You mentioned the vaccine, that is a completely different issue of forcing chemicals into your body, much different then the 2 secs. spent putting on a seat belt. Also that was never mandated. Lots of people refused. I don’t know why you complain about it. No one had to get the shot.
Cashy,
Sounds like someone could use a hug, or another booster.
Lol! Bless his heart!
Cashy,
Once again, you argue against that which I never said. When have I ever insisted upon utopia? That is what the people who think risk can be eliminated believe.
Not I.
My position is that government is a far greater risk – and demonstrably so – than ordinary individuals assuming risks for themselves.
“The challenge is to create as much freedom as possible.” And then: “Asking you to buckle up is not a great threat to your freedom.”
Can you truly not grasp the disconnect? And no one is “asking.” They are telling – at gunpoint, if need be.
“No one had to get the shot.”
Ask people in the military about that. Ask airline pilots. Ask nurses and others in health care.
Eric:
“And no one is “asking.” They are telling – at gunpoint, if need be.
“No one had to get the shot.”
Ask people in the military about that. Ask airline pilots. Ask nurses and others in health care.”
First of all you are overreacting. No one was ever forced at gunpoint to buckle their seat belt or take the vaccine.
Not buckling your belt just results in a fine. It’s possible but extremely improbable that it would ever get past that.
People in the military do not have the same rights as non-military, they have to take orders. Pilots and nurses work for private employers that required the shot just like they require other things that would not be part of other jobs (such as not drinking 24hrs before a flight). And most of those people were able to opt out for various reasons.
I know you guys are fixated on the vaccine as the greatest evil in human history but no one was really forced to take it if they were determined not to. The only thing that was concerning about it was that the govt dumped so much money into it. People should have been forced to pay for it and that would have changed things!
Ok, at the point of a pen, then at the point of your wallet, then at the point of unemployment, THEN at the point of a gun. It’s still coercion, not voluntary choice.
“Force people to pay”, you say? doesn’t sound voluntary to me. If YOU dictate something, YOU cover the cost. Otherwise you are just another bureaucrat and a hypocrite.
Please shut up, Cashy. You are an obvious troll.
Cashy writes:
“First of all you are overreacting. No one was ever forced at gunpoint to buckle their seat belt or take the vaccine.”
Absolutely, verifiably false – as regards seat belts.What will happen if you refuse to “buckle up” when a cop orders you to? Will he just shrug? Will he do more than just write a ticket – and then leave you alone when you still refuse to put it on? What will happen when you don’t pay the fine? They will take your license and then, if they
“catch” you driving, they will arrest you. If you “resist,” they will draw a gun on you.
Millions were threatened with loss of job, career, pension – the ability to pay their bills – if they did not get “vaccinated.” This is functionally the same as force.
I cannot believe you’re this dense. Are you, truly?
Cashy,
A loser is someone who cannot abide the freedom another person exercises that causes no harm to others. Personal risk assessment is not yours to delegate to those you deem worthy. A loser tries to control others who have done no harm, in order to mitigate his own fear of potential loss. A ‘loser’ wishes to control other people’s potential actions and words as a projection of his/her own lack of self-control. A ‘loser’ attempts to force Utopia onto others.
Eric does none of these things, the opposite, in fact. Your insinuations are baseless and ignorant. Try reading some more of Eric’s content on this webpage, instead of trying so hard to defend yourself, for once. If you are just looking for confirmation or attention, this isn’t the place, lol!
You are wrong.
A lot of people were forced to get “jabbed”. Those who refused lost their jobs (livelihoods).
As to seat belts, failure to “buckle up” is but another excuse for police to stop you–“probable cause”.
If your employer wants you to get vaccinated your options are to get vaccinated or find another job.
No person’s livelihood should be threatened by an employer forcing an employee to receive a foreign substance of unknown toxicity. I would hope that you were forced to take the “jab”.
What say you about congress and most of the federal government employees (except the military) exempted from taking the “jab”? I’ll bet that they knew something that they hid from the rest of us.
Cashy writes:
“If your employer wants you to get vaccinated your options are to get vaccinated or find another job.”
The problem with this is that practically every employer, acting at the behest of and in concert with government, applied the pressure-threat of loss-of-job. Your argument would be valid if we were talking about individual employers choosing to make a policy – and people were free to seek employment elsewhere. The key fact being there would be an “elsewhere” – a place that did not require the damned “vaccine” – if the government weren’t applying the massive pressure it did in fact apply. The fact is the government very clearly intended to force everyone to get “vaccinated.” And it used its regulatory power over businesses to attempt to make it so.
Why would you defend this disgusting – this evil – action?
No one was forced to take the jab at gun point. They just lost their jobs, their homes, their livelihoods, and were left destitute if they did not. All for an experimental shot that the government admitted did not prevent the spread, did not protect, and you could still contract said disease again even after being vaccinated. This was not free will choice. This stopped short of the Feds going door to door shooting everyone that did not take it. And yes, it can happen here because the government is that evil.
Cashy,
Most ‘accidents’ are actually ‘incidents’ brought about by increasing driver ineptitude and disregard for other traffic. Most of which has been brought on by the ever increasing infusion of “safety devices” in modern day automobiles to begin with!
Eric’s personal choice to use, or not use, a personal restraint is his own choice, and his own risk.
I suppose you would would also be in favor of mandatory PPD such as Airbag Jackets and seatbelts for motorcyclists as well? Were does your ‘risk prevention’ end, or does it?
Your argument sounds like a bureaucrat that says “doin’ right ain’t got no end”
Ever head the saying ‘Live and Let Live”? Maybe you should stop making the problems worse with your endless ‘risk prevention’. If people felt they had more to lose by being the careless asshats they are, MAYBE they would behave with more regard to their own lives, and those of others. The Safety Cult has created the blatant disregard for others that you claim you are actually ‘saving”. It’s just another form of hypocrisy that that only serves to make YOU feel better about yourself and YOUR personal choices, nothing more!
gtc:
“Most ‘accidents’ are actually ‘incidents’ brought about by increasing driver ineptitude and disregard for other traffic. Most of which has been brought on by the ever increasing infusion of “safety devices” in modern day automobiles to begin with!”
Safety devices have nothing to do with causing accidents. They clearly prevent or reduce damage from them.
You may be right that most accidents are caused by driver ineptitude. However that makes safety equipment even more important. Many times there is an innocent party involved, if you are sitting at a light and some inattentive driver slams into your back end, there is nothing you can do to prevent that, if someone runs a red light and T-bones you, there is virtually nothing you can do to prevent that. You should welcome any rule or device that lessens the impact of negligent drivers on your personal well being.
Thanks for you input against, Flo. Now tell me again how I can save money by bundling my coverage. Or are you Jamie, Flo’s little cuck sidekick.
Yeah, that’s the 2nd time you’ve made that reference. If you know the backstory so well, you know that Jamie has a beautiful wife and family and lives in a mansion. So thanks for wishing that on me!
Ya know, Cashy, we’re talking about the make-believe world of television commercials. Flo and Jamie don’t actually exist. They’re just characters played by actors on the tv. By the way, good job on your google investigation of that actor.
More evidence of Cashy’s density. Oy vey!
Jesus Cashy,
When is the last time you tried to service & repair, let alone drive a modern car? The bastards are screaming and flashing needlessly every time you fart! Half the shit you can’t cut off. Modern cars have so many unnecessary built-in distractions I can’t list them all! You may call them ‘conveniences’, but they are anything but. They are mostly marketing devices that massage the buyer’s ego and assuages their insecurities. God forbid you would have to drive something built prior to 2000!
Traffic rules get ignored by distracted drivers, just like criminals don’t heed gun-control laws. More rules don’t mitigate the inept idiot that t-bones you in an intersection, they only allow the assignment of responsibility, which wasn’t there to begin with.
Now, a physical bollard to stop a car from running a red light, sure, I’ll go for that, lol!
Cashy,
Modern ‘safety hazard’ example #1:
2022 Subaru SUV i’m backing out of the garage sets of a ‘warning’ due to the proximity of the shop doorway. You know what the ‘warning’ was? A yellow fuck STROBE LED in the side view mirror I was looking into! Would you call being momentarily blinded by this CRAP a SAFETY DEVICE? It was A: unexpected & B: Blindingly bright.
That, my clueless friend, it just the tip of the iceberg! You haven’t seen SHIT until you have tried to do some of the most basic exercises in a modern “safety equipped” motor vehicle.
Eric has been test driving new ‘promo cars’ that have inexplicably applied the ‘auto-brake’ for absolutely no reason whatsoever, under extremely dangerous road conditions.
He has even written extensively on how dangerous a lot of this ‘safety’ garbage is under normal driving conditions.
I suggest you start reading more than the car manufacturer’s propaganda and government regulatory bullshit.
Eric & I drive hundreds of different modern vehicles annually, repeatedly. What’s your personal experience? Our assessments are based on the merits of our direct interactions with this ‘safety’ crap, what’s yours?
gtc: Are you saying a high school education in civics isn’t enough? We know he’s got that.
Lol, M.L.
In the early 80’s we did have a few ‘alarmist Karen’ teachers, but it was an exception to the rule. We had one feminazi ‘history’ teacher, a ‘Spanish’ teacher that would go off the deep end when someone sneezed or coughed in class, ad one or two others that acted paranoid about nonexistant crap. But we didn’t have any dedicated PC classes, or any of the myriad of shit shows present in schools today.
“Safety devices have nothing to do with causing accidents.”
Yes, they do. By implying that one need not concern themselves with dangerous behavior because they have “safety” devices. When I started SCUBA diving about 45 years ago, there were two types of tank valves. The K valve, and the J valve. The latter had a “reserve” capacity, which shut down your air supply when it got to a certain pressure point, whereupon you had to trip the reserve to keep breathing. I opted for the K valve. Thinking it would probably be a better idea to keep track of your tank pressure than wait for the “reserve” feature to kick in.
“Whoops, I forgot to reset the J valve. I’m going to drown now.”
“You should welcome any rule or device that lessens the impact of negligent drivers on your personal well being.”
I was born with one such device. It’s called a brain. I keep an eye out for any such imbeciles. Constantly.
Hi John,
Cashy appears to be one of those people who believes it is the responsibility (and obligation) of others to “keep him safe.” We saw this attitude blossom during the “pandemic” (sic). Hysterics foamed at the mouth when other people showed their faces – or did not roll up their sleeves. But if their “mask” worked, then why would it matter to them whether anyone else wore one?
I think the answer has to do with sadism.
There are people who like making others squirm.
A ridiculous reply. You cannot control all the actions of a negligent or stoned/drunk driver. You guys all talk like you’re Spider-Man and have some sixth sense that enables you to know every possible accident that could happen to you.
All you have is the fact that accidents are fairly rare and you have managed to avoid them not out of your special super powers but because that bad luck has not come your way.
It’s actually foolhardy braggarts like yourself that create a situation where safety devices and auto insurance have to mandated. You are too stupid to realize that bad things can happen and so don’t prepare. Then when they do you leave the people that did prepare to pick up the pieces.
And I don’t want to hear about it’s a risk you are willing to take. If something bad happens to you someone has to take care of it. You know that and so would willingly free ride on the kindness of others.
Cashy,
What you’re doing is asserting that because a “negligent/drunk/stoned” driver – non-specific, just a generic “threat” exists – other people who are not “negligent/drunk/stone” are bound to accept impositions and costs so that you feel “safer.”
Cashy writes:
“And I don’t want to hear about it’s a risk you are willing to take. If something bad happens to you someone has to take care of it. You know that and so would willingly free ride on the kindness of others.”
Italics added.
“Someone” does not have to “take care of it.” They may wish to and freely choose to do so – in which case we are talking about the “kindness of others.”
But you are not talking about that. You are talking about using the force of government to compel people to “take care of it.” Take that away and there is no problem. The “negligent/stoned/drunk” person must accept the consequences. No one else.
Isn’t that the right way to handle this?
Wait, Cashy,
This is one hell of a contradiction compared to yesterday’s rantings.
Yesterday your argument was that neither a driver’s skill nor ineptitude had any bearing on motor vehicle safety, and that only the govt. mandated ‘safety’ devices had any affect.
Today, your argument is the existence of negligent/stoned/drunk vehicle operators. So tell us ‘stupid, foolhardy braggarts” what part of the production vehicle deals with this aspect?
This is completely opposite of you argument yesterday dismissing operator competency. I suppose an alcohol interlock installed AFTER a prior incident could mitigate drunk driving, but stoned? And there is no device I am aware of that prevents a negligent individual from driving if they have the access to the keys. Hell, there are plenty who drive with no insurance, no license, and no regard for any other traffic whatsoever.
Eventually GovCo is going to dictate that the only “safe” solution is that no one, including yourself, even has personal transport, other than themselves.
I suppose then you will find some other fault of society to “fix” by means of “lawful eradication”. After all, “Doin’ Right Ain’t Got No End!”
Well damned, Cashy, if we are all so damned stupid here at EP Autos, then GTF out of here, and go find a site where the people are more intelligent like you. I mean really, don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out or anything…
Doing it “for the children” is one of the WORST excuses that government uses against US.
WE are not children…
gtc.
I have never said that driver skill or ineptitude had nothing to do with safety. Clearly it does. Check your reading comprehension. My point was driving skill is not the sole determination of safety and that safety devices have helped everyone, the skilled, unskilled, and unlucky.
Eric:
Once again you are claiming things that do not exist in the real world. It may be right that a person excepts the consequences of his action. But it don’t work that way here in real world.
Like or not someone picks up the pieces regardless of cost. What you advocate is free riding on the taxpayer. You know that you would be taken care of regardless of your decisions. And so your desire to duck responsibility for things like insurance and not buckling up is in fact a way to cheat the system. You get to do what you want and no matter what someone else picks up the tab. How is that moral?
How is it not moral Cashy? Illegal Aliens cheat the system with impunity. 10-20% of the country rides for free. I submit any system that allows one group to cheat at the expense of another needs purification by fire. Equal justice and our founding principles demand it. Something about obedience to tyranny being dis-obedience to Gawd.
Cashy,
Are seat belts and insurance a moral obligation? I guess you have never heard of ‘No Fault” States, which have no insurance mandates at all, just the freedom to buy, or not.
Does that make the the States in question ‘pick up the tab’ for non-insured drivers? No it does not.
Doe that make the States in question ‘irresponsible’? No, it does not.
Even in Virginia, where insurance is ‘mandatory’, it actually is not, provided you pay DMV a $500.00 fee to drive without. $500.00 is much less than SR22 insurance for high-risk irresponsible drivers. Insurance for responsible drivers is much less than that, so this pretty much assure that the ones taking the DMV cheap-pass are actually the very people who the rest of us need protection from. This fee, btw does NOT pay for damages inflicted by uninsured drivers. Th State doesn’t cover a damn thing! It’s just a legal loophole the State uses for more revenue. You drive at your own risk, and at your own expense. Does this make Virginia DMV irresponsible? No it does not. Does it make DMV an opportunistic, useless bureaucracy? Yes, but it’s legal, so now what?
Is the use of said bureaucracy as your personal cudgel-by-proxy moral?
Life isn’t fair, and denying people individual autonomy based on the FEAR of something bad happening to YOU, sure as hell isn’t going to make things any more ‘fair’. It is, in fact, the one thing that pushes a rational society into accepting tyrannical dictatorship.
What kind of response, exactly, did you expect here? Tacit submission?
Go join some ‘pride’ page or something; you aren’t getting any traction here.
Cashy,
What exists in the real world, as you put it, is a system that uses force to hold people responsible for what others have done – or might. As opposed to holding individuals responsible for what they do (in terms of causing harm to others) and leaving everyone else alone.
“What you advocate is free riding on the taxpayer.”
That is the last thing I advocate – and you damned well know it, as I have explained my position several times.
“And so your desire to duck responsibility for things like insurance and not buckling up is in fact a way to cheat the system. ”
How am I “ducking responsibility” when my actions haven’t caused harm to anyone?
Your position is that because I might cause harm, I must be “held responsible” – by such things as being forced to buy insurance and wear a seat belt. This is the point-of-view of authoritarian Leftists.
Any person that does not protect himself against the unfortunate accidents of life is instead a risk of burden on his fellow man who must then take up his hardships, since any decent group of people feel a moral responsibility to care for another no matter the reason for one needing the care.
Some men might be honest and say that they willingly put this burden on others as those others are foolish enough to offer such charity at no cost.
Other men might claim that they do not want the charity and will be fine without it thank you. Knowing full well that the charity will offered nonetheless.
Regardless of the man’s attitude the result is the same. Good people will offer their support to the one as to the other. And both shirk their duty to their fellow man to provide for themselves the protection needed when life brings those unfortunate events that cannot be foreseen.
Cashy writes:
“Any person that does not protect himself against the unfortunate accidents of life is instead a risk of burden on his fellow man who must then take up his hardships, since any decent group of people feel a moral responsibility to care for another no matter the reason for one needing the care.”
What a concatenation of non sequiturs!
Your “unfortunate accidents of life” could encompass practically anything, in the context of this conversation. Someone might have an accident and might be hurt if they weren’t wearing a seatbelt and then they might “become a burden on his (sic) fellow man who must then take up his hardships.”
Well, someone might be an “asymptomatic spreader” – so everyone had better wear a “mask.” Someone might go on a shooting spree, so no one may possess a gun (except government elites).
Someone might crap their pants and spread disease through their fecal spray. Therefore, everyone must wear a diaper and carry “coverage” for “accidents.”
Cashy,
You have made it abundantly clear that you have no regard for personal ability or accountability, only GovCo’s to authority, nay, obligation to ‘control, regulate, insulate, codify, and pacify’ it’s citizenry. Your writings have all the traits of European Socialist Ideology. You just need to go find some ‘woke’ echo chamber where you get nothing but praise for your ‘altruistic’ virtue signalling.
Eventually you will be one of the zealots clamoring for the eradication of private property, except your own, of course.
Enjoy the purgatory you are hell bent on bringing about. I won’t be around long enough to give a rat’s ass.
Geez dude stop with the psychobabble about what I think and why. You don’t know me and you have been way off on what you think you know.
Likewise, hypocrite.
Are you completely oblivious to the hundreds of people maimed by the airbag shrapnel from the Takata airbags, among others? Do you even know any of the development history of automotive airbags? It is rife with injuries and fatalities caused directly by the deployment of said ‘safety’ devices. Or do you believe the past never happened because you were there to see it? Either way, you need to check your hubris at the door and use this as an opportunity to actually learn something, not that I’m placing my bets on THAT horse, either!
Another guy bad at math. Everyone knows that airbags malfunction once in a while. Every time they do it’s a big news item. And I’m sure some lawyer gets rich over it.
A few random malfunctions is outweighed by the thousands of people that are saved from injury or death. You must have critical thinking problems if you are unable to understand that an airbag that prevents you from being thrown or smashed against or by something is going to help. A few times it will malfunction. That’s how life works.
Cashy,
Really? “A few random malfunctions”? Subsequently resulting in a nationwide recall? What rock do you live under, the one in Plymouth Mass.?
ANY ‘safety” device that causes injury as repetitively and seriously as this?
And who’s ‘math’ are you criticizing, btw. I believe you said something to the effect that safety devices cause NO harm. You’ve said so much bullshit no one can even keep your bullshit sorted out at this point. This is just more of your own hypocrisy, deflection, and projection. Please try to make an argument in which you either don’t contradict yourself, the facts of said discussion, or just reality in general, ok?
Cashy,
More ad hominem from someone who doesn’t even use his own name. The person you’ve name-called happens to be very good at math. I know this, personally – because he’s a friend of mine. He’s the owner of a car repair shop and a private pilot. You need to know math to know how to fix cars professionally. And to fly airplanes.
You write:
“A few random malfunctions is outweighed by the thousands of people that are saved from injury or death. ”
But who is the rightful arbiter of life and death? You? A government bureaucrat? The fact is, airbags have killed. They will kill, again. That makes it something no one has the right to decide for anyone else. Irrespective of “the math.”
If you don’t like ad hominem posts then talk to your buddy. He’s one of the worst offenders. He spends half his posts in making his point and the other half insulting me. “Bad at math” isn’t much of an ad hominem attack and it would be supported by a neutral observer because he, like you, do not comprehend that we are talking percentages.
No one is “arbitering” life or death, the people that have been charged by the government with making decisions on traffic safety are trying to make driving as safe as possible. I KNOW you don’t like the government doing that, I KNOW you don’t like the power they exert. But they do, and there is nothing any of us can do about it but complain. FINE! But that doesn’t mean everything they do is evil. The facts are clear that seatbelts and airbags make travel safer.
It’s petty to try and make the case that because the solution they propose (airbags) is bad because of an occasional failure when your real beef is that they have the power to decide at all.
Cashy –
“Percentages” – as you blithely put it – are not the issue. The issue is who gets to decide what risks are imposed on others.
You write:
“No one is “arbitering” life or death…”
Nonsense. The government decrees that all cars will be fitted with a device that can (and has) killed. Justified – by the government (and people) like yourself – by the claim that more lives are “saved.”
That is the definition of “arbitering” life and death. It is not a debatable point – because it is a self-evident fact.
You’re being silly. If the government did nothing in regards to traffic safety then by your definition they would be arbitering lives. Anything and nothing the government may do will effect lives on this issue. They are merely trying to decide what saves MORE lives. Some safety measures have been determined after close examination to help save lives. If the government did nothing then they would be letting those people die. People are going to die, nothing can be done about that but the intent is to lessen the amount. And by the numbers they have done a good job.
Cashy,
Oh, like the illegal national 55 mph speed limit, right! Your words read like an accountant, the same ones that concluded paying off wrongful death lawsuits would be better for Fomoco’s bottom line than recalling defective fuel tank restraints. It is GovCo and cronyism that is putting a price on peoples’ heads, not us!
Cashy writes:
“You’re being silly. If the government did nothing in regards to traffic safety then by your definition they would be arbitering lives. ”
I am being “silly”? Do you really not understand the difference between use of force – to impose your estimation of cost-benefit and risk/reward – vs leaving people free to arbitrate their own decisions?
The government is not in the business of “saving lives” – leaving aside the paternalistic insufferable effrontery of the idea. The government is int he business of control – and “saving lives” provides the pretext that useful idiots often accept.
No Eric, he does not understand. He may well be of the culture persuasion that ‘people’ are neither competent to assess risk, nor should they have freedom of choice to do so, for themselves or for anyone else, except the PTB. This deference to authority is actually the predominate one world-wide, and we here in the U.S. are just reckless, arrogant bastards, lol! Albeit the ones who had to clean up 2 World Wars, and got dragged into every foreign conflict in the form of ‘police action’ in response to some shit started by some other nation to begin with. Everyone hates us, yet everyone wants our help. Damned if we do and Damned if we don’t, right?
Hey Cheesy,
My ‘math’ regarding airbags comes from the benefit of receiving relevant TSBs and other service documentation aside from anything you will see in the media. My math is spot on; it’s your lack of awareness that is the only deficiency.
Do you work for the Feds? Have you? I have, civilian, military, and State. Their ‘goal’ is to perpetuate and justify their existence. If something productive comes of it, all well and good, if not, they will find a way to justify infanticide if they deem it worthy.
There IS more to do than complain, or like you, just take it up the ass and tell everyone it’s for ‘our own good’. There are those of us who do make a difference in spite of your ignorance and complacency. And it doesn’t involve violence or insurrection, as I mentioned earlier.
I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference between being handed the facts on a platter of reality, from a personal ‘attack’. Those are the emotional reactions of a left-wing liberal, who does not differentiate between words and actions when accusing others of assault. Our words are not an attack, but blunt rationale which you seem to have no regard for, nor grasp of.
Your friends tell you the truth, your enemies tell you what you want to hear. This is no echo chamber for narcissists, as we frequently have verbal altercations, albeit bloodless ones.
Are you hurt and bleeding, no? Then you have not been attacked or assaulted, because you would know the difference had you been.
As for ‘comprehending percentages’, 2 semesters of statistics along with 3-6 years of engineering mathematics, and a lifetime of application, is all the qualification I need to know bullshit when I hear or read it. You want to get haughty and belittle people, help yourself. It doesn’t support a damn thing you have said thus far.
I don’t debate facts, they are what they are regardless of your ‘beliefs’ and ‘feelings’. Nor do you hurt my feelings trying to discredit my knowledge of facts, because you can’t alter either of those thing, lol!
Read Eric’s article on E-fuels and read the insights of those of us who know the facts. A lot of what the govt. feeds us, or at least trys to, is bull shit you can see right through with knowledge of basic high school chemistry. Liberal arts is all well and good, but not knowing the difference between 2/4 time, and cut-time, isn’t going to do anyone any harm. Ignore chemistry and physics and you get bureaucrats that state they believe our atmosphere is 10-15% carbon dioxide……yeah! The asshats that make up the EPA Emissions Regulatory Boards actually gave that as answer in a congressional Hearing a month ago, or don’t you watch any of that crap either?
Most of use here are not just educated, but have made our lives and livelihood through practical application of said knowledge. You will not get anyone here to blindly follow the orders of bureaucrats and their ‘professional yes men’ no matter what credentials they flash.
Damn, gtc. Well said.
Thanks M.L
Been in too much back-pain to do much physical labor today. So i’ve been at the desk fighting the forces of darkness and oppression, instead, lol!
Cool story bro. So you sucked at the government tit to make a living? You say government is evil, they lie and force people to do stuff. That not include you? You were the one good guy?
Absolutely Cashy.
There are actually tens of thousands of govt. jobs where most anyone can do productive work and not be a bureaucratic parasite. Maybe you should try out some gainful employment yourself someday. Do something for the benefit of others, instead of just yourself, or better yet, both. Your sad attempts to belittle those who do so is the best testament to your ignorance or arrogance. I’m not really sure which it is with you, probably both. Is there anyone you don’t lash out at to compensate for you own insecurities or shortcomings? You really should try to discriminate when making these choices. Or are you just dead set on showing your ignorance in every conceivable venue possible? Knock yourself out pal.
Eric: Your “unfortunate accidents of life” could encompass practically anything, in the context of this conversation. Someone might have an accident and might be hurt of they weren’t wearing a seatbelt and then they might “become a burden on his (sic) fellow man who must then take up his hardships.”
Well, someone might be an “asymptomatic spreader” – so everyone had better wear a “mask.” Someone might go on a shooting spree, so no one may possess a gun (except government elites).
Someone might crap their pants and spread disease through their fecal spray. Therefore, everyone must wear a diaper and carry “coverage” for “accidents.”
——————————————/
All true. On the property that is in the domain of the people, such as the roads, parks, government buildings and other common areas. It should be at the discretion of those officials tasked with the job of regulating them to decide which precautions are appropriate.
For government buildings recently masks were required, firearms are sometimes forbidden in government buildings and other public places if a risk is suspected. If crap was a threat then perhaps that too would necessitate a diaper requirement.
Just as you are free to require those things on the property you control so is the government on the area under their care.
No, the GovCo doesn’t “own” property. Its only borrowed at interest from the fiat they create. In some cases they steal it. They certainly don’t trade the fruits of productive labor for said property. Its all done, at the barrel of a gun. I am not my brothers keeper. Leave me out of your collectivist fever dream
I understand your feelings on the matter. However you may not want the government but the government wants you. In any group of people an organizing force will evolve. It may be done by fists and guns, or ballots but however it happens you are under the rule of who ever the winner may be. That winner can be limited to the basic functions of defense, roads, courts, etc. or it may rise to the leviathan it has become. Or even worse.
Or it may die a spectacular death, like Ozzymandis. I’m ok with however it falls.
“Leave me out of your collectivist fever dream”
You can say that again!
The guy has clearly bought the con, hook, line And sinker.
So many fall for it. Its that 80-20 thing again. The vax thats not being the most recent example.
Hi Helot,
I’m not sure yet whether Cashy is disingenuous or just not able to grasp the principle at issue. He seems to be a typical product of government schools in that he sees every thing as a particular and not connected to a broader thing and seems to accept every tenet of authoritarian collectivism but does not understand that he has done so. In this respect he is very much an archetype of the “conservative” – who waves the flag with gusto as he “conserves” exactly nothing, having acceded to to the Left every principle that matters.
Ukraine is being “prepped” to become israel 2.0 and are using the USA and NATO to “make it happen”.
Although (((they))) will never admit it, most jews from western countries who make “aliyah” actually HATE the middle east. They hate the climate and terrain. As many of (((them))) are from Europe, Ukraine is a much more desirable destination for (((them))) to ply their worldwide criminal activities.
“I don’t ever want to play the part
of a statistic on a government chart. . .”
-Invisible Sun, The Police
“The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic.”
Joesph Stalin
“Now we have over 120 million dead from covid.”
— ‘Joe Biden,’ at a June 2020 campaign event in PA
Considering that is more than 1/3 of our ‘pre-covid’ population, I would have to ask how we haven’t noticed their absence? Even a tenth of the population gone would be significantly noticeable, to say nothing of 33+ percent! Why do people buy into that bullshit? It’s as if Covid was actually a global ‘stupidity’ virus, apparently.
Ok, that’s weird Jungarian Synchronicity, Mister Liberty.
This morning at around 6 a.m. as I was reading Eric’s article I paused to consider posting a link to that very same Police song/video. Not sure why I thought of it.
Just the link and the title, mind you, no comment. Slightly trippy stuff.
The Police – Invisible Sun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VuDjJ9KIxM
Great minds think alike!
I have two pending recall notices on my Cherokee. I called the dealer last month, they were booked out to the end of July. Now I’m guessing they don’t prioritize recalls, but a month and a half wait time? Especially if the recommendation is to park it until the repairs can be performed?
I think we need to reset the Great Reset.
The problem, we’re told, is lack of employees. Well, that’s sort of true. The real problem is the lack of specialists. Mechanics aren’t hired off the street and run through an apprentice program (even if it’s unwritten) and shown the ropes by more experienced wrenches, they’re expected to have training from UTI or some other trade school. Back in the day, you started out sweeping the floors and taking out the trash. Then, if you showed up on time and had a little bit of a work ethic, they’d put you on oil changes or whatever. Eventually you’d help out the experienced guys on the more complicated stuff and pick up some knowledge along the way -or the boss would let you bring in your car on Sunday or stick around after 5:00 so you could use all the shop’s tools. Or if you f***ed up a few jobs but still a good kid, you were put into dealer prep or sales.
But bring in a kid off the street with a pile of UTI debt? No way you can pay him enough out of the gate to cover his loan and keep him fed and housed. And he’s not going to be productive enough to justify a $40K salary for a few years (because it will take a year or more to unlearn all the useless information he picked up at UTI). So that kid doesn’t apply, the jobs stay open and the HR resume’ bot rejects anyone without the proper keywords.
The problem is that the very worst danger any of us experience is the FedGov in Washington DC, and to a slightly lesser degree, our State capitols. After all, they are run by psychopaths, many of them sadistic psychopaths. They either don’t care if you’re harmed, or in many cases prefer you be harmed. We’re only beginning to see the depth of that sadism with the VAX adverse events, and the willful economic destruction inflicted over an average virus.
Airbags are actually quite ineffective in “saving lives” as they say. In an unbelted situation, an airbag shifts the collision from a fatality event to a serious injury event about. It reduces the chances of a fatality by 61 percent. When a person is belted, the effectiveness of the airbag is statistically small. About 4-6 percent. At best.
Perhaps the largest part of the increase in fatal accidents is not in airbags. It is basic car design. Outward visibility has been substantially reduced by the gunslit windows, high beltlines, and the large pillars obstructing driver and passenger views. As a result, there has been a marked increase in pedestrian fatalities since 2010. Some of that has to do with the hoardes of homeless people in larger cities, but the car design is playing a significant role. There are also more crossover cars with line of signt and visibility issues as well. Pedestrian fatals were around 2900 in 2010. Today, they are 7500 and rising. It has been on an upward trend for the last 16 years and no one is talking about it.
That’s because the governments own FMVSS and all their bullshit “pedestrian grillls” and whatnot are causing an increased number to die.
I honestly don’t give a crap because we are all going to die sometime, someday, but 9 times out of 10, it’s the government behind the whole thing.
A 60% reduction in fatality is not “quite ineffective” it’s damn effective. Seat belts do not save lives at 100% so 60% is pretty good. And fatality is not the only measure of safety.
Hi Cashy,
Not to belabor the point already made, but: I never wear seat belts – it’s the principle of the thing, you see – and I am quite alive and unharmed, notwithstanding all the driving I do. So, seat belts have not “saved” my life – nor the loves of those who haven’t wrecked, etc.
Again – I take your point about probabilities. But they are not certainties. “Safety” is a very hypothetical thing in this context. I submit that a very skilled, alert driver is much “safer” – even in something as uncrashworthy as an old VW Beetle – than a marginal driver is within an S-Class Mercedes with 13 air bags.
See, it’s that numbers thing again! Like in, Dune? Idk.
My Dad does the the same damn thing.
This seems worth repeating:
“Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.”
― Helen Keller, The Open Door
Amen, Helot!
Now, I understand that there are fearful people – but their fears ought not to be binding on anyone else. Some people are terrified of the idea of going hiking in the deep woods and camping there at night. So don’t. But don’t tell me it’s not “safe.” And the same with regard to driving a car sans the damned air bags!
Hey, people jump out of perfectly good airplanes, and ride a parachute to the ground. For fun. Why can’t I have some fun? Without an air bag.
Which is why Eric and I still ride the 2-wheelers, without a safety-cage, airbag jacket, etc, lol! I’ll leave the parachutes to the 101st Airborne, lol!
Hey John,
Been there done that. It is however a young mans game. I look back now and think; ‘What were you thinking, Dumbass?’
“Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.”
― Helen Keller, The Open Door
Never take driving advice from someone that is blind and deaf!
I have a better one. Never take risk assessment advice from an inexperienced safety-Nazi.
Or an old biker that has banged his head against the pavement too many times.
Cashy,
Do you ride? If not, please refrain from comment on matters that you have no experiential business talking about.
Oh please, Cashy, surely you can come up with a better, albeit completely uninformed, insult than that , lol! You watch too much You-Tube, lol!
Cashy seems to have an unlimited amount of time to answer each and every comment. Hmmm, perhaps that’s because he’s a full-time troll (albeit a very low IQ one). Now go away.
Eric: Not to belabor the point already made, but: I never wear seat belts – it’s the principle of the thing, you see – and I am quite alive and unharmed, notwithstanding all the driving I do. So, seat belts have not “saved” my life – nor the loves of those who haven’t wrecked, etc.”
Do you wear a seatbelt when someone else is driving?
Seeing as how you can’t be bothered to actually comprehend more than a paragraph of anything anyone has said to you here, I’ll be brief.
Is the use of a seatbelt by anyone else, especially someone NOT in your automobile, any of your fucking business?
This is rhetorical question that requires no response, in case you can’t figure that out on your own.
It’s not my business, nor do I much care if someone wears a seatbelt. I just think they’re an idiot for failing to use a simple precaution that could save their life.
But Eric volunteered the information that he doesn’t wear a seatbelt. I imagine partly because of his super hero like driving skills. So I wondered if he then put on a belt when a non-super hero was driving?
And talking about not being someone’s fucking business why are you butting in on something I asked him?
Cashy,
In case you haven’t noticed yet, this is a public forum. Want to have a private talk? Just send him a private email. BTW, Eric and I have already discussed, at length, your, less than insightful, diatribe here on this forum. Your substantial lack of credibility isn’t impressing anyone. Perhaps you should try joining a Flat-Earth channel, they are more your speed, it would seem.
Eric is also one one hell of a good driver, 4 and 2 wheels, notwithstanding.
Please continue to embarrass yourself, and don’t hesitate to make a financial contribution to the author herein, to show your appreciation for all the undue attention you have received.
I see, it’s a public forum so it’s open discussion except when you want to know why something is my fucking business?
I’m sure Eric is a good driver, but so was Dale Earnhardt Sr.
I have contributed to the site. Unlike most of the smack talkers on this site, I don’t free ride.
Cashy,
There is no comparison of the two.
Dale Earnhardt Sr. was a ruthless prick who died not wearing his “safety” harness as proscribed. He also caused his own crash attempting to wreck someone else, so he finally got a taste of his own medicine.
As I recall, you insinuated Eric was a ‘loser’ for not wearing a seatbelt. Who are you to judge when you say ‘driving skill is of no consequence’?
We did not get vaxxed, either. Are we stupid, or just evil for putting ‘everyone at risk’? Public panic and stupidity was more ‘viral’ than Covid.
So, ask any questions you wish, just don’t cry when the answer you get is not the one you want to hear, or not from whom you wish to hear it, for that matter.
You can make all the uninformed accusations you like about the rest of us here. All you are doing is showing your ignorance and your animosity towards anyone that actually knows the subject better than you, which is pretty much anyone else here with a pulse, lol!
You really don’t like Dale Sr. do you?
The vaccine? you were stupid not evil.
You don’t still fly do you?
Hi Cashy,
No. Because I don’t ride with people whose driving I don’t trust.
Cashy…I’m sure it’s been said, but one tends to drive safer when they know they have no ‘saaaafety’ measures in place. You cannot ‘see’ those statistics. If I had no airbags or seatbelts, well, I’d be driving the same because I’m very defensive and have never been in an accident.
Imagine you having neither… I bet you’d drive slower and more cautiously AND take better care of your tires and brakes AND drive a bit less, wouldn’t you? I imagine lots of young kids (literally, CHILDREN) would drive a lot more carefully if they knew their ‘safety features’ weren’t there to protect them.
No that’s not true. Back when there were none of the modern safety devices people did not drive safer then today. Traffic fatalities were twice as high as now with many fewer miles driven.
Also, all this talk about driving skill being able to avoid accidents is BS. Accidents can happen at any time and there is often nothing you can do about it. You may be able to statistically reduce your accident chances a little bit but safety equipment reduces the chances much more.
Hey Genius,
I also ride motorcycles, 50+ years in the saddle. Lets see you operate one with the same ambivalence as a 4-wheeled assault vehicle. The fact is, unless you are just a reckless moron, you operate a vehicle within it’s performance parameters, or you suffer the consequences. If the consequences are reduced by the addition of ‘safety’ devices, people use less caution when operating, this is a fact, like it or not. The loss of basic driving skills is escalating with the increase of safety & convenience features on motor vehicles, another fact you can research on YOUR time as we are not here to do the footwork for you.
I am also a former GA pilot. No Airbags, no prop guards, no automatic door locks. You exercise extreme caution and very little distraction or you WILL lose your life and the lives of others with you.
These are indisputable facts, and you need to broaden your horizon, because all you are doing now is showing how little you actually have in the way of person experience in what you are arguing. If you do have the experience, and still practice the BS you spout here, God help anyone unfortunate enough to depend on you for their transportation needs.
Motorcyclists are the people most in need of safety devices because they are so at risk. The statistics for motorcycle accidents, injuries and fatalities is very high. Usually it is not the motorcyclists faults and there is nothing they can do about it in most cases. Anything that helps drivers spot motorcycles helps. I have known a couple of people killed riding through no fault of their own, and was familiar with a rehab center that had many closed head injured motorcyclists. With the amount of poor drivers on the road nowadays it’s very dangerous to ride.
I can promise you, if everyone employed motorcycle driving survival skills regardless of the vehicle being driven, the ‘danger’ would be greatly reduced. In addition, I experience the same type & number of idiots and hazards to dodge and anticipate in my minivan as on a motorcycle. The real danger to my body is greater on a motorcycle, but does not increase the frequency nor severity of the other vehicles’ incursions. It DOES heighten my attentiveness to these same incursions. Since you apparently do not ride, and only ‘know’ those that do, your inexperience has no merit. And no, most motorcycles fatalities and incidents ARE the result of inappropriate rider action, the majority of which only involve the motorcyclist and no other vehicles. What you are spouting is common misconception and ignorance shared by riders and non-riders alike. The known collected statistics illustrate otherwise. Most riders who screw up and survive will give you 1st hand testament that ‘the other guy did it’, if just to save embarrassment. The same goes for the common excuse of ‘I had to lay it down’ after an incident. As far as visibility, it has already been proven that relative motion is more visible than even steady high-beams, high-vis vests, etc. The same is true regarding GA mid-air, and even ground, collisions.
Like I side, without personal experience, you are just talking out of you ass, and parroting what others profess.
If the extent of your experience is ‘I know people who were killed’ do such-and-such, join the crowd, Bubba. I’m familiar with the MCV trauma center and the cases they see, but it doesn’t make me an expert or even give me a clue as to how the patients ended up there.
As I said earlier, broaden your horizons before spreading the nonsense the rest of us here recognize as uninformed bullshit.
Cashy,
To what do you contribute as the reason for ‘all the poor drivers out there’ as you admit to above? Do you think, perhaps, they lack proper motoring skills? Surely a Govt. Driving Permit is “proof” of everyone’s competence behind the wheel, no? Or maybe all these things are the ‘fault’ of the unlicensed drivers, or fate, or astrology, or chance. No, I’m sure once all the ‘unsafe’ automobiles are eliminated, so will be the irresponsible, unskilled operator, yes?
Bwaaahahahahaha!
What fantasy world do you live live in, and where can the rest of us sign up?
Commerce is not exclusive of private transport (I wish it was) the courts have ruled otherwise. Take it up with them.
Yes, commerce is very much exclusive of private transport. That does not mean that there are no aspects of private transport within legal, and likewise court, jurisprudence. If you even read the most basic aviation regulations, you would comprehend the distinctions between the two.
So, let me ask you, do you possess a CDL to operate your personal vehicle? Why not?
There are hundreds of exclusivities that distinguish commercial transport from private transport in very tangible and legal ways.
You wish to conflate the two because of what relevance? You do realize that there are also civil and criminal courts, as well, yes? You use words as if context was inconsequential, of no bearing or merit whatsoever. Do you even know the definition of half the words you are using? I wouldn’t even give you the benefit of even understanding a court case in the event you even attended one.
Are you really this stupid, or are you just trying to convince the rest of us that we are?
Look, you can’t even write your own response under the relevant comment you are responding to.
Granted, you have dropped so much bullshit it is hardly worth mucking through in order to continue any thread continuity, but you ju7st don’t even try.
Your arguments are like a horse that just drops his shit wherever he’s standing or walking.
Do you actually have any driving skills at all? Are you just a Russian fatalist that does whatever you wish because, well, ‘shit happens’?
There are PLENTY of ways to avoid incidents that you conveniently brush off as ‘accidents.’. The greatest measure of safety is training and development of driving skills, another fact you need to research yourself. What kind of callous idiot would even suggest that the operation of any machinery does not requires proficiency and skill?
Didn’t you just tell someone else you ‘wouldn’t take driving advice from a blind & deaf person’? Well, by your own denial above of the need for driving skills, why not? You are an endless source of contradiction and hypocrisy, keep it up!
Cashy writes:
“Also, all this talk about driving skill being able to avoid accidents is BS. Accidents can happen at any time and there is often nothing you can do about it.”
Well, apparently I have been doing something to prevent it – as I’ve not had an “accident” in 30-plus years of driving thousands of new cars, as well as my own (and my motorcycles, too). Yet, my ex mother-in-law had several “accidents” in fewer than ten years.
What might account for this?
Well, you’re full of crap.
“Seat belts save lives” is a naked assertion full of unproven and generally unsupported assumptions. When I state that seat belts have never saved a life it’s also a naked assertion, but supported by facts and logic.
As to vehicle fatality/injury/accident stats, a thinking person has to consider technology changes.
Bias play tube tires on non safety rims vs tubeless radials on safety beads. Buggy springs vs coil. Manual drum brakes vs power disk brakes. Armstrong manual steering vs power rack n pinion. Wraparound bucket seats vs vinyl bench seats. LED headlights vs sealed beams vs bulb vs acetylene lamps. Buggy springs and solid axles vs coil sprung independent suspension. Hydraulic shocks vs friction. Padded interiors vs painted steel. Safety glass vs plate. The list is many times longer.
But if you believe safety comes from or is the business of government, nobody can help you. You worship a false god and have no respect for reason or wisdom.
Interesting article. What hadn’t really occurred to me before is the effects of aging on airbag hardware. I had been congratulating myself on the recent acquisition of a rust-free 1996 Ranger with a nice, clean interior and 143K miles. Here in Indiana, that’s old enough to qualify for a “historic vehicle” tag — $20 a year cheaper! But … it is, of course, equipped with a steering-wheel bomb.
I don’t suppose there’s an, uhhh, unofficial DIY way to remove the menace? (Just asking, for a friend, of course.) We don’t have “vehicle inspection) laws here, so that wouldn’t be a problem.
Hi Jim,
I have an ’02 Nissan Frontier. I also have an air bag-free Formula steering wheel for a ’70s Trans-Am I intend to replace the Nissan’s steering wheel with, when I get some time (and if it’s feasible). I do not want an air bag in any of my vehicles.
You can disconnect the airbag; you will just have an annoying light on the dash. I heard that you can simulate an airbag with resistor, but you have to get out a multimeter and measure the actual resistance of the circuit. Maybe that’s why Radio Shack went out of business. They didn’t want people getting ready access to the hardware that could defeat something like this.
Good luck Eric
When I changed to Recaro Seats in my S1, to eliminate the Airbag Warning Light in my Instrument Cluster, I installed a Resistor to simulate the Side Air Bags. A little more complicated was the Variable Resistor in the Passenger Seat. With a Multimeter, I measured the Reisistance of a 55Kg Weight and installed an equivalent Resistor. If I have a problem, the Passenger Airbag will deploy at a speed to protect a Person weighing 55Kg.
Please follow anarchysts instructions below. Do not attempt to measure the resistance of the circuit itself.
Do not attempt to measure the resistance of the AIRBAG directly. If you do, it will deploy with a big BANG.
I unplugged mine from the connector right at the bag itself; doesn’t throw a code (‘03 Corolla), but if yours does just plug it back in when you go for the saaaaaaafety (sic) inspection and then unplug it again as soon as you get home. I also do that for the ABS, another “assist” I can do fine without.
Same here. My 23-year-old Sierra has a switch to tun the passenger airbag off. Nothing for the driver. It’s spent its entire life in the Heart of Dixie –including our high heat and humidity. No idea what the impact of elements & time is on the function of the airbag, accelerometers, wheel speed sensors, or however the thing works.
THIS INFORMATION IS FOR STUDY PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DO THIS UNLESS YOU ARE QUALIFIED TO DO SO.
Airbag disconnection is technically illegal under federal law but it can be done easily and safely.
You will need tools to disassemble the steering wheel and will also need a volt-ohm meter. Additional parts needed will be a 100K potentiometer, used to determine the resistance value needed to turn off the airbag light. Connect the center and one of the side lugs on the potentiometer to the airbag vehicle connector, NOT to the airbag connector itself.
1. Disconnect the vehicle battery and wait 15 minutes for the airbag circuit capacitors to discharge.
2. Remove the airbag from the steering wheel and unplug the airbag connector.
3. Reconnect the vehicle battery and connect the potentiometer to the vehicle airbag connector.
4. Rotate the potentiometer shaft until the airbag light goes out.
5. Disconnect the potentiometer from the airbag circuit.
6. Using the volt-ohm meter, measure the resistance of the potentiometer center and side lug.
7. Obtain a fixed-value resistor of the same resistance value (ohms) and attach it to the connector.
8. Reinstall the airbag without plugging in the connector.
IMPORTANT! DO NOT ATTEMPT TO MEASURE THE RESISTANCE OF THE AIRBAG DIRECTLY. IT WILL DEPLOY IF YOU USE THE VOLT-OHM METER TO ATTEMPT TO MEASURE AIRBAG RESISTANCE DIRECTLY.
And don’t forget about this procedure when you trade or sell the vehicle. Pretty sure you’d be in heep deep trouble if the next owner was in an accident and the bags didn’t deploy.
anarchyst,
That won’t work on a VW or Audi. The part about using a potentiometer will work, provided you have a scan tool hooked up to see the values. With a VAG model car it will show (referring to the resistance value) “too high”, “correct”, or “too low”. Once you have disconnected an airbag component and turned on the key, even if you re-connect it, you will still need to use a scan tool to erase the memory to shut the warning light off.
When the scan tool shows “correct”, you turn the potentiometer until the “correct” designation shows up. You then read the value on the potentiometer and replace it with a fixed resistor of the same value.
I don’t see any difference in my method, other than having to use the scan tool to turn off the airbag light.
Regards,
anarchyst,
#4 in your method will NOT work on a VW or Audi. But yes, turn the pot until the scan tool reads “correct”, disconnect the pot and measure the resistance to determine the correct resistor.
Your method is sound, it’s just that for someone reading this and is contemplating doing this procedure they MAY (most likely) need a scan tool to do it, whether a VAG product or any another make and model. You need to add “scan tool” to the list of required tools.
Cheers,
Backup cameras were partially about saaaafety but mostly about patent checks for the video related tech flowing to Los Gatos and Los Altos PO Boxes.
I believe that’s what’s behind the latest round of optical-based “assist technologies” involving $1200 camera modules even in what are supposed to be “economy” cars like Corollas.
BTW, the used VW Jetta we bought is throwing air bag codes to the proprietary scan tools the VW dealer uses.
‘From the point-of-view of these bureaucrats and politicians, you are a statistic.’ — eric
The decision of ‘Joe Biden’ to send cluster bombs to the Ukies illustrates this point.
It is admitted that after their use, innocent Ukies (including children) will accidentally blow themselves up on unexploded bomblets.
But America’s own position is dire. ‘Biden’ admitted that we’re out of conventional 155 mm ammo — meaning the US can no longer defend itself if attacked.
Likewise, ‘Biden’ — for purely partisan purposes — has run down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its lowest level since 1983. In the event of a fresh oil embargo, the US economy will be prostrated.
China bribed Traitor Joe and his son to sell out America for $30 million. After a fair trial, both should hang.
Jim,
The crazy thing about Biden’s decision to send cluster bombs to Ukraine is that most countries around the world have BANNED their use for the reason you stated. Even Biden’s fmr Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, said last year that they weren’t going to send cluster bombs to Ukraine because doing so is a war crime. But I imagine the Biden regime, along with the Neocons in government, will concoct an excuse for this latest insanity such as “Putin Baaaaaaaaaaaad”, and they, along with the propagandists in Big Media, will call people who raise concerns about this INSANE idea “Putin bootlickers” or “Russian tools”.
And with their desire to DISARM Americans, if they succeed with that, are they going to send those weapons to Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeev? They’ve already sent TONS of weapons and taxpayer dollars to Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeev, that it’s likely much of it went to the black market, Black Rock, Zelensky, 3rd World thugs, or the military-industrial complex instead of the stated purpose, especially when the Biden regime doesn’t even want someone to oversee where all those BILLIONS of dollars went.
Most people know that Ukraine is a major wheat farming land. Much of the warzone is in farming country. Now toss a bunch of unexploded ordinance into the fields and watch what happens to the global price of wheat. When the stalemate continues into the fall they’ll start the justification for landmines.
Can’t make money with plenty…
It will be hell for the farmers years and years on –
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ww1-century-bombs-idUSKCN1N40TS
I was in Normandy area in 2017, the corners of many farm fields had piles of war “stuff” from that spring’s plowing waiting for disposal. Trenches filled with chalk still visible winding thru the fields.