Yet Another Tragic Case......

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:15:42 -0000, thunder.TakeThisOut@TAKEOUTgti.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:30:30 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I find it hard to believe that insurance companies, who actually know
>>> the cost, would promote anything that would cost them more money. If
>>> seat belts and helmets were not safer, insurance companies would
>>> aggressively fight against the laws.
>> The push for mandatory seat belt laws didn't come from insurance
>> companies, it came from the auto industry. In 1984, the Secretary of
>> Transportation ruled that air bags would not be required if more than 2/3
>> of the population resided in states with mandatory seat belt laws. All
>> of a sudden, Detroit began lobbying for mandatory seat belt laws. It's
>> not about safety, it's about money.
>
> And then we got air bags anyway which caused a zillion injuries and
> still do.
>
> Not to mention severe allergic reactions as a result of the powder
> used as a lubricant to aid inflation.
>
> And I have yet to have an SAE qualified engineer tell me why, if seat
> belts are so effective in reducing injuries, we need air bags as
> additional restraints.


Because the same sort of idiots who won't wear helmets while riding a
motorcycle won't wear seatbelts in a car. Airbags are passive.

A rash is a small price to pay for not flying through the windshield in
a car crash.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" <email.RemoveThis@swsports.org> wrote in message
news:alf6l390btnb7irhcgiek7lglkrsp75e6e@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:15:42 -0000, thunder.RemoveThis@TAKEOUTgti.net wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:30:30 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I find it hard to believe that insurance companies, who actually know
>>> the cost, would promote anything that would cost them more money. If
>>> seat belts and helmets were not safer, insurance companies would
>>> aggressively fight against the laws.
>>
>>The push for mandatory seat belt laws didn't come from insurance
>>companies, it came from the auto industry. In 1984, the Secretary of
>>Transportation ruled that air bags would not be required if more than 2/3
>>of the population resided in states with mandatory seat belt laws. All
>>of a sudden, Detroit began lobbying for mandatory seat belt laws. It's
>>not about safety, it's about money.
>
> And then we got air bags anyway which caused a zillion injuries and
> still do.
>
> Not to mention severe allergic reactions as a result of the powder
> used as a lubricant to aid inflation.
>
> And I have yet to have an SAE qualified engineer tell me why, if seat
> belts are so effective in reducing injuries, we need air bags as
> additional restraints.


We were told up here at the time of compulsory air bags... that the seat
belt compliance rate was low in the US (50 something %) vs around 90% for
Canadians.
We had to accept the extra cost of the airbags to make up for reckless
'mericans.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:26:28 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


> And then we got air bags anyway which caused a zillion injuries and
> still do.
>
> Not to mention severe allergic reactions as a result of the powder used
> as a lubricant to aid inflation.
>
> And I have yet to have an SAE qualified engineer tell me why, if seat
> belts are so effective in reducing injuries, we need air bags as
> additional restraints.

Remember the '50s cars? Metal dashboards, steering columns like spears,
metal door handles that would slice you like a knife, etc. etc. I'll
take the air bags and seat belts. Looking back, those old cars were
scary. Seat belts are not without problems. I've heard of broken
collarbones and even deaths caused by shock to the heart. Still, I'll
wear them.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

"Eisboch" <rce.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:GZudneyPMYXh387anZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Short Wave Sportfishing" <email.RemoveThis@swsports.org> wrote in message
> news:lfd6l3h4rncm9hq7j28ubbm0st4puljnj9@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:54:07 -0500, "Eisboch" <rce.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>married for 38 years or something ....
>>
>> Um...didn't you say that Mrs. E read rec.boats once in a while? :>)
>
> Loose lips sink ships I guess.
>
> I am just in an ornery mood. Somehow I caught a humdinger of a cold and
> feel really lousy.
> I can't remember the last time I was sick and it's something I don't
> tolerate very well.
>
> Eisboch
>


Time to make your blood inhabitable to germs. Jack Daniels.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WrH4j.21752$B25.20123@news01.roc.ny...

> "Eisboch" <rce.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:GZudneyPMYXh387anZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> I am just in an ornery mood. Somehow I caught a humdinger of a cold and
>> feel really lousy.
>> I can't remember the last time I was sick and it's something I don't
>> tolerate very well.
>>
>> Eisboch
>>
>
>
> Time to make your blood inhabitable to germs. Jack Daniels.
>

I suspect it's from hanging around 5 walking Petri dishes (my grandkids)
over Thanksgiving.

Eisboch
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

"John H." <jherring1.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gvk6l39kdtvsn06hc6kp2cu3eb521p0hos@4ax.com...

>
> The safety debate is center to my opinion, as I don't sell helmets.
> Therefore we are approaching this from totally different perspectives. I
> suggest we agree to disagree.
> --
> John H


Ok, but let me leave you with one final thought.

I don't disagree that wearing a helmet is safer. Leaving the motorcycle in
the garage is even more safe. My thinking, however, is that life is a gift
to be lived within reasonable limits. There are responsibilities that go
with it .... providing for a family, contributing to society, paying taxes
for the common good, etc.

But there's also an aspect of life that involves your personal interests,
sources of enjoyment and choice. In them there are risks, but you should
have the right to evaluate those risks and make personal decisions in terms
of what they mean to you.

It seems to me that if we continue to allow ourselves to be regulated to
death by governments influenced by organizations or groups with their own
agenda and accept being told what risk you can take and how like a bunch of
lemmings, we will end up with a very boring and limited existence.

Eisboch
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:40:32 -0500, "Eisboch" <rce.DeleteThis@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"Short Wave Sportfishing" <email.DeleteThis@swsports.org> wrote in message
>news:lfd6l3h4rncm9hq7j28ubbm0st4puljnj9@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:54:07 -0500, "Eisboch" <rce.DeleteThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>married for 38 years or something ....
>>
>> Um...didn't you say that Mrs. E read rec.boats once in a while? :>)
>
>Loose lips sink ships I guess.
>
>I am just in an ornery mood. Somehow I caught a humdinger of a cold and
>feel really lousy.
>I can't remember the last time I was sick and it's something I don't
>tolerate very well.

You and me both.

I am a horrible patient.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:42:21 -0000, thunder.TakeThisOut@TAKEOUTgti.net wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:26:28 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>
>
>> And then we got air bags anyway which caused a zillion injuries and
>> still do.
>>
>> Not to mention severe allergic reactions as a result of the powder used
>> as a lubricant to aid inflation.
>>
>> And I have yet to have an SAE qualified engineer tell me why, if seat
>> belts are so effective in reducing injuries, we need air bags as
>> additional restraints.
>
>Remember the '50s cars? Metal dashboards, steering columns like spears,
>metal door handles that would slice you like a knife, etc. etc. I'll
>take the air bags and seat belts. Looking back, those old cars were
>scary. Seat belts are not without problems. I've heard of broken
>collarbones and even deaths caused by shock to the heart. Still, I'll
>wear them.

Take JohnH as an example (not picking on you John, just making a
point). There's a guy with an abdominal aortic aneurism - does a seat
belt make him safer?

Cardiac aortic tears, hip/pelvis breakage, entrapment, broken
sternums, ribs, shoulders - oh, I could go on and on about the
inherent dangers of seat belts.

In my own case, I was trapped in a burning car after being rear ended
at high speed at a stop light and couldn't get out because both
shoulders were dislocated, dazed and confused and I couldn't get to
the release. Fortunately, there was a by-stander who managed to haul
my ass out of the car.

Haven't worn a seat belt since.

My complaint about seat belts have to do with how use is reported.
Statistics are developed by ambulance run forms and accident reports.
The hitch in the process is that is Fire/EMS/Police ask if seatbelts
were used and the patient says yes, then that is what is reported.
Doesn't matter if the windshield is starred or the victim ejected, it
goes down as yes.

That means that the system is flawed and use over reported.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:32:09 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
<email RemoveThis @swsports.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:42:21 -0000, thunder RemoveThis @TAKEOUTgti.net wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:26:28 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And then we got air bags anyway which caused a zillion injuries and
>>> still do.
>>>
>>> Not to mention severe allergic reactions as a result of the powder used
>>> as a lubricant to aid inflation.
>>>
>>> And I have yet to have an SAE qualified engineer tell me why, if seat
>>> belts are so effective in reducing injuries, we need air bags as
>>> additional restraints.
>>
>>Remember the '50s cars? Metal dashboards, steering columns like spears,
>>metal door handles that would slice you like a knife, etc. etc. I'll
>>take the air bags and seat belts. Looking back, those old cars were
>>scary. Seat belts are not without problems. I've heard of broken
>>collarbones and even deaths caused by shock to the heart. Still, I'll
>>wear them.
>
>Take JohnH as an example (not picking on you John, just making a
>point). There's a guy with an abdominal aortic aneurism - does a seat
>belt make him safer?
>
>Cardiac aortic tears, hip/pelvis breakage, entrapment, broken
>sternums, ribs, shoulders - oh, I could go on and on about the
>inherent dangers of seat belts.
>
>In my own case, I was trapped in a burning car after being rear ended
>at high speed at a stop light and couldn't get out because both
>shoulders were dislocated, dazed and confused and I couldn't get to
>the release. Fortunately, there was a by-stander who managed to haul
>my ass out of the car.
>
>Haven't worn a seat belt since.
>
>My complaint about seat belts have to do with how use is reported.
>Statistics are developed by ambulance run forms and accident reports.
>The hitch in the process is that is Fire/EMS/Police ask if seatbelts
>were used and the patient says yes, then that is what is reported.
>Doesn't matter if the windshield is starred or the victim ejected, it
>goes down as yes.
>
>That means that the system is flawed and use over reported.

I think I'd rather be in a seat belt than not, even with the aneurysm.
--
John H
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:46:12 -0500, "Eisboch" <rce.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote:

>So, choose your method.

Phasers, 500 feet at dawn. :>)
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:57:43 -0500, "Eisboch" <rce.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"John H." <jherring1.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:gvk6l39kdtvsn06hc6kp2cu3eb521p0hos@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> The safety debate is center to my opinion, as I don't sell helmets.
>> Therefore we are approaching this from totally different perspectives. I
>> suggest we agree to disagree.
>> --
>> John H
>
>
>Ok, but let me leave you with one final thought.
>
>I don't disagree that wearing a helmet is safer. Leaving the motorcycle in
>the garage is even more safe. My thinking, however, is that life is a gift
>to be lived within reasonable limits. There are responsibilities that go
>with it .... providing for a family, contributing to society, paying taxes
>for the common good, etc.
>
>But there's also an aspect of life that involves your personal interests,
>sources of enjoyment and choice. In them there are risks, but you should
>have the right to evaluate those risks and make personal decisions in terms
>of what they mean to you.
>
>It seems to me that if we continue to allow ourselves to be regulated to
>death by governments influenced by organizations or groups with their own
>agenda and accept being told what risk you can take and how like a bunch of
>lemmings, we will end up with a very boring and limited existence.
>
>Eisboch
>

It has been left with me.

Two amens.
--
John H
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Dec 2, 7:32 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing <em... DeleteThis @swsports.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:42:21 -0000, thun... DeleteThis @TAKEOUTgti.net wrote:
> >On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:26:28 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>
> >> And then we got air bags anyway which caused a zillion injuries and
> >> still do.
>
> >> Not to mention severe allergic reactions as a result of the powder used
> >> as a lubricant to aid inflation.
>
> >> And I have yet to have an SAE qualified engineer tell me why, if seat
> >> belts are so effective in reducing injuries, we need air bags as
> >> additional restraints.
>
> >Remember the '50s cars? Metal dashboards, steering columns like spears,
> >metal door handles that would slice you like a knife, etc. etc. I'll
> >take the air bags and seat belts. Looking back, those old cars were
> >scary. Seat belts are not without problems. I've heard of broken
> >collarbones and even deaths caused by shock to the heart. Still, I'll
> >wear them.
>
> Take JohnH as an example (not picking on you John, just making a
> point). There's a guy with an abdominal aortic aneurism - does a seat
> belt make him safer?
>
> Cardiac aortic tears, hip/pelvis breakage, entrapment, broken
> sternums, ribs, shoulders - oh, I could go on and on about the
> inherent dangers of seat belts.
>
> In my own case, I was trapped in a burning car after being rear ended
> at high speed at a stop light and couldn't get out because both
> shoulders were dislocated, dazed and confused and I couldn't get to
> the release. Fortunately, there was a by-stander who managed to haul
> my ass out of the car.
>
> Haven't worn a seat belt since.
>
> My complaint about seat belts have to do with how use is reported.
> Statistics are developed by ambulance run forms and accident reports.
> The hitch in the process is that is Fire/EMS/Police ask if seatbelts
> were used and the patient says yes, then that is what is reported.
> Doesn't matter if the windshield is starred or the victim ejected, it
> goes down as yes.
>
> That means that the system is flawed and use over reported.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, then show us some non-flawed statistics that would indicate that
NOT wearing a seat belt is safer than wearing one......
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case...... 

On Dec 2, 6:26 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing <em... RemoveThis @swsports.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:15:42 -0000, thun... RemoveThis @TAKEOUTgti.net wrote:
> >On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:30:30 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
>
> >> I find it hard to believe that insurance companies, who actually know
> >> the cost, would promote anything that would cost them more money. If
> >> seat belts and helmets were not safer, insurance companies would
> >> aggressively fight against the laws.
>
> >The push for mandatory seat belt laws didn't come from insurance
> >companies, it came from the auto industry. In 1984, the Secretary of
> >Transportation ruled that air bags would not be required if more than 2/3
> >of the population resided in states with mandatory seat belt laws. All
> >of a sudden, Detroit began lobbying for mandatory seat belt laws. It's
> >not about safety, it's about money.
>
> And then we got air bags anyway which caused a zillion injuries and
> still do.
>
> Not to mention severe allergic reactions as a result of the powder
> used as a lubricant to aid inflation.
>
> And I have yet to have an SAE qualified engineer tell me why, if seat
> belts are so effective in reducing injuries, we need air bags as
> additional restraints.

Simple. Whiplash and other spinal injuries are reduced.
http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticle.php/article835.html

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that the
combination of an air bag in addition to a lap and shoulder belt
reduces the risk of serious head injury by 81 percent, compared with
60 percent reduction for belts alone.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet Another Tragic Case......