IIHS: Side Airbags Cut Deaths Nearly in Half

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PipBoy
which accounts for 90% of the driving public.

Wherein lies the REAL problem...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused
Hey ST, how about this:

In the interest of freedom, we make it manditory that airbags be an OPTION. That way people can opt out if they choose not to pay for them?

No. If they are just an option, there is no interest in making them very affordable. Automakers r@pe you on options.
It should be designed into the car from the beginning, and effect the base price of the car, so that automakers will have to make it cheaper in order to be price competitive.
If you want to disable them, then you do so at your own risk. This has been tried with front airbags, so it's not unprecedented.

This forces people to buy something. It's anathema to freedom. Sorry, but I refuse to support mandates that only protect me from myself. Not only that, but you want to force me to buy it so it's cheaper for you.

There is no difference between this kind of mandate, and the mandates of the religious right. The left wants to save my body from myself by limiting my freedoms, and the right wants to save my "soul" from myself by limiting my freedoms. Both are nanny state busy bodies that need to mind their own fscking business.

Both can just fsck off and leave me alone.

Bad comparison. Driving is not a right, it's a priveledge. So if you are going to drive a car on public roads, the government can impose restrictions and mandates that this car has to meet.
It's not new. And the government sure can impose rules that require cars to have ABS and side airbags.

It should NOT be allowed to impose restrictions that protect ME from ME. I can fully understand passing laws that protect individuals from OTHER PEOPLE. But I still will not, and cannot support any law that seeks to protect me from me.

And let's address this "privilege" argument, shall we? Can the government deny me a license if I meet the requirements to have one? Can they arbitrarily deny any law abiding citizen a license? No. "Privilege" is the wrong word here.

 

[Saltin]

And let's address this "privilege" argument, shall we? Can the government deny me a license if I meet the requirements to have one? Can they arbitrarily deny any law abiding citizen a license? No. "Privilege" is the wrong word here.

No it isnt. It isnt a right, it's not guaranteed anywhere in any document that you have a "right" to drive.

It something you're allowed to do, and if you abuse it, you lose it. Imagine if people had a "right" to drive. What would the roads be like?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Saltin

And let's address this "privilege" argument, shall we? Can the government deny me a license if I meet the requirements to have one? Can they arbitrarily deny any law abiding citizen a license? No. "Privilege" is the wrong word here.

No it isnt. It isnt a right, it's not guaranteed anywhere in any document that you have a "right" to drive.

It something you're allowed to do, and if you abuse it, you lose it. Imagine if people had a "right" to drive. What would the roads be like?

But at the same time, you cannot be denied a license so long as you meet the requirements (almost all of which are designed to protect other people from you).

So if one cannot be denied a license so long as they meet the basic requirements, how can it be defined as a "privilege?"

 

[SuperTool]

You can be denied the priveledge of using public roads if your car does not meet certain criteria. It's not a right. If you don't like it, take the bus.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You can be denied the priveledge of using public roads if your car does not meet certain criteria. It's not a right. If you don't like it, take the bus.

And that criteria should be only that which reasonably protects other drivers from me. Not me from myself.

 

[Vic]

Amused is correct. Driving is not a priviledge, it is a license, a word that I think most people have forgotten the meaning to. License is a permission (NOT priviledge) provided by government to do or own a specified thing as long as specified conditions have been met.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You can be denied the priveledge of using public roads if your car does not meet certain criteria. It's not a right. If you don't like it, take the bus.

And that criteria should be only that which reasonably protects other drivers from me. Not me from myself.

It protects you from other drivers, and makes driving safer for everyone, which reduces insurance premiums. The government can certainly pass requirements on cars to advance safety on the road. Again, it does not infringe on your rights, because there is no right in the constitution to drive whatever the hell you want on public roads.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You can be denied the priveledge of using public roads if your car does not meet certain criteria. It's not a right. If you don't like it, take the bus.

And that criteria should be only that which reasonably protects other drivers from me. Not me from myself.

It protects you from other drivers, and makes driving safer for everyone, which reduces insurance premiums. The government can certainly pass requirements on cars to advance safety on the road. Again, it does not infringe on your rights, because there is no right in the constitution to drive whatever the hell you want on public roads.

Again, you are missing my point. If it protects me, but not other drivers, it should be MY choice to use or not use.

In practice this would mean the law mandates my car handles reasonably well, has good tires, lights and mirriors and can be operated in a way that I am not a danger to others on the road. The law should stop, however, when it comes to my own safety, i.e., belts, helmets and airbags.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You can be denied the priveledge of using public roads if your car does not meet certain criteria. It's not a right. If you don't like it, take the bus.

And that criteria should be only that which reasonably protects other drivers from me. Not me from myself.

It protects you from other drivers, and makes driving safer for everyone, which reduces insurance premiums. The government can certainly pass requirements on cars to advance safety on the road. Again, it does not infringe on your rights, because there is no right in the constitution to drive whatever the hell you want on public roads.

Again, you are missing my point. If it protects me, but not other drivers, it should be MY choice to use or not use.

In practice this would mean the law mandates my car handles reasonably well, has good tires, lights and mirriors and can be operated in a way that I am not a danger to others on the road. The law should stop, however, when it comes to my own safety, i.e., belts, helmets and airbags.

No, you are missing the point. If you not having a side curtain airbag makes you 2x as likely to die than if you did have one means that everyone has to pay higher insurance premiums, so it's not just about you. So it doesn't just protect you from death, it protects the other drivers from the higher likelyhood of your death, and the liability that comes with it. So the government has an interest in improving overall safety. Again, there is no right to use public roads. It's a priveledge, or license as some want to call it, that the government gives to you in exchange for you and your car meeting criteria that the government sets.

 

[vi edit]

Dead people can't pay taxes (not counting estate tax), so keeping people alive is in the best interest of Government.

🙂

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You can be denied the priveledge of using public roads if your car does not meet certain criteria. It's not a right. If you don't like it, take the bus.

And that criteria should be only that which reasonably protects other drivers from me. Not me from myself.

It protects you from other drivers, and makes driving safer for everyone, which reduces insurance premiums. The government can certainly pass requirements on cars to advance safety on the road. Again, it does not infringe on your rights, because there is no right in the constitution to drive whatever the hell you want on public roads.

Again, you are missing my point. If it protects me, but not other drivers, it should be MY choice to use or not use.

In practice this would mean the law mandates my car handles reasonably well, has good tires, lights and mirriors and can be operated in a way that I am not a danger to others on the road. The law should stop, however, when it comes to my own safety, i.e., belts, helmets and airbags.

No, you are missing the point. If you not having a side curtain airbag makes you 2x as likely to die than if you did have one means that everyone has to pay higher insurance premiums, so it's not just about you. So it doesn't just protect you from death, it protects the other drivers from the higher likelyhood of your death, and the liability that comes with it. So the government has an interest in improving overall safety. Again, there is no right to use public roads. It's a priveledge, or license as some want to call it, that the government gives to you in exchange for you and your car meeting criteria that the government sets.

Um, no. Insurance can, and does charge higher premiums for risky drivers. Were belts and bags options, people without them would be charged higher than people with them. And in fact, that is already the case. Cars without airbags are charged a higher rate than those with airbags. So that negates the "it costs us all money."

And, again, the goverments only PROPER role should be to protect individuals from other people, not people from themselves.

In other words, I cannot infringe upon my own rights, therefore the government has no place trying to stop me from doing so.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You can be denied the priveledge of using public roads if your car does not meet certain criteria. It's not a right. If you don't like it, take the bus.

And that criteria should be only that which reasonably protects other drivers from me. Not me from myself.

It protects you from other drivers, and makes driving safer for everyone, which reduces insurance premiums. The government can certainly pass requirements on cars to advance safety on the road. Again, it does not infringe on your rights, because there is no right in the constitution to drive whatever the hell you want on public roads.

Again, you are missing my point. If it protects me, but not other drivers, it should be MY choice to use or not use.

In practice this would mean the law mandates my car handles reasonably well, has good tires, lights and mirriors and can be operated in a way that I am not a danger to others on the road. The law should stop, however, when it comes to my own safety, i.e., belts, helmets and airbags.

No, you are missing the point. If you not having a side curtain airbag makes you 2x as likely to die than if you did have one means that everyone has to pay higher insurance premiums, so it's not just about you. So it doesn't just protect you from death, it protects the other drivers from the higher likelyhood of your death, and the liability that comes with it. So the government has an interest in improving overall safety. Again, there is no right to use public roads. It's a priveledge, or license as some want to call it, that the government gives to you in exchange for you and your car meeting criteria that the government sets.

Um, no. Insurance can, and does charge higher premiums for risky drivers. Were belts and bags options, people without them would be charged higher than people with them. And in fact, that is already the case. Cars without airbags are charged a higher rate than those with airbags. So that negates the "it costs us all money."

And, again, the goverments only PROPER role should be to protect individuals from other people, not people from themselves.

In other words, I cannot infringe upon my own rights, therefore the government has no place trying to stop me from doing so.

It's not infringing on your rights, because there is no "right" to drive on public roads. Now if you were driving your car only on private property, then you can drive whatever the hell you want.
And if your car is unsafe, it costs me more to drive, because if we have a collision, you are more likely to die, which means my liablility insurance goes up. So if deaths in side impact collisions could be reduced by half, everyone's insurance would go down, not just the guy who gets the airbags. So your not having airbag does effect me.

 

[spidey07]

Amused,

I very much agree on "stay out of my business" but requiring seatbelts is fine with me because they truly do help protect others, not just yourself. Secondary collisions and remaining in control of the vehicle come to mind.

 

[gopunk]

um yea, i don't think it should be required.

anyhow, if a car doesn't offer the curtain style side airbags as an option, is there a way to still get it.. like after-market or something? i'd like to reduce my likelihood of death by 50% not just 10% 😛

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You can be denied the priveledge of using public roads if your car does not meet certain criteria. It's not a right. If you don't like it, take the bus.

And that criteria should be only that which reasonably protects other drivers from me. Not me from myself.

It protects you from other drivers, and makes driving safer for everyone, which reduces insurance premiums. The government can certainly pass requirements on cars to advance safety on the road. Again, it does not infringe on your rights, because there is no right in the constitution to drive whatever the hell you want on public roads.

Again, you are missing my point. If it protects me, but not other drivers, it should be MY choice to use or not use.

In practice this would mean the law mandates my car handles reasonably well, has good tires, lights and mirriors and can be operated in a way that I am not a danger to others on the road. The law should stop, however, when it comes to my own safety, i.e., belts, helmets and airbags.

No, you are missing the point. If you not having a side curtain airbag makes you 2x as likely to die than if you did have one means that everyone has to pay higher insurance premiums, so it's not just about you. So it doesn't just protect you from death, it protects the other drivers from the higher likelyhood of your death, and the liability that comes with it. So the government has an interest in improving overall safety. Again, there is no right to use public roads. It's a priveledge, or license as some want to call it, that the government gives to you in exchange for you and your car meeting criteria that the government sets.

Um, no. Insurance can, and does charge higher premiums for risky drivers. Were belts and bags options, people without them would be charged higher than people with them. And in fact, that is already the case. Cars without airbags are charged a higher rate than those with airbags. So that negates the "it costs us all money."

And, again, the goverments only PROPER role should be to protect individuals from other people, not people from themselves.

In other words, I cannot infringe upon my own rights, therefore the government has no place trying to stop me from doing so.

It's not infringing on your rights, because there is no "right" to drive on public roads. Now if you were driving your car only on private property, then you can drive whatever the hell you want.
And if your car is unsafe, it costs me more to drive, because if we have a collision, you are more likely to die, which means my liablility insurance goes up. So if deaths in side impact collisions could be reduced by half, everyone's insurance would go down, not just the guy who gets the airbags. So your not having airbag does effect me.

You are missing the point here. If I choose to not protect myself, that is my right, no matter WHAT I'm doing. Now, the license to drive requires I take reasonable steps to protect others. That I can agree with. But to require me to protect myself? No license should require that.

If I drive unsafely, or have a car without belts and bags, I PAY MORE insurance. So that argument IS moot. Please stop trying to use it.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You can be denied the priveledge of using public roads if your car does not meet certain criteria. It's not a right. If you don't like it, take the bus.

And that criteria should be only that which reasonably protects other drivers from me. Not me from myself.

It protects you from other drivers, and makes driving safer for everyone, which reduces insurance premiums. The government can certainly pass requirements on cars to advance safety on the road. Again, it does not infringe on your rights, because there is no right in the constitution to drive whatever the hell you want on public roads.

Again, you are missing my point. If it protects me, but not other drivers, it should be MY choice to use or not use.

In practice this would mean the law mandates my car handles reasonably well, has good tires, lights and mirriors and can be operated in a way that I am not a danger to others on the road. The law should stop, however, when it comes to my own safety, i.e., belts, helmets and airbags.

No, you are missing the point. If you not having a side curtain airbag makes you 2x as likely to die than if you did have one means that everyone has to pay higher insurance premiums, so it's not just about you. So it doesn't just protect you from death, it protects the other drivers from the higher likelyhood of your death, and the liability that comes with it. So the government has an interest in improving overall safety. Again, there is no right to use public roads. It's a priveledge, or license as some want to call it, that the government gives to you in exchange for you and your car meeting criteria that the government sets.

Um, no. Insurance can, and does charge higher premiums for risky drivers. Were belts and bags options, people without them would be charged higher than people with them. And in fact, that is already the case. Cars without airbags are charged a higher rate than those with airbags. So that negates the "it costs us all money."

And, again, the goverments only PROPER role should be to protect individuals from other people, not people from themselves.

In other words, I cannot infringe upon my own rights, therefore the government has no place trying to stop me from doing so.

It's not infringing on your rights, because there is no "right" to drive on public roads. Now if you were driving your car only on private property, then you can drive whatever the hell you want.
And if your car is unsafe, it costs me more to drive, because if we have a collision, you are more likely to die, which means my liablility insurance goes up. So if deaths in side impact collisions could be reduced by half, everyone's insurance would go down, not just the guy who gets the airbags. So your not having airbag does effect me.

You are missing the point here. If I choose to not protect myself, that is my right, no matter WHAT I'm doing. Now, the license to drive requires I take reasonable steps to protect others. That I can agree with. But to require me to protect myself? No license should require that.

If I drive unsafely, or have a car without belts and bags, I PAY MORE insurance. So that argument IS moot. Please stop trying to use it.

It's not moot, and until you make a convincing argument to show that, I will keep using it. If your car is less safe, chances that I will kill you if I accidentally hit you go up, and therefore my liability insurance goes up too. Therefore I am indirectly paying for your unsafe car in higher insurance premiums. The government has every right to say which cars will and will not be allowed to be sold for use on the public roads, and in doing so consider criteria like safety measures like airbags and seatbelts and require those measures.

 

[Lucky]

the solution is to not kill anyone. a silly argument, as it could easily be argued that small cars should not be allowed on the road for the same reason.

 

[stickshift]

this is the stupidest debate ever

i'll take all the safety options i can get...old people scare the sh!t out of me with their driving "skills" and their "intense" concentration levels.

 

[joecool]

Originally posted by: PipBoy
I'm waiting for the foam system in Demolition Man.

ditto! 😀

 

[Ornery]

Gawd, SuperTool's argument is super stupid! I don't know why Amused is even bothering. Hmmm, I bet cigarettes claim about as many lives as auto accidents. I bet our insurance premiums are higher to pay for smoker's illnesses...

Kids on skateboards and skates are getting hurt pretty regularly. I bet our rates are higher to account from all these injuries...

Obese people are certainly raising our insurance premiums. Their bingeing is effecting me! Damn it, where are those government mandated diets when we need 'em? 😕

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You can be denied the priveledge of using public roads if your car does not meet certain criteria. It's not a right. If you don't like it, take the bus.

And that criteria should be only that which reasonably protects other drivers from me. Not me from myself.

It protects you from other drivers, and makes driving safer for everyone, which reduces insurance premiums. The government can certainly pass requirements on cars to advance safety on the road. Again, it does not infringe on your rights, because there is no right in the constitution to drive whatever the hell you want on public roads.

Again, you are missing my point. If it protects me, but not other drivers, it should be MY choice to use or not use.

In practice this would mean the law mandates my car handles reasonably well, has good tires, lights and mirriors and can be operated in a way that I am not a danger to others on the road. The law should stop, however, when it comes to my own safety, i.e., belts, helmets and airbags.

No, you are missing the point. If you not having a side curtain airbag makes you 2x as likely to die than if you did have one means that everyone has to pay higher insurance premiums, so it's not just about you. So it doesn't just protect you from death, it protects the other drivers from the higher likelyhood of your death, and the liability that comes with it. So the government has an interest in improving overall safety. Again, there is no right to use public roads. It's a priveledge, or license as some want to call it, that the government gives to you in exchange for you and your car meeting criteria that the government sets.

Um, no. Insurance can, and does charge higher premiums for risky drivers. Were belts and bags options, people without them would be charged higher than people with them. And in fact, that is already the case. Cars without airbags are charged a higher rate than those with airbags. So that negates the "it costs us all money."

And, again, the goverments only PROPER role should be to protect individuals from other people, not people from themselves.

In other words, I cannot infringe upon my own rights, therefore the government has no place trying to stop me from doing so.

It's not infringing on your rights, because there is no "right" to drive on public roads. Now if you were driving your car only on private property, then you can drive whatever the hell you want.
And if your car is unsafe, it costs me more to drive, because if we have a collision, you are more likely to die, which means my liablility insurance goes up. So if deaths in side impact collisions could be reduced by half, everyone's insurance would go down, not just the guy who gets the airbags. So your not having airbag does effect me.

You are missing the point here. If I choose to not protect myself, that is my right, no matter WHAT I'm doing. Now, the license to drive requires I take reasonable steps to protect others. That I can agree with. But to require me to protect myself? No license should require that.

If I drive unsafely, or have a car without belts and bags, I PAY MORE insurance. So that argument IS moot. Please stop trying to use it.

It's not moot, and until you make a convincing argument to show that, I will keep using it. If your car is less safe, chances that I will kill you if I accidentally hit you go up, and therefore my liability insurance goes up too. Therefore I am indirectly paying for your unsafe car in higher insurance premiums. The government has every right to say which cars will and will not be allowed to be sold for use on the public roads, and in doing so consider criteria like safety measures like airbags and seatbelts and require those measures.

A. If you hit me and kill me, you're not a safe driver, no matter what I may be driving. What if I was a pedestrian? Should we encapsulate all peds in bubbles so YOUR insurance wont go up when you carelessly run into them "on accident?"

B. Again, higher premiums are ALREADY paid by unsafe drivers or people with less safe cars.

C. If insurance has a problem, that is THEIR problem, not the government's problem.

D. AGAIN: Insurance is not an egalitarian socialist program. They charge unsafe people higher rates to cover their costs. Most companies wont even cover unsafe drivers who have so many points, or cars that are unsafe.

Finally, never, ever try to argue that liberals are interested in freedom any more than conservatives... as your argument proves this is quite untrue.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Gawd, SuperTool's argument is super stupid! I don't know why Amused is even bothering. Hmmm, I bet cigarettes claim about as many lives as auto accidents. I bet our insurance premiums are higher to pay for smoker's illnesses...

Kids on skateboards and skates are getting hurt pretty regularly. I bet our rates are higher to account from all these injuries...

Obese people are certainly raising our insurance premiums. Their bingeing is effecting me! Damn it, where are those government mandated diets when we need 'em? 😕

Smokers pay higher insurance rates. So do obese people.

And your post points out another problem: Socialism is anathema to freedom. The argument against smokers is: it cost society more money through public aid to smokers without insurance. This argument can, and will be used against ANY high risk activity, and thus freedom becomes more endangered the more social programs we come to rely on and pay into.

 

[Ornery]

Yep, what you drive effects your premium too!

Features on your car that can save you money.

• A bigger car:
  
  In modern cars, crumple zones are designed to absorb much of the crash energy. If the car absorbs the collision force, you won't have to. In general, bigger is better, because larger cars have larger crumple zones. Small vehicles account for more than twice as many occupant deaths, meaning better maneuverability does not make up for a smaller crumple zone.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

It should NOT be allowed to impose restrictions that protect ME from ME. I can fully understand passing laws that protect individuals from OTHER PEOPLE. But I still will not, and cannot support any law that seeks to protect me from me.

And let's address this "privilege" argument, shall we? Can the government deny me a license if I meet the requirements to have one? Can they arbitrarily deny any law abiding citizen a license? No. "Privilege" is the wrong word here.

1. no one is forcing you to buy a car

2. i would wholly support upping the licensing requirements, which would be completely legal under plenary state constitutions. privelege is the right word.

3. yes, they should, in the interest that someone has to clean your ass up off the 50 feet of pavement that you're squished out on because you did something dumb and weren't wearing your seat belt and had disabled other safety devices. or, lets say someone runs into you. wearing your belt and having other safety devices greatly enhances your rate of survival, and also your rate of survival without harm. if you don't, theres a good chance you'll be dead. most people don't like killing other people, especially on accident. i would imagine that killing someone would cause an average person a lot of mental anguish, guilt they feel the rest of their lives, etc. hell, might just ruin their lives and the lives of their family.