Jesus's middle name is Hume! Caution: Some NSFW images within!

Page 868 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
64
91
anigif_enhanced-buzz-21998-1365020715-7.gif


anigif_enhanced-buzz-6236-1365021177-5.gif




enhanced-buzz-31913-1364643237-1.jpg
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,124
12
81
You got caught saying something idiotic and now your trying to pass it off as trolling, lol. Just fucking stop.

The real sentence:

A study done by the Alabama State Department of Education found that it would cost between $32 and $38 million to install seat belts on all the state's buses, while only saving one life, the station reports.

So seatbelts would save lives, but they are too expensive, right?

MotionMan
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,124
12
81
Because people can slide around airbags, either the left, right, over, and under. Seatbelts by themselves can cause serious injuries to the pelvic and shoulder region. Hence, the seatbelt AND the airbag combination enhance safety.

Ford has recently invented inflating seatbelts that spread the load across a larger area of the occupent, helping reduce possible injuries.

It's also NOT assumed they'll be used properly. That's why the police have seminars on how to fasten child seats and other safety devices correctly, and how to make sure you don't have anything on the dash like GPS's that can fly off in a sudden impact and kill you. It's also why they write tickets for not buckling up. A thousand tickets for buckling up still costs far less that the medical bill of someone who went through a windshield and is a vegetable for life.

Just shut the fuck up. You're clueless.

Why are people assuming that bus seatbelts would not be use properly when, as described above, car seatbelts are not used properly?

Why are children allowed to have deadly objects loose in buses, like pens, pencils etc. when a car GPS can kill you?


My point is that everyone agrees that seatbelts and other safety devices should be mandated in cars, but almost none should be even installed in school buses.

MotionMan
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,124
12
81
http://www.saferoads.org/father-who-lost-son-bus-crash-pleased-new-law-requires-seat-belts-buses

The National Transportation Safety Board found that the Georgia crash was caused by driver error and inadequate highway signs. And the board said the lack of passenger protection systems was a factor in the deaths and injuries -- 10 people were thrown out of windows and two were partially ejected.

The safety board first recommended that seat belts be required on all buses in 1968.

It took the deaths of 4 young people to get a seatbelts for buses law passed in Ohio (and I am not even sure it applies to school buses - the cops can ticket private carriers for not having seatbelts, but not school buses owned or contracted by public schools).

MotionMan
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
64
91
Good thing those seats were close together and padded, otherwise someone might have gotten hurt!

MotionMan

Good thing those types of accidents don't happen too often.


So seatbelts would save lives, but they are too expensive, right?

MotionMan

And you're the type of asshole to say, 'fuck you, I'm taxed enough.' If you're willing to pay that exorbitant amount of money in taxes, you might have a coherent argument. And, it's going to be far more expensive to mandate seatbelts in California than Alabama, from the population differences, alone.


My point is that everyone agrees that seatbelts and other safety devices should be mandated in cars, but almost none should be even installed in school buses.

MotionMan

Cars |= school buses.

Huge buses are the biggest thing on non-highway roads, besides the odd semi. When a school bus collides with a car, simple physics explains why the passengers in the car are far more vulnerable than those in the school buses.

Mandating that buses on highways have seatbelts would be reasonable, since high speeds lead to more dangerous accidents.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
64
91
MotionMan, where are your funny pics?

This is a funny pics thread, not an ignorant, pseudo-libertarian rant thread.
 

MotionMan

Lifer
Jan 11, 2006
17,124
12
81
Good thing those types of accidents don't happen too often.

Tell that to the kids who die or who are injured in those "rare" accidents.

And you're the type of asshole to say, 'fuck you, I'm taxed enough.' If you're willing to pay that exorbitant amount of money in taxes, you might have a coherent argument. And, it's going to be far more expensive to mandate seatbelts in California than Alabama, from the population differences, alone.

Proving my point - it is about dollars over lives.

Cars |= school buses.

Huge buses are the biggest thing on non-highway roads, besides the odd semi. When a school bus collides with a car, simple physics explains why the passengers in the car are far more vulnerable than those in the school buses.

Mandating that buses on highways have seatbelts would be reasonable, since high speeds lead to more dangerous accidents.

Unrestrained students sitting in the aisle seat still go flying in a 20 to zero bus accident.


I did not say there was a government conspiracy. Rather, "government" has a personality to it. It wants to collect money, not spend money. It wants to keep the status quo and not change things. Government does not get a bonus for a job well done, but it cannot get fired. The people who work in government are generally swept in the current that keeps government moving in the same direction. Any deviation takes great effort and risk on an individual level, but government workers who would try to do that do not benefit enough to put up with the "don't rock the boat" mentality in most government offices.

There are exceptions, of course.

MotionMan