On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Patrick Washburn wrote:
> Yeah, but that is the trick isn't it? The numbers/risk game. If your
> accident had been one of those "very small minority" type, you would be
> singing a different tune. (The fact that you would be singing at all would
> be reward enough.)
No, it wouldn't, that's the point. It is not acceptable to kill ( not
"not save", but kill ) one person for every dozen or so saved.
> No one ever claimed air bags will keep you safe at all times, coddling
> you in comfy softness at the nearest hint of danger every minute of you
> commute.
This is water under the bridge now, but yes they did. Joan Claybrook,
for one, has claimed that ( first generation ) airbags are the best
protection for *unbelted* children.
"I don't think there is any question in my mind that there is any
better restraint device put on the unrestrained child".
That kind of negligence is criminal, unless you are a government
employee.
> What they do is save lives in those small percentage
> situations. Besides, how can you so sure that your air bag did'nt prevent
> serious injury or death in your accident? Just because it was low speed?
I didn't even stretch the belts. I've also been in a very similar
crash without an airbag. I was fine, and the car was fixed. You figure
it out.
> Just something to think about. I personally will accept the risk for the
> benefit.
And you should have that right. But I should have the right not to
play that particular lottery.
--
D a v i d H i l l m a n
hillman@planet-torque.com
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|