Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Topic: Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control? (Read 4118 times) previous topic - next topic

Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Reply #15 – September 19, 2006, 09:13:54 PM

Well first off did any one talk to the tire companys about this. Just think how this cold affect there sales from people not being able to do a burnout. Also if it makes us have to put up and live with the dumbasses longer it can't be a good idea. Besides why would uncle sam be interested in keeping us safe it all boils down the insurance companys not wanting to pay out as much money. So they bought uncle sam to be on there side. That way they can have more money to line there pockets. Wcarney I'm old enough to remeber the seat belt thing. And to answer you I feel safe with out my seatbelt while agressive driving. Hell I don't normally wear one any way. I think it is rediculous to have to wear one to save the insurance companys money. They take enough from me every. If they had there way we would be driving around in big ole bubbles just so they could keep all of our money. I guess they won't get it untill the make it so safe they put themselves out of busniess. Kinda like that gum comercial were the gum flavor last so long. When are we gonna make uncle sam do things that are good for us not the big corporations.

Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Reply #16 – September 19, 2006, 09:39:31 PM

Quote from: ipsd;104645

Well first off did any one talk to the tire companys about this. Just think how this cold affect there sales from people not being able to do a burnout. Also if it makes us have to put up and live with the dumbasses longer it can't be a good idea. Besides why would uncle sam be interested in keeping us safe it all boils down the insurance companys not wanting to pay out as much money. So they bought uncle sam to be on there side. That way they can have more money to line there pockets. Wcarney I'm old enough to remeber the seat belt thing. And to answer you I feel safe with out my seatbelt while agressive driving. Hell I don't normally wear one any way. I think it is rediculous to have to wear one to save the insurance companys money. They take enough from me every. If they had there way we would be driving around in big ole bubbles just so they could keep all of our money. I guess they won't get it untill the make it so safe they put themselves out of busniess. Kinda like that gum comercial were the gum flavor last so long. When are we gonna make uncle sam do things that are good for us not the big corporations.

Let me get this straight. You think that seat belt laws only exist to save insurance companies money by lessening your injuries in a crash. You get fewer injuries. They save money. And Uncle Sam is the asshole for saving your ass. But in the end, you get fewer injuries. Is that what you're saying? I just wanna make sure I read that foolishness correctly...

Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Reply #17 – September 19, 2006, 11:05:11 PM

WOW! I can not believe what I just read, I guess some people would much rather fly through a windshield:shakehead

Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Reply #18 – September 21, 2006, 07:50:09 AM

Ever seen a projectile human after impact before? They're usually DEAD!

Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Reply #19 – September 21, 2006, 09:36:07 AM

Yep that is what I said. It just rubs me the wrong way that the whole seatbelt deal came around and was made into a law because the insurance companies lobbied to make it that way. Uncle sam didn't do this for us it all started to save those companies money. Yes they do save you from injuries. But the Idea that something is a law to mainly save the big company $$$ is total . If they were really interested in saving injuries they would have made it a law way back in the days of the Tucker. They new then that the seatbelts saved people. But what whappend they got put out of busniess by the big 3. Uncle sam didn't do any thing but let it happen. Why you might ask because because if they didn't the big 3 would have lost there ass. And that mean lees campain contrabutions for the politictions So yes those belt do you some good but the main reason cars are safer is to save those companies money. Not to protect you and me. So Yes I think it is bull. That would be like me getting you something to make you safe but the only reason that I did it was so I could profit from it. I wasn't looking out for you I am looking out for my wallet. That alone tells me that money is more important than our safety. So put that in you pipe and smoke it! LOL

Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Reply #20 – September 21, 2006, 05:11:02 PM

That rant just makes it even stupider. Somebody trying to save your life is evil because they might make money from it? You'd better close all the drug companies and hospitals and while you're about it, fire all the doctors and surgeons too, because they get paid pretty good too. Don't let's forget policemen - they keep the streets safe but get paid for it. Sorry, Paul, you're fired. And the factories that make X-Ray machines, CAT scanners, and all other medical equipment should all be closed down. They do, after all, make money by saving lives.

And what, exactly, are you trying to say about the seat belt thing not becoming law in the 50's? Are you saying it'd be OK if it had happened then, but because they happened later they're not OK?

How about children? Do you think it's OK to endanger the life of a child so that you might increase the risk to an insurance company? And if you don't, do you think it's intelligent to put yourself at a risk that you would not subject your child to? A risk that you acknowledge, but only accept because in your twisted way it hurts insurance companies more than it hurts you?

Just one more time, so I have it perfectly clear: After admitting it yourself that seatbelts save people, you are purposefully trying to increase your own personal risk in the hope that you'll cost insurance companies money. Never mind the fact that wearing seatbelts is a good idea, you're not doing it because somebody told you to. You'll be dead or in a wheelchair, but by God, those awful insurance companies would pay for it! So if you're standing on train tracks and a train is coming, and your life insurance agent told you to get off the tracks, would you stick your tongue out at him and let the train hit you?

Let me tell you this: Insurance companies have the choice to accept risk. If they thought the only reason for having seat belt laws was to save them money they'd simply put a clause in your insurance that states that if you aren't wearing a seat belt at the time of an accident you are denied your claim. Not paying idiots who would rather fly through a windshield (or a broken sunroof, or a broken side window, or wherever inertia decides to throw them) millions of dollars for their stupidity - now THAT would save them money. They would be perfectly within their rights to do so, and it would be pretty hard to find an argument against it in court. They won't pay you if your car is stolen because you left the keys in it, so why should they pay you if your neck is broken because you didn't buckle up? In fact, they could go one further and drop your policy if you get a seatbelt ticket, just like they do if you get caught DUI. It would be perfectly reasonable for them to do so, especially since they've got Washington and the NHTSA wrapped around their collective fingers.

I rather think you've already had something in your pipe and smoked it. Sometimes I think the only thing stupider than a stupid idea are the stupid things said to justify it...

Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Reply #21 – September 21, 2006, 07:04:29 PM

I buckle up everytime I'm in a car. I was in a rear end accident once. I was the front passenger and we slammed into an Envoy. We hit so hard it flung the rear of the car 3/4 of the way into the other lane. No doubt that belt saved me from injury or even my life. I guess I was helping the insurance company out by not having them pay for an extended hospital stay. I didn't feel like saving them money. I felt like living another day. Luckily we all walked away from that accident. It sickens me to read about people, even in our own community here, that think the seatbelt law is a sham, a joke, a marketing ploy to save companies with millions of dollars in assets a few thousand dollars per victim. It's a law for a reason, not because the government has the power to do so. The people in power, making these laws have a brain. They are in power for a reason, they aren't like the average person, who could care less about anyone but themselves. They know it works to benefit society as a whole.

Oh by the way, if the seatbelt law is all about saving money, someone should inform the insurance companies about the cost of replacing new vehicle airbag systems. They'd repeal the Dual Airbag law in a flash and replace it with a Maximum of 2 Airbags per vehicle instead of a Minimum of 2.

Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Reply #22 – September 22, 2006, 12:56:16 AM

Why can't we decide whether or not to buckle up?

Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Reply #23 – September 22, 2006, 01:58:00 AM

well i dont mean to step on toes or any thing but, i hate when people say seat belts save lives. I have a buddy who was a in a bad accident. He fell asleep at the wheel and fliped and rolled his car several times he was ejected from the car doctors and surgens said if he had been wearing his seat belt he would have died. I saw the car and it stood from wheels to roof a lil over 2 feet high. the only reason he flew out was cause it was t top. sorry just had to vent

Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Reply #24 – September 22, 2006, 02:20:12 AM

well now that i read all the post i would like to post again.

i do think its a good idea to make cars safer, but i am unsure about some things they do. i mean i feel like my freedoms are being taken from me. i dont have the freedom to choose to wear my seat belt or not i wear it but i dont like it simply because it is uncomfortable. and couldnt they have done other things rather then make seat belts mandatory. uh eating while drivng messing with the radio talking on the phone site seeing while driving and i heard from some one that putting on make up while drivng is the equivalant to driving drunk. what about the tvs in the cars i mean they are a distraction to you and any one in other cars who can see them i just think they could do away witha lot more but even if they did it would still be taking away a freedom to do some thing. but i guess every one will never be happy with whats going on just got to grin and bere it all.

Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Reply #25 – September 22, 2006, 09:16:14 AM

Quote from: Sprayingsmooth;104976

well i dont mean to step on toes or any thing but, i hate when people say seat belts save lives. I have a buddy who was a in a bad accident. He fell asleep at the wheel and fliped and rolled his car several times he was ejected from the car doctors and surgens said if he had been wearing his seat belt he would have died. I saw the car and it stood from wheels to roof a lil over 2 feet high. the only reason he flew out was cause it was t top. sorry just had to vent

...And for every "If he'd been wearing his seatbelt he'd have died" story there are a thousand "If he'd have been wearing his seatbelt he'd have lived" stories. I, personally, have lived through several accidents (in particular, one involving a Dodge Ramcharger and a dump truck, another involving a Cougar and an eighteen wheeler) in which had I not been buckled up I'd have at least been injured, if not killed. My sister T-boned a Dodge Caravan in her Cavalier - the seat belt broke her collarbone, but the mounties said that had she not been wearing it she'd have gone through the windshield, where she very likely would have died (which makes sense - if she was pressed against that belt hard enough to break a bone she obviously would have been thrown with great force). Your argument is invalid.

I do agree that people should actualy pay attention to what they are doing behind the wheel, but we all know that this is not going to happen. The problem with using this logic to argue against seat belt laws is that you're trying to prevent accidents (a good thing) but seat belt laws try to make you safer once the accident has happened (also a good thing). Even if you are the most careful driver in the world there's always that SUV driver gabbing on his cell phone that could punt you off the road, or cross the yellow line and hit you head on, or run a stop sign and broadside you (or you broadside him), and so on. Even taking the other driver out of the picture, there are dogs, deer and children running out in front of you, road debris, ice/snow, mechanical failures, tire blowouts, and dozens of other potential hazards. As long as there are cars there will be collisions, and seat belts are there to help you in that regard, no matter how careful you yourself are. Then again, if you're fool enough to not wear a seat belt you couldn't possibly be the most careful driver in the world now, could you?

BTW, taking away freedoms behind the wheel in the name of public safety is not a new thing. You are not free to drive drunk, for example, because your freedom to drive drunk is not as important as my freedom to not have the roads full of drunk drivers. Your freedom to travel 80MPH through a school zone is not as important as a child's safety. Even outside of driving: Your freedom to steal my car is not as important as my freedom to keep my belongings safe. Most laws take away a small freedom to provide the greater population with a larger freedom (or safety). All freedoms come with a cost, and that cost is responsibility. In the case of gabbing on a cell phone while driving, your responsibility for the accident you cause will be paying for the car you hit, your own car, and the other person's medical expenses.

Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Reply #26 – September 22, 2006, 09:46:19 AM

Back in the days of the Tucker, there weren't kids runnin' around in 200 horsepower Turbocoupes and Civics that were smartass, and think they know it all. Much less admitted on a public forum they drive stupidly AND admit they pretty much don't give a f*ck about their own safety.

Thats why they made seatbelt use all but mandatory in the 90's.
It stands to reason that out of 40 million drivers, a few are going to have accidents. Yes it's true seatbelts won't save EVER one of them, they WILL save more people that wear em, than ones that don't.

Like most people will agree (i hope

) it may be the law, but if you want to drive like an ass, and not wear a 'belt, well, that's your choice, even if it's the law. Just when you're crippled or maimed for life, I for one am NOT gonna sit and listen to anyone bitch about how they were not at fault, or wasn't paying attention, or whatever. Just try not to take any innocent people with ya...

sorry for the rant, but after losing a brother almost a year ago in a car accident, i felt like saying something.

ps: if you don't think about yourself, then think at least about your brother, your mother, your father....think about those that will suffer....f*ck that...just THINK!

Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Reply #27 – September 22, 2006, 09:50:35 AM

ohhh...and the topic at issue...
I think Ford should at least make it an option, but not mandatory...
Then again, i also think Big Brother is getting WAY too involved in our transportation...just my ranting, sorry folks!, have a great day!

Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Reply #28 – September 22, 2006, 10:14:33 AM

Well it all comes down to this for me. I don't like be forced to do anything. I should have the right to pick what I can do as long as I don't violate your rights. So if I don't wear myseat belt I'm the one that pays for it. Like I have said before they are making me do it for the wrong reasons.
Also why should they take away your right to do a smokey burnout just because some other dumb ass doesn't know how to drive. Isn't this the U.S.A where I live? Isn't it a free country? So wear or don't wear you seat belt. I'm not gonna tell you witch to do. Because you should have the right to choose witchever you want. Wearing a seatbelt is way different than driving drunk. Driving drunk you aren't in contorl of the car so you are more likely to cause an accident. That would violate my rights to have a safe road to drive on. But I you don't wear you seatbelt who is hurt besides you.
Also if they made it harder to get a driver license. They should have some sort of madatory driving test you have to pass. Showing you have the ability to drive the car you have there for the test. Not just turn left, turn right, park on a hill, parallel park, then OK here is your license. Need to have more of an intese driving challenge you have to pass.

Federally Mandated Stability/Traction Control?

Reply #29 – September 22, 2006, 12:14:16 PM

So once again you're using the "I know seat belts could save my life but I ain't wearing 'em because somebody's telling me to" argument. This almost makes me wonder if you've already bashed your head on the windshield.

Who is hurt besides you? How 'bout the other passengers in your car, when as the vehicle starts to roll over you become and unbelted 200-pound blender? Ask my mother about this, who was injuured by my unbelted father hitting her in a crash in Maine about 25 years ago. In the car alone? Here in Canada where our taxes pay for health care, every person that pays taxes is hurt when doctors have to put people back together for acts of stupidity. Down there in the USA somebody has to pay for the medical bills. Somebody pays for the long-term care of a quadripelegic that sailed through a windshield. Not hard to see why insurance companies are trying to save your ass now, is it? And somebody has to take care of the person for the rest of their lives (or bury them). Then there's the police/ambulance costs, the unnecessary burden on already overcrowded ER's and hospitals...

And you think you should have the right to do smokey burnouts on public roads? Aside from the fact that regardless of what you may think, smokey burnouts are considered careless operation of a car, and regardless of the fact that they cause unnecessary wear and tear on paved surfaces, and regardless of the fact that they generate plenty of noise, odour and pollution that your neighbours shouldn't have to put up with, please explain to me how you should have the right to stand on your brakes and gas to show off to your buddies?

Burnouts at a drag strip are one thing - everybody there accepts a certain risk when they enter the races or even attend them. Race tracks have emergency personnel handy for when things go wrong. Doing it on public streets creates risk that others have not acceoted (nor may they even be aware of it). That's why you're not allowed to do it.

I think you've proven that one doesn't need a great degree of intelligence to drive in MO...