What abt Mt Best fridge?

[no spam]

Incorrect.

Sorry but you are the one who is incorrect.

In a 60 mph collision with a fixed object of sufficient strength to not
crumble at the point of impact (and for sake of illustration assume a
perfectly unbreakable wall) the point of contact of the car will stop
moving. The car crumples from that point towards the rear of the car until
the energy is adsorbed.

The key point is at the moment of impact the front of the car is now
stationary.

Moving on to the head on collision.
Assume both vehicles are exactly the same mass (weight). Assume a
perfectly centered head on collision.

Both vehicles are bringing exactly the same amount of force to the point
of contact in the collision. Since both vehicles are bringing the exact
same amount of force to the point of contact, it will not move. Ergo, the
collisions are the same.

The front of the car stops moving instantaneously, the rear stops when the
crumple adsorbs the kinetic energy.

None of the above has anything to do with the force and/or energy at the
time of impact. It is simply a force and speed thing.

This changes when the two cars are not the same mass (weight). In that
case, the front of the lighter car will be accelerated backwards from the
moment of contact. In the fixed object, and equal mass cases, the velocity
differential between the front of the car and the back at the moment of
impact is 60 mph. In the unequal mass case, the speed differential is
higher in the case of the smaller car and lower in the case of the larger
car.

(Sometimes I actually paid attention in high school physical science
class.)

(And can sometimes remember back that far.)

My statement is still basically correct, I would think most people would
envision two identical cars. Especially if you had read the orig msg where
I was talking about NASCAR cars. Every car involved are nearly identical.
You are correct that things change if the vehicles have greatly diferent
masses.

I have discovered it is easier to keep things simple. Its easier to make a
'close enough' statement to get a point across then have someone's eyes
glaze over and their mind wonder while you go into the minutia to make sure
you are completely correct.

 

[no spam]

You have to think outside the box. The laws protect US from " the

There is, but not enough to do more than put warning stickers on them.

How many injuries are required before the government should start
restricting the free use of something? If the government had more control
on ladders my neighbor might not have spend over a year out of work and have
a huge hospital bill. He fell off a ladder and landed on a clothes dryer,
bounced off it onto a concrete floor. Now his family is suffering because
of government inaction. How many more children must suffer before you do
something to make sure something like this never happens again?!?!? Sounds
silly when you look at it that way doesn't it?

Then that makes you one of the "Stupid People", job related injuries are
very high on construction sites.

So! What does that have to do with you? If you work on one and think its
smart then wear the heart hat.

But you are doing the standard liberal thing, failing to answer the question
put to you. Therefore I will put it to you again: What right do you or
anyone else have to tell me how to live my life?

Now please just try to answer that when it comes to keeping me "safe" from
my own actions.

No, I wouldn't because I know because studies show seatbelts/airbags/crush
zones prevent death and
serious injury. BMW & Volvo, of which I've owned both, had crush zones and
proper seat belts long
before American companies were forced to install them.

FORCED to install them. . .why was that? To protect people who were too
stupid to demand them. You have proven that there were cars available with
them that the smart people could buy.

The government has not forced me to buy anything, if a car had all that
I'd buy it tomorrow. My 67 MGB
had all that, ( installed myself) 20 years ago.

If you buy a new car in the US you will be forced to buy a lot of things in
and on your car. You may or may not want some of the stuff buy you have NO
choice in the matter.

There is no way to protect an occupant of a direct head on collision at
120mph, the instant deceleration from
that speed to 0 in a second causes brain damage, even if the compartment
remains reasonably intact. It's like

Hum. . .I guess there are dozens of race car drivers dieing every year. I
guess big racing is just hiding that fact. The point still stand, many
times a year a race car hits a concrete wall doing well over 100 mph and the
driver climbs out of the car and walks away under his own power. Do a
youtube search and I'm sure you can see some video of racing accidents that
would have killed someone driving any car out there on the commercial
market. I guess its just fancy editing when they show the driver walking
away.

Not the case at all, it's stupid people exceeding the speed limit, driving
drunk/high or tired.

But if the car was built correctly then very few, if any, of these stupid
people would have to die. Isn't that what you want from the government, to
protect them? After all smart people do not need the force of law to make
them do smart things. The stupid people do, unfortunately in doing so the
government takes more and more control of your life.

********************************************************
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
********************************************************

I noticed you failed to answer this question, did you miss it? I'll
highlight it so you will notice it this time.

No, I'm not. Stupid people don't even consider the risk to others, over
even note that they are putting others at risk,
hence the laws. There is also the chance of your action having unforeseen
consequences, eg you driving without a seat belt,
being thrown from the car into oncoming traffic in an accident. Very
little of what any of us do is without consequences to
someone else.

Now you just completely invalidated your very own "Laws are based on
reasonable risk." statement. I'm willing to bet you could not find 10
separate accidents in the US in any one year where anything like that
happened. IOW, the risk, or chance as you call it, is so low as to be
statistically nonexistent. Therefore the seatbelt laws are NOT based on any
type of reasonable risk to you or anyone other than the person taking that
risk. As an adult I think you should have the right to take that risk if
you wish. Whereas you seem to think that you know what is best for everyone
and think the government should stop people from exercising any right you
think is a bad thing.

 

[no spam]

I'm talking about other countries, most western nations have far more

Canada has had a balance budget since 1996/97, a shrinking debt, and the
lowest debt to GDP in the G8.
You can't do that without tax payers.

Yes you can, just not that easy. You just need to have a lot of nature
resources (in your case oil products, timber and dimonds) you can sell to
bring in money.

You miss the point, you have to have programs in place for re-education
and income/ healthcare support while
they are retraining. This is what other countries are doing and it works.

In most cases it does work but that NOT the system in the US. BTW, what the
unemployment rate in those other countries vs yours and the US?

An old and very tired argument, The USA has not spent this money to
protect Europe, but to control access
to resources for corporations

Check the numbers. Look at the amount of US tax/defense dollars went INTO
Germany, Japan and Korea (and we won't even get into the amount of tax
dollars that went into Europe from 1946-1950). Look at the percentage of
GDP countries spent for defense from 1950-2000 vs the number for the US.
Take those numbers and break them down per capita in the same time frame.

BTW, I have some sad news for any one in Europe. We didn't keep our troops
there to protect you just because we are nice guys. You were a nice buffer
zone and we would much rather fight ANOTHER major war on your land than
fight one on ours.

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

BTW, I have some sad news for any one in Europe. We didn't keep our troops
there to protect you just because we are nice guys. You were a nice buffer
zone and we would much rather fight ANOTHER major war on your land than
fight one on ours.

We all know that the US likes to go to war abroad.

 

[Balanced View]

... the government is not threatening to kill me if I [do] not wear my

seatbelt.


You must have missed the part where I said the Federal thugs were
spending $500 million on the "click it or ticket" program.

You know...? The one where they issue tickets for non-compliance with
a politician's command?

What happens if you ignore that ticket?


Not much, you get a fine. Nobody is going to shoot you for not wearing a


Wrong. Let me tell you what happens if you ignore a ticket in the US.
You get what is called a bench warrant issued for you arrest. That is an
arrest warrant issued by a judge and there is no bail allowed for a bench
warrant. This means that you maybe arrested at any time and place in jail
until you can be brought before, in most areas, the judge who issued the
bench warrant. IIRC, a bench warrant arrest is much like a contempt of
court arrest you may be held until the judge releases you under what ever
terms he sets. There was one case where the US Congress stepped in and
forced a federal judge to release a person being held in contempt, after
that person had been in jail for almost 2 years with no charges against
them (woman in a child custody case refused to tell where the child was).

Nobody is going to shoot you for a minor traffic violation, unless you act
like an asshole and pull a gun on
a police officer. You've just made the best case for gun control I've ever
heard, idiots should not have firearms.

Try reading EVERYTHING. You will note the first part of the quote, I'll
requote it for you here: "Not much, you get a fine."

I try to edit just enough to keep the length of the msg down. I don't edit
out everything that does not pertain to my response. Usually the person
reading the msg is intelligent enough to figure this out but some times
there is a problem with misreading. Seeing as you quickly went to name
calling I'm thinking its a problem with your intelligence. Please try to
find someone who is able to read the msg and explain it to you.

You low intelligence seems to be the reason you missed the point of the orig
poster. All laws are backed up with the power of the government which is
backed up with the possible use of force.

Only if you act like a complete ass in the first place. If you go
looking for a gun fight you are going to find one.

 

[Balanced View]

Yes you can, just not that easy. You just need to have a lot of nature
resources (in your case oil products, timber and dimonds) you can sell to
bring in money.

We had the same resources in 2002 when the dollar was under 62 cents US ;~)

In most cases it does work but that NOT the system in the US. BTW, what the
unemployment rate in those other countries vs yours and the US?

Unemployment rates are difficult to compare from nation to nation, as
most use a different way of determining it
from the the USA**. In June the average unemployment rate in the EU was
6.9% , Canada's was 6%

** Canada's labor participation rate ( over 67.5 % ) is higher than the
USA's, even though US ranks its unemployment
rate lower

Check the numbers. Look at the amount of US tax/defense dollars went INTO
Germany, Japan and Korea (and we won't even get into the amount of tax
dollars that went into Europe from 1946-1950). Look at the percentage of
GDP countries spent for defense from 1950-2000 vs the number for the US.
Take those numbers and break them down per capita in the same time frame.

BTW, I have some sad news for any one in Europe. We didn't keep our troops
there to protect you just because we are nice guys. You were a nice buffer
zone and we would much rather fight ANOTHER major war on your land than
fight one on ours.

Thanks for backing up what I said earlier, the USA is not there to
defend Europe ;~)

 

[no spam]

... the government is not threatening to kill me if I [do] not wear

Only if you act like a complete ass in the first place. If you go looking
for a gun fight you are going to find one.

I'm sorry, I guess I made a mistake using big words like intelligent and
intelligence. I'll try again using smaller words.

You need to find a buddy who is smart to read this message to you. In case
he's not much smarter than you I'll try to use little or common words.

All the laws are enforced, that means someone make sure they are followed,
by the government (or cops if you like) can use force, that means they can
beat you and even shoot you, to make sure that all the people follow the
laws. ALL OF THE LAWS. Its this fear of bad things happening that makes
people follow what the government tells them.

If you doubt this pick a law and break it in such a way to be caught. Then
keep on breaking the law, the law says you have to obey the police so not
doing what the nice office says is a good way to do this, while trying to
get away.

 

[no spam]

I, again, point out that the cultural differences have much more effect

We had the same resources in 2002 when the dollar was under 62 cents US
;~)
So?


Unemployment rates are difficult to compare from nation to nation, as most
use a different way of determining it
from the the USA**. In June the average unemployment rate in the EU was
6.9% , Canada's was 6%

** Canada's labor participation rate ( over 67.5 % ) is higher than the
USA's, even though US ranks its unemployment
rate lower

A little difficult because everyone plays with the numbers to make them look
better or worse. Also most places do not count people sucking at the
governmental teat as unemployed.


Nothing to say on this?

Thanks for backing up what I said earlier, the USA is not there to defend
Europe ;~)

Nice try but no prize. We WERE there to defend Europe but not just because
we were being nice. We wanted any war to started there to be fought and
ended there. Think of it this way, there's a wild fire coming so you go
over to help your neighbor cut a fire break. You may hate the guy's guts
and would love to see his house burn to the ground but you help because if
his house catches on fire it places yours in danger. Or on the other hand
you may think the world of him and be helping him because you are nice AND
you want to protect your house.

 

[Balanced View]

How many injuries are required before the government should start
restricting the free use of something? If the government had more control
on ladders my neighbor might not have spend over a year out of work and have
a huge hospital bill. He fell off a ladder and landed on a clothes dryer,
bounced off it onto a concrete floor. Now his family is suffering because
of government inaction. How many more children must suffer before you do
something to make sure something like this never happens again?!?!? Sounds
silly when you look at it that way doesn't it?

As I said before, its a matter of risk. If as many people fell off
ladders as were injured in vehicle something
would be done. You are just taking the matter to silly extremes, as do
many posting about their rights and
government control.

So! What does that have to do with you? If you work on one and think its
smart then wear the heart hat.

But you are doing the standard liberal thing, failing to answer the question
put to you. Therefore I will put it to you again: What right do you or
anyone else have to tell me how to live my life?

I haven't, you can live your life anyway you want as long as it doesn't
impact other people. You climb a mountain
and get stuck we all end up paying to save you.

Now please just try to answer that when it comes to keeping me "safe" from
my own actions.




FORCED to install them. . .why was that? To protect people who were too
stupid to demand them. You have proven that there were cars available with
them that the smart people could buy.

Because the "Free market" you types so loudly support couldn't give a
rats ass about safety, and yes people
did start to demand safer cars .

If you buy a new car in the US you will be forced to buy a lot of things in
and on your car. You may or may not want some of the stuff buy you have NO
choice in the matter.

Like what? Most cars today have a huge range of options, list one thing
that you don't want in your car.

Hum. . .I guess there are dozens of race car drivers dieing every year. I
guess big racing is just hiding that fact. The point still stand, many
times a year a race car hits a concrete wall doing well over 100 mph and the
driver climbs out of the car and walks away under his own power. Do a
youtube search and I'm sure you can see some video of racing accidents that
would have killed someone driving any car out there on the commercial
market. I guess its just fancy editing when they show the driver walking
away.

They die in crashes all the time, or are seriously injured, here you go:

Deaths in Grand-Am

* Jeff Clinton, Homestead-Miami, March 2002

[edit] Deaths in NASCAR Winston Cup/Nextel Cup (since 1971)

* Friday Hassler, Daytona, February 1972
* Larry Smith, Talladega, May 1973
* Tiny Lund, Talladega, August 1975
* Ricky Knotts, Daytona, February 1980 (qualifying race)
* Bruce Jacobi, injuries suffered in a 1983 wreck at the 125-mile
qualifying races at Daytona (he would remain in a coma until he died in
1987)
* Terry Schoonover, Atlanta, November 1984
* Baldwin, Rick, injured during qualifying attempt at Michigan in
1986, succumbing in 1997.
* Grant Adcox, Atlanta, November 1989
* J. D. McDuffie, Watkins Glen, August 1991
* Neil Bonnett, Daytona, February, 1994 (in practice)
* Rodney Orr, Daytona, February, 1994 (in practice)
* Kenny Irwin, Loudon, July 2000 (in practice)
* Dale Earnhardt, Daytona, February 2001, Daytona 500

[edit] Deaths in NASCAR Busch Series (since 1982)

* Clifford Allison, Michigan, 1992 (in practice)
* Adam Petty, Loudon, 2000 (in practice)

[edit] Deaths in NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series (since 1995)

* John Nemechek, Homestead-Miami, February 1997
* Tony Roper, Texas, October 2000

[edit] Deaths in NASCAR Modified Series

* Richie Evans, Martinsville, 1985 (in practice)
* Charlie Jarzombek, Martinsville, 1987
* Tom Baldwin, Thompson International Speedway, 2004

[edit] Deaths in NASCAR Sportsman Series

* David Gaines, Charlotte, May 1990
* Gary Batson, Charlotte, May 1992
* Russell Phillips, Charlotte, October 1995

[edit] Deaths in Auto Racing Club of America

* Gene Richards, Talladega, July 1982
* Ken Kalla, Talladega, May 1983
* Francis Affleck, Daytona, January 1985
* Tracy Read, Talladega, July 1987
* Slick Johnson, Daytona, February 1990
* Chris Gehrke, Talladega, May 1991
* Chad Coleman, Atlanta, August 1998
* Scott Baker, Toledo, June 2000
* Blaise Alexander, Charlotte, October 2001
* Eric Martin, Charlotte, October 2002 (in practice)

But if the car was built correctly then very few, if any, of these stupid
people would have to die. Isn't that what you want from the government, to
protect them? After all smart people do not need the force of law to make
them do smart things. The stupid people do, unfortunately in doing so the
government takes more and more control of your life.

The point is my friend from the very beginning is that laws protect US
from stupid people, as they tend
take others with them.

********************************************************
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
********************************************************

I noticed you failed to answer this question, did you miss it? I'll
highlight it so you will notice it this time.




Now you just completely invalidated your very own "Laws are based on
reasonable risk." statement. I'm willing to bet you could not find 10
separate accidents in the US in any one year where anything like that
happened. IOW, the risk, or chance as you call it, is so low as to be
statistically nonexistent. Therefore the seatbelt laws are NOT based on any
type of reasonable risk to you or anyone other than the person taking that
risk. As an adult I think you should have the right to take that risk if
you wish. Whereas you seem to think that you know what is best for everyone
and think the government should stop people from exercising any right you
think is a bad thing.

I suggest you look it up as you are the one who thinks it doesn't
happen. Ejection from the vehicle is one
of the most injurious events that can ­happen to a person in a crash. In
fatal crashes in 2004, 74 percent of
passenger vehicle occupants who were totally ejected from the vehicle
were killed.

 

[Balanced View]

How many baby boomers are alive today?

You know, the ones that didn't wear seatbelts as children, didn't ride
in state mandated car seats and booster seats, riding in cars that
didn't have airbags, riding in the cargo beds of pickup trucks,
rolling around in the back of a stationwagon, riding bicycles without
helmets, Trick-or-Treating in the dark and eating the candy collected
afterwards?

The about 50% of the ones riding round with no seat belts and involved
in serious accidents are dead

 

[Balanced View]

Snippage to the point.


I've already made my stance quite clear, provided cites etc...Whether
you choose to agree or disagree is up to you.
Gun control is not confiscation unless all guns are removed, in the
cases you play up it was in dictatorships where all
guns were confiscated. If having a gun make you feel secure and all
fuzzy go for it , I could care less.

The fact remains the USA is a very violent place compared to the rest of
the Western World, which I lay at the feet
of poor social programs, huge spreads in income between rich and poor,
plus easy access to weapons.

 

[Balanced View]

Balanced View wrote:
Laws are based on reasonable risk.


Dale E wrote:
Laws are a politician's commands, backed by threat of
force, up to, and including killing you.

Balanced View wrote:
... the government is not threatening to kill me if I
[do] not wear my seatbelt.

Dale E wrote:
What happens if you ignore that ticket?


Balanced View wrote:
Not much, you get a fine.


Dale E wrote:
And when I refuse to pay that fine?

Balanced View wrote:
I don't know about your state, but where I live you
can't renew your license sticker if you don't pay the
fine.

Dale E wrote:
And when I drive that vehicle anyway?


Balanced View wrote:
Then you are an idiot who has escalated a small fine
into a much bigger one and possible jail time.

Name calling.
You are starting to figure out you are going to lose this debate.

It's not name calling when your actions indicate the description is
accurate:

""Idiot" was originally created to refer to people who were overly
concerned with their own self-interest and
ignored the needs of the community. Declining to take part in public
life, such as democratic government of
the polis (city state), such as the Athenian democracy, was considered
dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as
having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term
"idiot" shifted away from its original
connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall
bad judgment"

Dale E wrote:
And when I drive that vehicle anyway?


Balanced View wrote:
We have already determined that by doing so would
make you an idiot. That being the case, discussing
anything further with you would be a waste of
time.......

Dale E writes:

The point of my posting was to prove that a law is a politician's
command, backed by threat of force, up to, and including, killing you.

You stated that government is not threatening to kill anyone over a
seatbelt not being worn.

On this issue, you are wrong.

You are correct that it is a waste of time, because you will lose the
argument.

"Government" WILL kill to maintain compliance. PERIOD.

It does not matter what law we are talking about.

LOL...Now we know you are off the rails. End of discussion

 

[Balanced View]

I didn't notice at first, that BV did NOT answer a direct question.
Typical of what I have observed in my limited reading of his posts.





107,101,163. That is the answer to the question:
How many baby boomers are alive today?

I don't know why I bother. It's common knowledge that over 50% of all
highway deaths are because the occupant
of the car was not buckled up. To most logical people this would mean
exactly what I said:

"about 50% of the ones riding round with no seat belts and *involved in
serious accidents* are dead"

This means that if people were riding around as you claimed and were
involved in a serious accident, half of them
would have been killed.

Here's some actual stats for you from an undeniable source:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2003/809765.pdf

"Over half (56 percent) of the passenger vehicle occupants killed in
traffic crashes in 2003 were unrestrained"

Here's what happens when you don't buckle up in an accident at highway
speeds

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

Don't confuse the criminal in the white house with the rest of the
people of that nation. Some of us know that 9/11 was an inside job.

Thank you for clearing that up. Was Illuminati involved?

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

All the laws are enforced, that means someone make sure they are followed,
by the government (or cops if you like) can use force, that means they can
beat you and even shoot you, to make sure that all the people follow the
laws. ALL OF THE LAWS. Its this fear of bad things happening that makes
people follow what the government tells them.

That may be the way it's done in the US. Where I come from, the cops
are only allowed a person that is considdered to be very dangerous and
lifethreatening in a very strict sense. And they must be 99% sure that
the person is actualy armed. If the person is positively armed, and
alone in the hous, they will simply sit him out. If there are others
in tha house, they may have to attack if all other reasonable
solutions are tried.

This can only be laxed if it is a matter of national security(in a
physical sense) or under martial law.

 

[no spam]

How many injuries are required before the government should start

As I said before, its a matter of risk. If as many people fell off ladders
as were injured in vehicle something

So that's your number.

would be done. You are just taking the matter to silly extremes, as do
many posting about their rights and
government control.

Again I'll point out that what is seen as extreme today may well become law
tomorrow. Examples that I have given: government control of your toilet and
your diet.

What is next? What kind of car or home you may buy?

I haven't, you can live your life anyway you want as long as it doesn't
impact other people. You climb a mountain
and get stuck we all end up paying to save you.

First off, a mountain rescue is a long way from wearing a hard hat. Second,
are you saying that we should ban mountain climbing? Third, how is me not
wearing a hard hat impacting anyone other then me? Fourth, using your line
of thinking doesn't someone falling off a ladder impact you? Fifth, are you
saying that money trumps a person's rights?


BTW, you failed to answer the question, again. What right do you have to
tell me what I need to do to be safe? Are you going to tell me what I can
eat because my diet might lead to me getting sick?

Because the "Free market" you types so loudly support couldn't give a rats
ass about safety, and yes people

That's right, its about making money. If a safe car sells better than a
unsafe car that means people want to drive unsafe cars and just who the heck
are you to tell them they can't?

did start to demand safer cars .

You are contradicting yourself. Which is it did the free market fail or
not?

Like what? Most cars today have a huge range of options, list one thing
that you don't want in your car.

For me the more options the better!! But what if I were a 90 pound 60 year
old woman and want to make sure that my neck isn't broken by the air bag in
a slow speed wreck therefore want a car w/o an air bag?

Hum. . .I guess there are dozens of race car drivers dieing every year.
I guess big racing is just hiding that fact. The point still stand, many
times a year a race car hits a concrete wall doing well over 100 mph and
the driver climbs out of the car and walks away under his own power. Do
a youtube search and I'm sure you can see some video of racing accidents
that would have killed someone driving any car out there on the
commercial market. I guess its just fancy editing when they show the
driver walking away.

They die in crashes all the time, or are seriously injured, here you go:

Deaths in Grand-Am

* Jeff Clinton, Homestead-Miami, March 2002

[edit] Deaths in NASCAR Winston Cup/Nextel Cup (since 1971)

* Friday Hassler, Daytona, February 1972
* Larry Smith, Talladega, May 1973
* Tiny Lund, Talladega, August 1975
* Ricky Knotts, Daytona, February 1980 (qualifying race)
* Bruce Jacobi, injuries suffered in a 1983 wreck at the 125-mile
qualifying races at Daytona (he would remain in a coma until he died in
1987)
* Terry Schoonover, Atlanta, November 1984
* Baldwin, Rick, injured during qualifying attempt at Michigan in 1986,
succumbing in 1997.
* Grant Adcox, Atlanta, November 1989
* J. D. McDuffie, Watkins Glen, August 1991
* Neil Bonnett, Daytona, February, 1994 (in practice)
* Rodney Orr, Daytona, February, 1994 (in practice)
* Kenny Irwin, Loudon, July 2000 (in practice)
* Dale Earnhardt, Daytona, February 2001, Daytona 500

[edit] Deaths in NASCAR Busch Series (since 1982)

* Clifford Allison, Michigan, 1992 (in practice)
* Adam Petty, Loudon, 2000 (in practice)

I don't know about how the other NASCAR cars are equipped so I only counted
the Cup and Bush series. Using your own numbers in the past 30 (THIRTY)
years there has been a total of 13 deaths. (FYI, in 2003 there were 417
people killed falling from ladders. That's about 3208% more.) In the last
30 years how many drivers, I won't even include passengers, have been killed
in cars that are traveling much slower who could have lived if the
government had required all cars to be built to protect the drivers like
NASCAR requires their cars to be built?

Two points. One, if you want the government to protect you and those around
you should not they protect you to the utmost? Two, who gets to decided
what is the right thing?

The point is my friend from the very beginning is that laws protect US
from stupid people, as they tend
take others with them.

Not in large numbers but what about cases where that can not be said. Say
the requirement for lawn mowers to have blade breaks on them. Just how does
some moron putting his hand under a running lawn mower going to "take others
with them"?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can't come up with an answer to that one?

I suggest you look it up as you are the one who thinks it doesn't happen.
Ejection from the vehicle is one
of the most injurious events that can ­happen to a person in a crash. In
fatal crashes in 2004, 74 percent of

Are you deliberately trying to avoid you own arguments? You say on one hand
that the laws are to protect others from the stupid people and imply that
people being tossed from cars are causing accidents which causes others to
be killed or injured. When I point out to you that such a thing almost
never happens you go back to worrying about the individual being killed.
Which is your the base of your argument, protecting the stupid person from
himself or protecting others from stupid people?

passenger vehicle occupants who were totally ejected from the vehicle were
killed.

And why were they ejected? In most case it was because they made a choice
not to wear a seatbelt. As an adult are they not permitted to take such a
risk? If you think not what other risk should a competent adult not be
allow to take? Climbing a ladder? Remember in 2003, 417 people DIED (no
telling how many were injured) in that activity.

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

Trygve Lillefosse wrote:



http://www.synapticsparks.info/911/1-767anomaly5.jpg
Explain the object in the red oval.

http://www.scanliners.com/Serie100/Box150/15037.jpg

 

[Balanced View]

So that's your number.




Again I'll point out that what is seen as extreme today may well become law
tomorrow. Examples that I have given: government control of your toilet and
your diet.

What is next? What kind of car or home you may buy?




First off, a mountain rescue is a long way from wearing a hard hat. Second,
are you saying that we should ban mountain climbing? Third, how is me not
wearing a hard hat impacting anyone other then me? Fourth, using your line
of thinking doesn't someone falling off a ladder impact you? Fifth, are you
saying that money trumps a person's rights?

I say what I say and don't imply anything else. In the case of your hard
hat, if you are injured it will require the
services of your fellow workers who rush to your aid, leaving machines
untended and possibly risk their own lives
to save yours.

BTW, you failed to answer the question, again. What right do you have to
tell me what I need to do to be safe? Are you going to tell me what I can
eat because my diet might lead to me getting sick?

Quit trying to imply I said anything of the sort. I said laws are
enacted to protect stupid people and the rest of
us from their actions.

That's right, its about making money. If a safe car sells better than a
unsafe car that means people want to drive unsafe cars and just who the heck
are you to tell them they can't?

What? What you've just stated is bassacwards

You are contradicting yourself. Which is it did the free market fail or
not?

The free market initially had nothing to do with it, the American car
makers cried poor and said it couldn't be
done.

For me the more options the better!! But what if I were a 90 pound 60 year
old woman and want to make sure that my neck isn't broken by the air bag in
a slow speed wreck therefore want a car w/o an air bag?

That can be addressed by the dealer, my grandmother is four foot 9 and
they set her up in a car that fit her.
safely.

Hum. . .I guess there are dozens of race car drivers dieing every year.
I guess big racing is just hiding that fact. The point still stand, many
times a year a race car hits a concrete wall doing well over 100 mph and
the driver climbs out of the car and walks away under his own power. Do
a youtube search and I'm sure you can see some video of racing accidents
that would have killed someone driving any car out there on the
commercial market. I guess its just fancy editing when they show the
driver walking away.

They die in crashes all the time, or are seriously injured, here you go:

Deaths in Grand-Am

* Jeff Clinton, Homestead-Miami, March 2002

[edit] Deaths in NASCAR Winston Cup/Nextel Cup (since 1971)

* Friday Hassler, Daytona, February 1972
* Larry Smith, Talladega, May 1973
* Tiny Lund, Talladega, August 1975
* Ricky Knotts, Daytona, February 1980 (qualifying race)
* Bruce Jacobi, injuries suffered in a 1983 wreck at the 125-mile
qualifying races at Daytona (he would remain in a coma until he died in
1987)
* Terry Schoonover, Atlanta, November 1984
* Baldwin, Rick, injured during qualifying attempt at Michigan in 1986,
succumbing in 1997.
* Grant Adcox, Atlanta, November 1989
* J. D. McDuffie, Watkins Glen, August 1991
* Neil Bonnett, Daytona, February, 1994 (in practice)
* Rodney Orr, Daytona, February, 1994 (in practice)
* Kenny Irwin, Loudon, July 2000 (in practice)
* Dale Earnhardt, Daytona, February 2001, Daytona 500

[edit] Deaths in NASCAR Busch Series (since 1982)

* Clifford Allison, Michigan, 1992 (in practice)
* Adam Petty, Loudon, 2000 (in practice)

I don't know about how the other NASCAR cars are equipped so I only counted
the Cup and Bush series. Using your own numbers in the past 30 (THIRTY)
years there has been a total of 13 deaths. (FYI, in 2003 there were 417
people killed falling from ladders. That's about 3208% more.) In the last
30 years how many drivers, I won't even include passengers, have been killed
in cars that are traveling much slower who could have lived if the
government had required all cars to be built to protect the drivers like
NASCAR requires their cars to be built?

Two points. One, if you want the government to protect you and those around
you should not they protect you to the utmost? Two, who gets to decided
what is the right thing?

The point is my friend from the very beginning is that laws protect US
from stupid people, as they tend
take others with them.

Not in large numbers but what about cases where that can not be said. Say
the requirement for lawn mowers to have blade breaks on them. Just how does
some moron putting his hand under a running lawn mower going to "take others
with them"?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can't come up with an answer to that one?

I suggest you look it up as you are the one who thinks it doesn't happen.
Ejection from the vehicle is one
of the most injurious events that can ­happen to a person in a crash. In
fatal crashes in 2004, 74 percent of

Are you deliberately trying to avoid you own arguments? You say on one hand
that the laws are to protect others from the stupid people and imply that
people being tossed from cars are causing accidents which causes others to
be killed or injured. When I point out to you that such a thing almost
never happens you go back to worrying about the individual being killed.
Which is your the base of your argument, protecting the stupid person from
himself or protecting others from stupid people?

No, you are deliberately avoid my cites that back up what I say. If you
don't buckle up you are stupid, a
hazard to everyone else in the car and those outside.

And why were they ejected? In most case it was because they made a choice
not to wear a seatbelt. As an adult are they not permitted to take such a
risk? If you think not what other risk should a competent adult not be
allow to take? Climbing a ladder? Remember in 2003, 417 people DIED (no
telling how many were injured) in that activity.

It just backs up what I've be saying all along, the stupid are a hazard
to those around them. Stats prove beyond
any doubt that people who don't buckle up are a hazard to everyone else
in the car and those outside, as are
those that don't follow building codes, build bonfires in a drought
zone, drink and drive, shoot varmints from a
moving vehicle. etc.etc.etc..............

 

[no spam]

How many baby boomers are alive today?

I don't know why I bother. It's common knowledge that over 50% of all
highway deaths are because the occupant
of the car was not buckled up. To most logical people this would mean
exactly what I said:

WARNING LOGIC ERROR!!

Taking as a given that "50% of all highway deaths are because the occupant
of the car was not buckled up" you can not say that all of those people
would have survived if they had been wearing a seatbelt.

 

[no spam]

Don't confuse the criminal in the white house with the rest of the

Any smart nation does not want to have a war on their own land. Tends to
mess things up.

people of that nation. Some of us know that 9/11 was an inside job.

Please don't tell me you are one of those 'the towers were blown up' people.