Where is profit becomes more important than safety ?
How is this influencing the way the United States is run and the law congress passes ?
There are many decisions that are made that impact safety from a variety of sources. The enviornmentalists will also accept a certain number of deaths for the sake of less carbon.
Just one example, every car could be made 20 times safer by making it heavier. The lighter the car, the more likely some is to die. But in order to cut mileage, i.e., carbon emissions, they are willing to accept an increased number of deaths for more miles per gallon.
How is this influencing the way the United States is run and the law congress passes ?
Of course there is the whole "worker safety" industry imbedded into the $3.7 Trillion Federal government.
Safety vs profit is one tradeoff, another is jobs. Between the feds, lawyers, and unions we've chased off many of the jobs people are wishing were still around.
I'd say you could have picked a better example. Auto safety has little to do with sheer mass. If you were right, why were there so many more crash deaths in the 1950s when cars were massive? Modern materials and engineering (including airbags) have resulted in very safe cars. Modern tires and braking systems are also a huge factor. And, in terms of avoiding an accident to begin with, I'll take a lighter, more agile car any day over one that's massive and ponderous. There are plenty of massive SUVs available, but I'll pass. When driven too fast they are more likely to run off the road and/or flip over.
-- Modified on 10/28/2011 8:21:02 AM
One reason why there more fatalities in the 1950s is there were no safety belts. I mean, NONE. I remember when they first were introduced as optional.
Yes, air bags and other things are a factor, but all things being equal, if two cars of equal weight are in the same crash, one will have a greater chance of survivability.
Of course there are other factors, but this is one.
Yes, modern brakes and tires help, although that is more preventative. The question is when a car hits the wall with modern brakes, does it matter if the car is half the size.
I would imagine, and this is a guess, that the per cent of cancer that is reduced by eliminating second hand smoke is far less that cutting the mass of a car.
You are right that I could have picked better examples, but this was off the top of my head.
In any event, it is the principle.
You could prevent ALL deaths in national parks by making all trails as smooth as the concrete in front of city hall. None of these winding things that go past ledges. How about a safety railing on the length of the trial going down the hill in Yosemite, where several people died last year.
The principle is society makes a choice to let people die when other values are in play, even a pretty view.
-- Modified on 10/28/2011 8:21:02 AM
They became optional on Ford and Chrysler vehicles in 1956, according to a history I just looked up. I could find no data about usage, and the laws requiring people to actually use them didn't get passed until the '70s. But to say there were "NONE" isn't corrrect either. Where you're correct is that, if you're in a more massive car and crash, you'll do better than in an identical crash if you're in a smaller one. But that's a very limited way to look at it. A smaller, more agile car is much less likely to crash to begin with because it can stop and change direction more quickly. Based on the original point you were trying to make, that's a totally valid way to look at it.
I do agree, however, with the basic idea that choices are made and the government can't make our lives hazard free because the cost is just too great.
When the became "optional," in '56, that means that you had the choice then. Before that, you didn't have a choice because they were not sold in passenger cars. For all practical purposes, "NONE" was right. If you look at a 1952 Caddi, they didn't have them. At all.
(I hesitate to admit remembering when seat belts were an option, but on the other hand, I can brag about seeing the Fab Four live.)
That said, we are not in that much of a disagement. just a question of degree. And more importantly, even if the example I chose is flawed, we are in agreement, it seems, about the idea.
I do agree, however, with the basic idea that choices are made and the government can't make our lives hazard free because the cost is just too great.
So I hate to quibble, but I can't help myself. LOL! I think I clearly stated belts were optional in 1956, and citing a'52 Caddy (four years prior and a GM product, when I stated clearly it was Chrsyler and Ford in my example) is a poor argument. Also when you say "none" it only means one thing, especially if you shout it in all caps. I wouldn't have quibbled with that if you'd said "virtually none."
Sorry if I seem to be picking nits when we're in basic agreement, but I guess I hold lawyers to a higher standard when it comes to framing an argument. Also, I am jealous you saw the Fab Four live and I did not!