Date:         Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:18:28 MST
Reply-To:     Sean Garrett <seangar@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Sean Garrett <seangar@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Van safety
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

I dont want to start a flame war but....



>From: Martin <nitram@TBCNET.COM>
>Reply-To: Martin <nitram@TBCNET.COM>
>To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>Subject: Van safety
>Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:18:56 -0600
>
>1    When God wants you - he'll take you., - Vanagon or the dodge thing!
>

Some of us do not beleive in fate and subscribe more to the "limited control
of destiny" philosophy! Science and engineering does count for something (as
well as chance).

>2.  When you put two 3,000 # vechicles together someone going get hurt.  I
>think that air bags, etc is just a poor excuse at trying to shift personal
>responsibility for the way some people drive, trying to make us believe
>that
>we can drive overly fast and reckless while talking  on the phone, eating,
>and reading while driving 3' from someone else doing the same thing!
>

It is fact that certain safety devices do reduce injury!!!! I agree air bags
are contriversial and only work correctly if a certain set of circumstances
exist but they can and often do reduce injuries. As well as seatbelts! IMHO
talking on the phone is dangerous in a car, but given the choice of two
(same) vehicles, one w/bags one wout/bags I would choose the one with hands
down. Its proven to be safer design. I dont agree with your therory that air
bags are a "personal shift of resposibility".

>my $.02
>
>LJ


Sean
80 Westy
seangar@hotmail.com

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com