Re: Bronco Busting or now I put my foot in it

[Bill Elliott <wcelliot@concentric.net>]

No offense intended, but your view is socialistic I disagree with it in
every way and will agressively fight with any lawmaker espousing this
point of view.

You probably think seat belt laws are a good thing as well.  I consider
them an infringment of my basic liberty (but I always wear one.) Ditto
for helmet laws.

Manufacturers _don't_ agree with you; left to their own accord, they
would make cars as safe as practical within the market limitations, but
they're terrified of someone like you on a jury so they don't make the
type of vehicles many of us would like to drive.
 
A motorcycle is not as safe as a car, but we're still allowed to own
one.  Convertibles aren't as safe as hardtops, but they're still legal.
...FOR NOW!

I'm all for safer vehicles, but some of us _need_ ground clearance and
towing capacity.  That _will_ make the vehicle have different handling
characteristics.  Unsafe?  Compared to a car, maybe.  Compared to a
tractor/trailer, maybe not.

I think I should be allowed to own convertibles as well.  Using your
logic, I shouldn't.

Your example was having to swerve in an emergency situation.  If you're
driving a truck, you should drive it in such a way not to put yourself
in that situation.  If you're not skilled highly enough, you shouldn't
be in a truck anyway. (Remember I did mention that a special license
would be okay.)

Suzuki's were used for years all over the world before coming to the
US.  Only when they were driven by idiots thinking they had a sports car
did their handling characteristics become an issue.

I also own antique vehicles.  Should I not be allowed to drive them
since they're not as safe as a 2000 model? In case you don't know it, we
don't "all have rev limiters and overboost protection".  Some of us
drive well enough not to need it. (Again, I think its great we have it,
but I wouldn't want it regulated.)

We live in an overregulated society.  We spent all of our time
infringing on the freedoms of the majority to protect the small
precentage of idiots historically dealt with by natural selection.  The
more we "progress", the more basic liberties we lose.  I'm amazed we can
still get warm coffee at drivethru's.

As I warned in my earlier message, if cars were built for the lowest
common denominator, we'd all be driving 50hp Civics. And if people who
think like you get their way, we would be. "Thank goodness" they're not.

Think what you like. I'll keep fighting my battle knowing full well your
type will eventually win because our society has lost the ability to
reason. 

At least you're driving an Audi. ;-)

I'll put my soapbox away and refrain from any further (public) comments
on this non-Q topic.  

Bill Elliott

JShadzi@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 9/9/99 8:37:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wcelliot@concentric.net writes:
> 
> << These are purpose-built vehicles which do things other vehicles can't.
>  If idiots use them for incorrect applications or drive them like sports
>  cars, they should be held accountable for their actions.
>   >>
> 
>     Hmm, interesting point of view.  Most manufacturers and government laws
> would disagree with you, however.  Products need to be made safe and usable,
> especially by the "lowest common denominator".  That is why we all have rev
> limiters and overboost protection on our cars, and why production vehicles
> employ low compression ratios to accept a wide variety of octanes in any
> situation.  If a person is driving their Bronco, and is forced to make a
> defensive swerve to avoid a collision (as they would in a car), and the
> Bronco flips, should they "be held accountable for their actions"?  What if
> they are killed, what then?  Thank goodness most manufacturers and law makers
> have a more realistic approach to dealing with these issues than the one you
> advise.
> Javad Shadzi
> 88 80Q