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

[Steve Meyer <quattroslm@yahoo.com>]

   I agree! Why does our society feel the need to pass
our own responsibilities on to someone else. I know
that if I drive recklessly, then I am accountable for
my actions. 
   Different types of automobiles are made for
different reasons. That is what makes the auto
industry so amazing to me. So many choices, and so
many different people to chose them. The problem comes
when people decide that one automobile should be able
to handle all circumstances. That is unrealistic,
besides it would make all cars a bore to drive. 
    I'm not saying that auto manufactures do not have
a responsiblity to make safe cars, but we need to
understand and accept their limitations. I can't pull
a fifth wheel trailer with my Audi, just like I can't
take a tight corner at 75 with a 3/4 ton truck. This
is an obvious observation, but i don't think people
really think this way. People want to blame others for
their mistakes. 
    I don't mean to rant and rave about this, but it
really pisses my off. I make my own mistakes, rarely
is there anyone else to blame. This is a good thing.
People who try to blame their mishaps on others, are
just scared to face reality. I believe that there is
always something I could or could have done to make
things turn out better!

--- Bill Elliott <wcelliot@concentric.net> wrote:
> 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
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com