So maybe we need an airbag thats afraid of you and runs in the other direction, thus minimizing the force of impact.Approx said:
Seat-belt laws infringe on human rights
- Thread starter OICW
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
An airbag is designed to be used in conjunction with a seatbelt. If you use an airbag without a seatbelt in even low-impact situations, you have a very high chance of dying from airbag whiplash.
However...
Give them a choice. Sort of like smoking. It's may be comfortable, but can ultimately kill you. Let them take the risk and if they die, fine, their fault.
--Harrm
However...
Give them a choice. Sort of like smoking. It's may be comfortable, but can ultimately kill you. Let them take the risk and if they die, fine, their fault.
--Harrm
I do agree with seat belt laws in Canada simply because of health care cost. In the states it is a insurance issue. In Canada a tax cost issue. With seat belts and air bags the chances are you will have less change of more serious injuries and the fewer my my tax dollars get wasted.
In fact I firmly believe that people doing stupid things such as driving drunk and driving without a seat belt get injuried the money comes out of their own pocket. A stupidity tax.
Mind you I also believe that people doing stupid things like skiing and snow mobiling in off limit areas should pay for their rescue and if they are dead the money comes out of the estate.
George was correct in saying that removing the lables on dangerous products would certainly removing a certain percentage of the population.
In fact I firmly believe that people doing stupid things such as driving drunk and driving without a seat belt get injuried the money comes out of their own pocket. A stupidity tax.
Mind you I also believe that people doing stupid things like skiing and snow mobiling in off limit areas should pay for their rescue and if they are dead the money comes out of the estate.
George was correct in saying that removing the lables on dangerous products would certainly removing a certain percentage of the population.
Derelan said:
None. Killing or maiming yourself is a right perserved by everyone.
And in most places (well at least I've heard the argeument here) the seatbelt laws are less about the money and more about the resources, why should emergency room doctors spend time to fix some jackass who decided to go flying through his windshield at 100km/h, when there are plenty of other people who didn't choose harm themselves?
On a more macabre note, I'm fairly sure going through the windshield would be preferable to the airbag if you weren't restrianed (ie wearing a seatbelt.) As I understand it the airbag quickly inflates and then deflates to slow the passenger down and provide a much more even surface to impact on. However this is based on the assumption that a belt is worn, without it you would probably imact as the bag was inflating and with such force that it be like hitting a wall (as I understand this bags are under very high pressure to inflate so quickly.) Not to mention in a head on collision (being where the airbag is of use) the body tends to fly towards the roof of the car, of course depending on the collision factors... Hey if one were to fly through the windshield perhaps one would slow down a few m/s (due to drag) before impacting the pavement
