Do we really need all that safety stuff?

[jcp123]

I'd love to ditch all the safety stuff. Ralph Nader got everybody scared about...well, everything it seems like. I would prefer to pick my own level of safety, yes. But I do think that much like power windows and such, most of the decision making would be taken out of our hands anyway, it probably would have been made standard due to demand with no provision for an airbag or seat belt delete.

Ahh, the good old days when sex was safe and cars were dangerous

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by jcp123

Ahh, the good old days when sex was safe and cars were dangerous

I recommend that as the "Statement of the Decade" (ha,ha)!

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

The mfgs couldn't give us a new 1600 lb Metro if they wanted to because of all the required nanny crap.

Define "nanny crap".

The Aygo (the one I had) weighed in at 1,962 lb including all safety gear - airbags, ABS, stability control. Given it had an engine making more than the 1.3 Metro with a 1.0 triple it had the grunt to move it too and did better MPG.

Progress, its a wonderful thing.

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

I'd probably get rid of the airbags, and either removing the seatbelts completely or just replacing the 3-point ones with lap-belts, not just to save a few ounces but also because I never cared for airbags, and the interior trim can provide some impact absorption in a way kinda similar to the approach taken in American school buses. Sure it may initially sound kinda pointless since I was complaining about the weight of safety features but, instead of making the interior trims just fancy, some degree of functionality could be added to them. As a matter of priorities I'd rather have ABS brakes instead of airbags and 3-point seatbelts.

I'm not seeing anything sensible here, maybe it is me.

A lap belt just holds you in the seat - the 3 point one means you don't face-plant the steering wheel or dash which might actually kill you. And no, you won't be able to avoid it if/when it happens.

You have to treat airbags carefully from a DIY mechanic point of view but it isn't anything really tricky and only adds maybe 500g per airbag - that is less than a typical handbag or a couple of phones these days. Plus they prevent the faceplant / wheel or dash thing quite effectively if you choose (stupidly) to avoid seatbelts.

If you want to rely on the interior of your car for padding against impacts then good luck with that one. I suggest lining it with razor blades just to make sure.

[jcp123]

Well, I think the point is a very libertarian one. The idea is that nobody should tell us that we HAVE to have this equipment, and nobody should tell you that you HAVE to be without it.

[RedDevil]

Fine if you make your own decisions, but what about the safety of others?

You may be allowed to buy a car without personal safety equipment, but not to sell it, nor take passengers - especially underage ones.

Then, once your health insurence learns what you drive your rates may rise quite some.

Unsafe cars may get a safety warning just like tobacco has, maybe with some nice pictures to boot.

[wickydude]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

I'd probably get rid of the airbags, and either removing the seatbelts completely or just replacing the 3-point ones with lap-belts, not just to save a few ounces but also because I never cared for airbags, and the interior trim can provide some impact absorption in a way kinda similar to the approach taken in American school buses. Sure it may initially sound kinda pointless since I was complaining about the weight of safety features but, instead of making the interior trims just fancy, some degree of functionality could be added to them. As a matter of priorities I'd rather have ABS brakes instead of airbags and 3-point seatbelts.

Take a look at some accident pictures. i dare to say that a car that has airbags, also has abs. The abs has not prevented the airbags from inflating. Ergo, abs is not enough.
you're not alone on the road.

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Fine if you make your own decisions, but what about the safety of others?

You may be allowed to buy a car without personal safety equipment, but not to sell it, nor take passengers - especially underage ones.

Then, once your health insurence learns what you drive your rates may rise quite some.

Unsafe cars may get a safety warning just like tobacco has, maybe with some nice pictures to boot.

That of course is part and parcel of the deal - you have to live (or die?) with the consequences of your actions and choices. It's partly political, I guess, but mostly philosophical.

[RedDevil]

It goes beyond that - What if you get hurt in an accident caused by someone else, and the other side denies liability because you chose to do away with safety equipment that could have prevented your injuries?
Tricky.

[jcp123]

I actually think that fits very well into that framework - again, potential consequences.

[RedDevil]

But most won't oversee all the possible consequences of the choices they make, or should make.
And people are reckless, ignoring whatever risk they don't like to think about.
Or overly altruistic; while some should be told to care for others like they care for themselves, some should better care for themselves the way they care for others.

Night falls in Holland. Boing. Bedtime. Good night