Sleek, Sparkling Rims Power A $3.1 Billion Aftermarket Industry

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:01:21 -0500, max > wrote:

>In article .com>,
> "bicycle" > wrote:
>
>> max wrote:
>> > Bob Ward > wrote:
>> >
>> > > If you are not restrained in your seat, you are not in control of your
>> > > car, so the safety of other drivers is indeed compromised.
>> >
>> > bull****.
>>
>> This paramedic disagrees,
>>
>> <http://www.alpharubicon.com/bovstuff/seatbelttexan.htm>
>>
>> Why do you think it's BS?
>
>Having read the above, i would agree that you have a point. However, to
>be pedantic, i should point out that the correct formulation of his
>statement is" If you are not restrained in your seat, YOU MAY NOT BE IN
>CONTROL OF YOUR CAR AFTER AN ACCIDENT, so the safety of other drivers is
>indeed compromised.
>
>It is not possible to intuit "post accident" from his post, only
>seatbelt=control, which is infact, bull**** for all but a diminishingly
>small set of operations.
>
>hmmm... why aren't there seatbelts or roll bars on harleys? Or Bicycles?


Because they can't do as much damage to other vehicles, and/or because
the riding position inherently holds you in the proper position to
attempt to regain control.

Take your pick.

BTW - if you've just had an accident, I doubt that you are in conmtrol
of your vehicle - but control is easier when you remain in the
intended position.

bicycle > wrote in message
oups.com...
> max wrote
>> Bob Ward > wrote:

>>> If you are not restrained in your seat, you are not in control of
>>> your car, so the safety of other drivers is indeed compromised.

>> bull****.

> This paramedic disagrees,
> <http://www.alpharubicon.com/bovstuff/seatbelttexan.htm>

No he doesnt. He's talking about the extent of
injurys that result with a crash, not IN CONTROL.

> Why do you think it's BS?

Because it is. Novel concept eh ?

Rod Speed wrote:
> bicycle > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > max wrote
> >> Bob Ward > wrote:
>
> >>> If you are not restrained in your seat, you are not in control of
> >>> your car, so the safety of other drivers is indeed compromised.
>
> >> bull****.
>
> > This paramedic disagrees,
> > <http://www.alpharubicon.com/bovstuff/seatbelttexan.htm>
>
> No he doesnt. He's talking about the extent of
> injurys that result with a crash, not IN CONTROL.
>



"It is always important to be seat-belted when you are in a car with
the engine running. As a paramedic I have seen many wrecks where the
lack of a seatbelt turned a minor wreck into a major wreck.
If a driver is not seat-belted in and a minor car wreck happens, it is
common for the driver to be thrown into the front or back passenger
seat when the car is hit. Once the driver is no longer in the front
seat holding on to the steering wheel, it becomes impossible to steer
the car to a safe stop. When it is impossible to steer, the car may
veer into a highway, bridge support or a river thereby causing much
more damage that otherwise would have occurred. Wearing a seat belt
keeps you in the drivers seat so you can control the car."

Now STFU, ******.

"bicycle" > wrote:
> max wrote:

> > hmmm... why aren't there seatbelts or roll bars on harleys? Or Bicycles?
>
> Because we need donated organs.


harley rider organs? eeeewwwww.

In misc.consumers.frugal-living max > wrote:

>> > hmmm... why aren't there seatbelts or roll bars on harleys? Or Bicycles?
>>
>> Because we need donated organs.


> harley rider organs? eeeewwwww.

You hate "rebel" lawyers and dentists that much?

John S. wrote:
> "It was interesting."
>
> True, but it essentially describes what we already know...that the
> business of making and selling fancy wheels is going great guns. Car
> owners continue to have a big interest in customizing their cars. I
> didn't understand the editorial comments that were inserted.
>

Frankly I'm amazed it's a $3.1BN industry.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, timeOday wrote:

> > True, but it essentially describes what we already know...that the
> > business of making and selling fancy wheels is going great guns.

> Frankly I'm amazed it's a $3.1BN industry.

Why? I'm sure that's a proportional fraction of the drug industry that
fuels it.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:40:59 GMT, Tom Quackenbush
> wrote:

>Bob Ward wrote:
>> Mark Anderson wrote:
><snip>
>>>I'm amazed that the government can mandate that I have to wear a seatbelt
>>>that affects no one else's safety but my own yet people can install a
>>>device that creates an optical illusion to other drivers that their car
>>>is still in motion while stopped, making other drivers take unnecessary
>>>evasive actions, is somehow legal and OK.
>>>
>>>
>>If you are not restrained in your seat, you are not in control of your
>>car, so the safety of other drivers is indeed compromised. If you'd
>>mentioned helmet wearing, I'd have agreed.
>
> There's some logic in that argument. Wouldn't that also argue
>against driver-side airbags?
>
>R,
>Tom Q.

Preventing injury is a bad thing? once the airbags have deployed, the
accident has happened, and the car has decelerated to a dead
(so-to-speak) stop.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Tom Quackenbush wrote:

> >If you are not restrained in your seat, you are not in control of your
> >car, so the safety of other drivers is indeed compromised. If you'd
> >mentioned helmet wearing, I'd have agreed.

> There's some logic in that argument. Wouldn't that also argue against
> driver-side airbags?

It's one of the weaker arguments against airbags. There are much stronger
ones.

bicycle > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> bicycle > wrote
>>> max wrote
>>>> Bob Ward > wrote

>>>>> If you are not restrained in your seat, you are not in control of
>>>>> your car, so the safety of other drivers is indeed compromised.

>>>> bull****.

>>> This paramedic disagrees,
>>> <http://www.alpharubicon.com/bovstuff/seatbelttexan.htm>

>> No he doesnt. He's talking about the extent of
>> injurys that result with a crash, not IN CONTROL.

> "It is always important to be seat-belted when you are in a car with
> the engine running. As a paramedic I have seen many wrecks where
> the lack of a seatbelt turned a minor wreck into a major wreck.

Thats clearly talking about the injurys that are the result of the wreck.

> If a driver is not seat-belted in and a minor car wreck
> happens, it is common for the driver to be thrown into
> the front or back passenger seat when the car is hit.

That only happens with the most drastic accidents
where there is no possibility of steering the car to
avoid the accident once that has happened, stupid.

> Once the driver is no longer in the front seat
> holding on to the steering wheel, it becomes
> impossible to steer the car to a safe stop.

Its the sudden stop that has pitched
the driver out of his seat, cretin.

> When it is impossible to steer,

The sudden impact that has pitched the drive completely
out of his seat that has ensured that anyway.

> the car may veer into a highway, bridge support or a river thereby
> causing much more damage that otherwise would have occurred.

Bull**** with such a severe impact that the drive
has been completely pitched out of his seat.

> Wearing a seat belt keeps you in the
> drivers seat so you can control the car."

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasyland.

No wonder you have no choice but to bludge off the welfare system.