Sleek, Sparkling Rims Power A $3.1 Billion Aftermarket Industry

I wonder how long it will be before a kid gets his/her finger broken or
cut off in a "spinner".

Lena

"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.

On 8 Jun 2005 03:33:19 -0700, "Lena" > wrote:

>I wonder how long it will be before a kid gets his/her finger broken or
>cut off in a "spinner".
>
>Lena

That's where break dancing got its start - kids stealing hubcaps off
of moving cars.

In article says...
> I wonder how long it will be before a kid gets his/her finger broken or
> cut off in a "spinner".

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.

Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article says...
> > I wonder how long it will be before a kid gets his/her finger broken or
> > cut off in a "spinner".
>
> 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 <snip>

A seat belt also keeps you in the seat where you belong. An evasive
maneuver
may throw you out of the seat and result in loss of control and that
would affect more than just your own safety.

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:46:45 -0500, Mark Anderson
> wrote:

>In article says...
>> I wonder how long it will be before a kid gets his/her finger broken or
>> cut off in a "spinner".
>
>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.

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****.

..max

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?

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?

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 we need donated organs.