Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > The most technologically advanced car ever

The most technologically advanced car ever (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Goldfinger
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 08:16 AM
 
I think the C6 looks just beautiful. I've always loved the big french cars even if they weren't all that successfull.

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
entrox
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 08:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika
-hydraulic suspension
That's nice.

-headlights that would turn with the front steering to better light up curves (though these didn't show up until the second-series DS, admittedly - in the sixties. That particular DS picture, btw, is a sixties/early 70s model). BMW just recently added this to some of their high-end models as a spectacular new feature.
So did Opel, Audi and Mercedes. It is a very nice feature indeed, but it was forbidden by law to have dynamic lower-beam headlamps until recently as far as I can see. European/German bureaucracy at work..

-what is among the most beautiful automotive design ever to hit the road in the case of the DS. The SM pictured, well...but it had a Maserati engine.
I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I never liked how the rear wheels are hidden on the older French cars.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 08:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Goldfinger
Your view is wrong. We do have decent tests before we get a license and we don't give licenses to hormone infested teenagers (the idea of letting 16 year olds drive cars makes me sick). But, what has that to do with responsability ?

Oh and an other for the DS and SM. I really hope that the new C6 will become somewhat succesfull.
in BC in 2002 stats 86 youths, 16-19 where killed in Car crashes. Personally I rather a 16 year old with a licence then a 96 year old
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
angelmb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 08:57 AM
 
The Citro�n C6 doesn�t look bad... until you get inside, dissapointing, totally.

BMW just recently added this to some of their high-end models as a spectacular new feature

I dont know how similar could be, but even little cars like the Renault Modus have those systems. Another thing is the implementation of the system in the new M Class, now that is exquisite, if you are driving at night and you activate a turn signal, the light beam points also in that direction.
     
Goldfinger
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 08:59 AM
 
Why do you start about 96 year olds ? Did I ever say that we should allow 96 year olds to drive ? no. Their license should be taken away as well at a certain age unless you need it for your job and can pass a test that proves that you are still able to drive normally. The problem with 16 year olds is: a) they want to look cool in front of their friends and do really stupid things to be cool (speeding, drunk driving etc.), b) they are unexperienced and 9 out of 10 really irresponsible.
18 should be the minimum age to even start driving lessons IMO, or whatever the legal age in a certain country. If you are at a legal age you tend to be more responsible since you are liable from then on.

Please don't take my ramblings personally.

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
Goldfinger
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 09:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by angelmb
The Citro�n C6 doesn�t look bad... until you get inside, dissapointing, totally.
I don't think it's disappointing really. The only thing I don't like is the digital dashboard instead of a normal analogue speedo.

And I'm sure it will be heaven, like every Citro�n, comfort wise. As soon as they are available I will be test driving one. (One of my hobbies, test driving new cars )

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 09:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Goldfinger
Why do you start about 96 year olds ? Did I ever say that we should allow 96 year olds to drive ? no. Their license should be taken away as well at a certain age unless you need it for your job and can pass a test that proves that you are still able to drive normally. The problem with 16 year olds is: a) they want to look cool in front of their friends and do really stupid things to be cool (speeding, drunk driving etc.), b) they are unexperienced and 9 out of 10 really irresponsible.
18 should be the minimum age to even start driving lessons IMO, or whatever the legal age in a certain country. If you are at a legal age you tend to be more responsible since you are liable from then on.

Please don't take my ramblings personally.

I disagree, 20-25 seems to be the worst group, they def make the news more often then teenagers
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
d.fine
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2004
Location: on 650 cc's
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 09:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman
Exactly. If someone wants to act stupidly and get themself killed why should I stop them?
Because they can kill someone you know in the process. You're not alone on the road, there are many other people driving. An accident doesn't necesarily have to be your fault, but it can get you or someone else killed.

stuffing feathers up your b*tt doesn't make you a chicken.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by d.fine
Because they can kill someone you know in the process. You're not alone on the road, there are many other people driving. An accident doesn't necesarily have to be your fault, but it can get you or someone else killed.
Um, how is not wearing a seatbelt going to get someone else killed?

I have no problem with laws and money put into stopping drunk driving. But as long as you're not hurting anyone but yourself I think the government, and everyone else, should butt out.
     
Goldfinger
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 10:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman
I have no problem with laws and money put into stopping drunk driving. But as long as you're not hurting anyone but yourself I think the government, and everyone else, should butt out.

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 11:33 AM
 
Our new Honda CR-V lets out a very loud and obnoxious beeping noise every 60 seconds or so if you aren't buckled up. Not quite as harsh as not starting, but it's pretty much intolerable and there is no way to shut it off.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
SkaGoat
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 11:36 AM
 
I'm against anything that takes control from the driver, even if it's for "safety" we need better driver education in North America, and that's it. Camaras that watch to make sure I'm not tired, black boxs that record how I drive. all stupid and bad things! remember, it's alot easier to give your rights up, than it is to get them back.



I could never say a french car is good.. so I won't. The big Germans have the market cornered.

By the way, the Audi and BMW handle nothing like a Lexus. They don't even handle like each other.

Mercedes had Hydraulic Suspension in the 70s, big deal... it just makes the car clunky and heavy.

There is a way to shut it off, A. Put your seatbelt on. or B. Pull the relay that's beeping.
     
cenutrio
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: missing
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 12:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by SkaGoat
I could never say a french car is good.. so I won't.
That explains a lot, I think most people visiting this thread heard about it internet polls to vote for the car of the century and similar and most of them have viable educated opinions, I just refuse to go with the current stream of German manufacturers being the only viable cars.

Citroen DS was in the top 5 in at least 3 polls. Literarily, this was a car 20 years ahead of its time.

There are at least two French brands (Renault and Peugeot) that beat the heck of any american car or brand. There is no contest. They're highly competitive against Germans and Japanese cars too. If you base your opinion just taking a look where in the map a car was made...of course, you're entitled to, but I try to avoid my personal opinion about French in general with their capability of producing high end engineered products.


The big Germans have the market cornered.
Yes the Germans won the market big time. Honestly, I rather go for a spin in a 1980s Audi Quatro or enjoy an NSU with a wanken engine than any of today's VWs, BMWs or Mercedes...


By the way, the Audi and BMW handle nothing like a Lexus. They don't even handle like each other.
Yes, they pretty much do. If you want to drive cars that are different go enjoy a spin in an Austin Halley, a Lancia Delta, Ford Cosworth, any Citroen previous to the 90s, etc.

My point is before the Germans won the market big time in the 80s, you could see obvious differences in handling and looking of cars. Today, everybody is photocopying each other.

Thanks good the Italians Alfa or the French Renault are doing something different.

Mercedes had Hydraulic Suspension in the 70s, big deal... it just makes the car clunky and heavy.
Mercedes in the 70s produced reliable old looking cars. Their hydraulic knowledge was poor compared to Citroen (and I'm being generous). Their cx shape converted them in quite noisy cars (not because the engine but poor aerodinamics), Mercedes (by the definition) are heavy (probably because the armor... and so on.

Hopefully the new C6 will evoke old good times like those I had with the DS, the CX or the XM (I admit, I've never driven a SM).
-original iMac, TiPB 400, Cube, Macbook (black), iMac 24¨, plus the original iPod and a black nano 4GB-
     
d.fine
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2004
Location: on 650 cc's
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman
Um, how is not wearing a seatbelt going to get someone else killed?
I said 'can' kill someone. I have read about passengers in the rear seat that weren't wearing seatbelt, which during an accident bounced around in the car, seriously injuring and/or killing other passengers. Just one of the possible scenarios.
People can act stupid all they want, just not when other people's lives are involved.

I have no problem with laws and money put into stopping drunk driving. But as long as you're not hurting anyone but yourself I think the government, and everyone else, should butt out.
The government is trying to protect you, to stop you from hurting yourself, as you put it. Who else is going to? Are you gonna make your own laws? You need the government to make laws against drunk driving, wearing seatbelts...

This is an argument that knows no end, because there are many points of view and personal opinions, everyone has a different perspective. Finding a middle ground is what I think laws try to do, trying to ensure everyon's safety, even those that 'act stupid and want to get themselves killed' you wont stop from doing so.

stuffing feathers up your b*tt doesn't make you a chicken.
     
Goldfinger
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by d.fine
The government is trying to protect you.
They shouldn't...

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman
Um, how is not wearing a seatbelt going to get someone else killed?

I have no problem with laws and money put into stopping drunk driving. But as long as you're not hurting anyone but yourself I think the government, and everyone else, should butt out.
You are hurting someone, especially when your co-drivers follow your bad example and don't wear a seatbelt. Your kids will learn from you and endanger themselves. Also, when you are not buckled up, you can hurt someone when you are sitting in the back for instance (my brother once flew in the windshield, he fortunately only killed the rear-view mirror.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Goldfinger
They shouldn't...
Yes, they should. Especially if you take others with you in your car, you are also responsible for them. If they don't buckle up and you have an accident, you have a problem.

A road is public, it's not your space. There are others on the road, so you have to watch out and stick to the rules set by the government. It is no better/worse than DUI.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Goldfinger
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Yes, they should. Especially if you take others with you in your car, you are also responsible for them. If they don't buckle up and you have an accident, you have a problem.

A road is public, it's not your space. There are others on the road, so you have to watch out and stick to the rules set by the government. It is no better/worse than DUI.
No I am NOT responsible if they do not wear their seatbelts.

Sure the road is public but that has exactly nothing to do with seatbelts and what I do to myself.

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Goldfinger
No I am NOT responsible if they do not wear their seatbelts.

Sure the road is public but that has exactly nothing to do with seatbelts and what I do to myself.
Yes, it does. You are the driver, you take a lot of responsibility when you drive. And like it or not, you are responsible for them getting home safe. How can you ask others to wear their seatbelts if you don't? And will them not wearing a seatbelt increase their risk to get (seriously) injured or killed in an accident? Yes, I hope we don't have to debate this no-brainer.

That's why there are rules on how to behave when driving. To reduce the risk in accidents, the government asks people in a car (= driver and all the others) to wear a seatbelt. If you don't like it, take public transportation.

Otherwise, you could argue that you can put 9 people in a car and drive around. After all, it's your car and your choice, right? And the others know about it, right?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
AKcrab
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 05:36 PM
 
Seatbelt laws are absurd as long as motorcycles are still legal.
Heck, in Alaska, they don't even have to wear a helmet, but I have to buckle up? It's simply a revenue stream for the police.
     
fireside
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Floreeda
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Goldfinger
The problem with 16 year olds is: .... b) they are unexperienced and 9 out of 10 really irresponsible.
so a 16 year old with no driving experienced is unexperienced, but an 18 year old with no driving experienced is experienced? is there some time within that two year time period where you're supposed to magically get driving experience without driving?
     
Kilbey
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 08:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by AKcrab
Seatbelt laws are absurd as long as motorcycles are still legal.
Heck, in Alaska, they don't even have to wear a helmet, but I have to buckle up? It's simply a revenue stream for the police.


Originally Posted by fireside
so a 16 year old with no driving experienced is unexperienced, but an 18 year old with no driving experienced is experienced? is there some time within that two year time period where you're supposed to magically get driving experience without driving?
No, but they are a lot more mature and would not do as many dangerous things with a car.
     
MacMan4000
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 09:42 PM
 
I am 17, and I am offended.





Just kidding.

Back on topic: Here in KY if you or anyone in your car doesn't have a seatbelt on you can be pulled over and ticketed for it. As for motorcycles... what does that have to do with anything?! There are no seatbelts on a motorcycle, thats why you don't have to wear them. Just like if you have a 1949 chevy, no seatbelts... so you don't have to wear them.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 10:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
You are hurting someone, especially when your co-drivers follow your bad example and don't wear a seatbelt. Your kids will learn from you and endanger themselves. Also, when you are not buckled up, you can hurt someone when you are sitting in the back for instance (my brother once flew in the windshield, he fortunately only killed the rear-view mirror.
********. I'm responsible for me, you're responsible for you. If you decide not to put your seatbelt on and then get seriously injured because of it you have no grounds to try and blame it on me even if you saw me not wearing a seatbelt first. You made the decision to follow my example, you are responsible for the consequences.

The only time which that might not be the case is when dealing with children. Children should, in my opinion, be required by law to wear a seatbelt. If they don't, their parents should be charged with negligence or abuse or something like that. If the only way you can get your kids to wear their seatbelts is by doing it yourself, then fine. But I had plenty of adult role models who never wore seatbelts, and I still always wear mine.
     
MilkmanDan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: My Powerbook, in Japan!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 01:46 AM
 
Maybe this one?

     
Arty50
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2000
Location: I've moved so many times; I forgot.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 02:41 AM
 
I'd like to address two suggestions brought up here.

1) Inability to engage the transmission if seat sensors detect a passenger without a seatbelt.

This is a terrible idea. As tooki mentioned, what happens if you have cargo in a seat? Additionally, seat sensors have been in existence for quite a while. My grandfather had an eletric recliner that wouldn't recline unless you sat on the pressure sensor. You had to sit on just the right spot to get the chair to work. Everyone thought it was a PITA. Some riding lawnmowers also have this feature. Once again, you have to sit in just the right spot to get the mower to work. So the technology is spotty at best. You simply have to account for too many variables due to different body types, weights, heights, etc. Additionally, it's just one more thing to go wrong.


2) Ingnition Interlock Devices (aka breathalyzers for your ignition)

After your second DUI in California, the use of an Interlock Device may be required. Essentially, it's breathalyzer that will only allow you to start the car if you test negative. It's an understandable measure for repeat DUI offenders. However, for the general populace it's a horrible idea. "Why?" you ask. Do you ever chew gum? Take a look at the list of ingredients. Is one of them sorbitol? Good luck starting your car. You'll have to wait 5-10 minutes for the sorbitol to wear off. Same goes for mouthwash, except it doesn't wear off so fast. Too bad you wanted nice breath for that date you have tonight. There's a short list of items that give a false reading on breathalizers, but the items are surprisingly common. Thus having IIDs on every car is a terrible idea.

On a related note, let's say you get pulled over driving home late at night, you haven't had a drop of alcohol or very little, you've been chewing gum or eating a breath mint with sorbitol (or any sugar alcohol), and the officer asks you to take a breathalyzer. If the reading comes out above the legal limit and you know it's due to the sugar alcohol, you can tell the officer that you've had some of product XYZ and it has sorbitol in it and ask him if he'll wait 5-10 minutes to do a retest. Most will let you. If they don't then be sure to have a blood test done to prove your innocence. Naturally, it you're really legally drunk then this probably isn't the wisest course of action.
( Last edited by Arty50; Apr 19, 2005 at 03:02 AM. )
"My friend, there are two kinds of people in this world:
those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig."

-Clint in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly"
     
d.fine
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2004
Location: on 650 cc's
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 04:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Goldfinger
They shouldn't...
That's just stupid. So while we're at it not letting the government protect us lets just pass international laws allowing abortion and euthanasia at will, no questions asked. Just let everyone do what the want when they want it. Good philosophy...
When you fall into a whole in the street because it was badly made, who are you going to sue? Since you wont let anyone protect you, then anything that happens to you is 100% your fault.

stuffing feathers up your b*tt doesn't make you a chicken.
     
entrox
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 05:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by d.fine
That's just stupid. So while we're at it not letting the government protect us lets just pass international laws allowing abortion and euthanasia at will, no questions asked. Just let everyone do what the want when they want it. Good philosophy...
When you fall into a whole in the street because it was badly made, who are you going to sue? Since you wont let anyone protect you, then anything that happens to you is 100% your fault.
Exactly. Your argument is just stupid.

Nobody is arguing that the government shouldn't protect you from others. The point is, should the government protect you from yourself by taking action against you in order to prevent you from doing something to yourself? Should they forbid you from smoking because it slowly kills you? Should they prevent you from driving without seat belts because you'd pop your head open like a water melon in an accident? To a degree they should, but not letting me start the engine unless I'm buckled up is akin to not letting me dry my hair unless I'm standing outside the bathroom.

I'm no child which needs protecting from knives and pointy things anymore, thank you very much.
( Last edited by entrox; Apr 19, 2005 at 05:15 AM. Reason: added clarification)
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 06:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman
********. I'm responsible for me, you're responsible for you. If you decide not to put your seatbelt on and then get seriously injured because of it you have no grounds to try and blame it on me even if you saw me not wearing a seatbelt first. You made the decision to follow my example, you are responsible for the consequences.

The only time which that might not be the case is when dealing with children. Children should, in my opinion, be required by law to wear a seatbelt. If they don't, their parents should be charged with negligence or abuse or something like that. If the only way you can get your kids to wear their seatbelts is by doing it yourself, then fine. But I had plenty of adult role models who never wore seatbelts, and I still always wear mine.
No, like it or not, but you are responsible for the people in your car. Be it children or adults. Nobody drives in my car without being buckled up. Period. Because the driver is responsible. Not just morally responsible, but also legally responsible.

But even when you are alone in your car, you have to follow the rules that are set to protect you. LIke it or not, the rules are there and you have to stick to them. Period. An airbag won't help you if you are not buckled up. If there are less people like you who don't think it should be mandatory to wear seatbealts, the more people die in car accidents. That's why the government made it mandatory and the death toll decreased. Hence, you should wear one.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
biscuit
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 07:52 AM
 
In the UK we've had some really good TV campaigns on road safety recently. It's all part of a campaign called THINK! Here's one about why you should wear seatbelts in the back:

Backwards

There are a whole load more to be found about seatbelts here and other road safety aspects here. I think this one is particularly affecting:

It's 30 mph for a reason.

biscuit
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 10:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by entrox
While we're at it, we should also forbid smoking (lung cancer), every sport except Chess (risk of injury) and make all corners round (risk of tripping and busting your head open). All of those contribute to people unnecessarily clogging up the medical system.
You obviously haven't played chess in the places I've played.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Goldfinger
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 11:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by fireside
so a 16 year old with no driving experienced is unexperienced, but an 18 year old with no driving experienced is experienced? is there some time within that two year time period where you're supposed to magically get driving experience without driving?
Yes, the are less puberal and are less reckless. And add to that that I said "18" because that is the legal age in most countries. When these young drivers are legally liable for what they do they will be more carefull.

Originally Posted by d.fine
That's just stupid. So while we're at it not letting the government protect us lets just pass international laws allowing abortion and euthanasia at will, no questions asked. Just let everyone do what the want when they want it. Good philosophy...
When you fall into a whole in the street because it was badly made, who are you going to sue? Since you wont let anyone protect you, then anything that happens to you is 100% your fault.
I don't really get your argument about falling in a hole. I would sue the government body that is responsible for the roads, duh. But what has that to do with me wearing seatbelts or not ?

And for the record: I'm all for abortion and euthanasia. Abortion with no questions asked since you don't kill a thinking form of life if you do it in an early stage and euthanasia should be possible after a certain number of doctors agree on it. Multiple medical opinions.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie
No, like it or not, but you are responsible for the people in your car. Be it children or adults. Nobody drives in my car without being buckled up. Period. Because the driver is responsible. Not just morally responsible, but also legally responsible.

But even when you are alone in your car, you have to follow the rules that are set to protect you. LIke it or not, the rules are there and you have to stick to them. Period. An airbag won't help you if you are not buckled up. If there are less people like you who don't think it should be mandatory to wear seatbealts, the more people die in car accidents. That's why the government made it mandatory and the death toll decreased. Hence, you should wear one.
No, again, I am not responsible. Not even legally.
Airbags work if you don't wear your seatbelt.

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 11:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
No, like it or not, but you are responsible for the people in your car. Be it children or adults. Nobody drives in my car without being buckled up. Period. Because the driver is responsible. Not just morally responsible, but also legally responsible.

But even when you are alone in your car, you have to follow the rules that are set to protect you. LIke it or not, the rules are there and you have to stick to them. Period. An airbag won't help you if you are not buckled up. If there are less people like you who don't think it should be mandatory to wear seatbealts, the more people die in car accidents. That's why the government made it mandatory and the death toll decreased. Hence, you should wear one.
That's fine; your car, your rules. If I were ever to ride in your car, I'd follow them (not that I wouldn't anyway...). And I'd do the same in my car. I've never actually had to deal with it before but I'd definitely prefer people riding in my car to wear their seatbelts as well. For reasons of safety and also because I don't want to get stuck with a ticket. But that doesn't mean this behavior should be codified into law.

Yes people wearing seatbelts will decrease the number of deaths in accidents, but it's not the government's job (or it shouldn't be) to prevent death and protect mentally competant adults from themselves. It's job is (or should be) only to protect its citizens from the actions of others.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 11:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Goldfinger
No, again, I am not responsible. Not even legally.
Airbags work if you don't wear your seatbelt.
Airbags are used to supplement seatbelts. Obviously, an airbag still works in the sense that it really does inflate. But your head/body will be a lot closer so the careful timing which was calculated for someone wearing a seatbelt is completely wrong (it inflates too late). Furthermore, aribags won't really help you avoiding injuries, so in this sense, they don't work.

To counteract this point, the states use a different kind of airbag and a different timing (larger which is inflated earlier), because many people don't wear seatbelts.

And if you continue to believe you might not be held responsible for injuries of passengers in your car, you can be held responsible for it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
And if you continue to believe you might not be held responsible for injuries of passengers in your car, you can be held responsible for it.
It's not an issue of whether or not you're legally responsble, it's an issue of whether or not you should be legally responsible.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman
It's not an issue of whether or not you're legally responsble, it's an issue of whether or not you should be legally responsible.
No, it's not should be, if you are negligent, you can be made responsible for it. Click me here. Clearly shows you are wrong.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
No, it's not should be, if you are negligent, you can be made responsible for it. Click me here. Clearly shows you are wrong.
I understand what the law currently says and don't deny that I am legally responsible as you say. What I do deny is that this is the best way to do things. I'm saying the law should be changed to recognize the fact that I have the right to risk my own life if I so desire. It's no one's place but my own to tell me what I can and can't do to myself.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman
I understand what the law currently says and don't deny that I am legally responsible as you say. What I do deny is that this is the best way to do things. I'm saying the law should be changed to recognize the fact that I have the right to risk my own life if I so desire. It's no one's place but my own to tell me what I can and can't do to myself.
Ok, then I misunderstood you.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 03:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Ok, then I misunderstood you.
Funny how so many disagreements actually aren't.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 10:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman
********. I'm responsible for me, you're responsible for you. If you decide not to put your seatbelt on and then get seriously injured because of it you have no grounds to try and blame it on me even if you saw me not wearing a seatbelt first. You made the decision to follow my example, you are responsible for the consequences.

The only time which that might not be the case is when dealing with children. Children should, in my opinion, be required by law to wear a seatbelt. If they don't, their parents should be charged with negligence or abuse or something like that. If the only way you can get your kids to wear their seatbelts is by doing it yourself, then fine. But I had plenty of adult role models who never wore seatbelts, and I still always wear mine.

As the driver its your job to wait until every one seat belts is on before you start to drive. If some one in your car refuses to use a seatbelt you tell them to walk or use it. They will usally use it. Its your car, you are the driver its your responsibility that all passengers are in seat belts.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 11:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
As the driver its your job to wait until every one seat belts is on before you start to drive. If some one in your car refuses to use a seatbelt you tell them to walk or use it. They will usally use it. Its your car, you are the driver its your responsibility that all passengers are in seat belts.
Does it stop being my responsibility when I'm in a country with no seatbelt laws?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:29 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,