Ronzuki wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:48 am
The simplest and cheapest solution is ditch the TPMS and let the cards fall where they may. Oh the horror. THEN hold the offending, inconsiderate, negligible moron(s) (those people that can't be trusted as you say) accountable. Accountable in very unpleasant, embarrassing, uncomfortable, public fashion while dispensing a tad bit more than a simple fine behind closed doors accompanied by a slap on the wrist, for their stupidity and laziness. And it sure as hell doesn't involve lawyers. I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out what that actually means. Simple, clear, and real
enough for you?
See, again, unrealistic. I keep saying it because it is. The notion of accountability is how our system works with DUIs and it doesn't prevent much of it. Thousands die every year from drunk drivers and many victims are people who were doing nothing wrong.
As for a system that doesn't involve lawyers yet wants to dish out punishment is literally unconstitutional. Don't forget that the Constitution has more than the first two amendments that get all the attention. The majority of the Bill of Rights has to do with a defendant's rights and your proposed "solution" would be unconstitutional. This is why I made the reference to North Korea. Again and again, unrealistic. Also, TPMS sounds wonderful and much more effective in comparison.
Woodie wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:37 am
"The way you see it" is a wild over reaction, the benefit is minuscule but the cost and inconvenience is massive. We could save 40,000 lives per year if cars were incapable of going over 30 mph, vehicular death would be almost unheard of, but the economy would grind to a halt. Outlawing motorcycles would save 100 times as many lives as TPMS. My earlier example of forcing manufacturers to armor car roofs in case of asteroid is ludicrous but merely the extreme extrapolation of this thinking. You probably think that TPMS is good and armoring roofs or outlawing motorcycles is too much. I think mandating that manufacturers install seatbelts was good but airbags (and everything since) were too much.
Living life incurs risk, those who wish to be protected from risk at any cost are not really living, they're running scared.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
First, TPMS is really not infringing on liberty. It can be annoying but it's certainly not meddling with an "essential liberty". As you pointed out yourself, it doesn't even keep one from driving with underinflated tires.
As for cars not going over 30 MPH, outlawing motorcycles, and asteroids:
Americans travel at rather high speeds on average. Given our vast space, interstate freeway and highway system, and longer commute distances with people living in suburbs, the US is a nation where people travel further and faster than most others. For this reason, USDM vehicles need to meet higher specs for crash testing than many other nations. I can certainly relate to the JDM as I'm familiar with Japan. JDM specs are not up to the standards of the USDM but the roads and highways there are very different than that of the US. One simply cannot easily travel as fast and far there as here. Nearly all highways in Japan are also tolled, reducing costs for citizens who don't use the highway system (most people). This has a lot to do with why vehicles like the Suzuki Samurai in the US were scrutinized and, even when vindicated legally, they lost popularity. People thought they were unsafe at higher speeds and quite frankly, they weren't good at higher speeds. Meanwhile, the direct successor to the Samurai (Jimny) is wildly popular even today in Japan and other nations... that don't need to drive them at American freeway speeds. My point in this is that cars in America travel at higher speeds regularly thus there needs to be more safety implementation to keep accident and fatality rates lower. The whole tire blowout and rollover issue probably didn't relate to Ford Explorers with Firestone tires traveling at 30 MPH or under, right? We obviously need to travel faster than that so safety laws and tech take this into account.
As for motorcycles, they are indeed inherently higher risk vehicles... but really only for the rider. They seldom cause injury or fatalities for other motorists. This is quite the contrary for cars. On a motorcycle, you are largely responsible for your own safety. Even then, some states have no helmet laws and some people love that "freedom". Subsequently, the states with no helmet laws have higher rates of organ donors so that's a good thing? However, the most important aspect here is that motorcyclists are a small minority. They really don't represent enough of a population of motorists to matter in terms of general traffic safety. Also don't forget that in many states, motorcycling is only realistic certain seasons of the year.
I'm just going to pass on asteroids for reasons you already mentioned.
As for airbags, they are definitely a pros vs. cons topic. There is no doubt that the plentiful airbags we now have in cars are unnecessarily totaling cars as we've seen here. It's sad to think a beloved Kizashi is going to the crusher from a minor collision because most of the airbags deployed (too expensive to replace and repair airbag components). The other side is the benefit that airbags offer. The industry took notice that even when seatbelts were used, there were significant external and internal bodily injuries to occupants in collisions. Researchers, medical professionals, and engineers were finding that many drivers had injuries to their ribs and organs from the steering wheel, even when wearing a seatbelt. Another major concern was mitigating the impact of the internal organs inside the body on bones and other organs. A seatbelt did not do much to alleviate a body's internal impact but airbags did. It was from this sort of study and research that airbags were born. Subsequently, serious internal injuries were reduced. While airbags totaled cars easier, serious injuries were mitigated overall. Personally, I'd rather have ruptured headliners and airbags deployed totaling my Kizashi over a ruptured liver and broken ribs. Cars are replaceable. Are you?
As for the part about life and risks: Yes. I agree. I partake in "risky" activities that many criticize. I ride a motorcycle and I'm also very outdoorsy. I love to hike at night (doing it long before it became a thing due to the pandemic) and I do it in cougar country. My job is also not the safest and the pandemic didn't have me working from home at all as constitutional rights do not "stay at home". However, with automobiles, the risk factor involves more than one individual driver or their car. The consequence of one's negligence can affect others on the road or on the sidewalk. It's not hard to imagine why then that systems that prevent, reduce, or mitigate the severity of the worst case scenario are implemented and will continue to be.
Lastly, don't forget that Ben Franklin was an innovator. He was an intelligent man who sought discovery and invention. I have a strong feeling he'd side with innovation for solutions rather than sulk about a liberty that's actually not at risk. He also liked drinking so I think the idea of an automated car driving him around while he's wasted would have tickled his fancy.