Re: Seat Belts

[Bill Putnam]

> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:31:11 GMT+00:00
> From: i.thomson@talk21.com
>Subject: seat belts
>
>Bill, I hope you don't mind me replying to the whole list as I see

this

>as a very valid debate about our cars. As I see it whatever personal
>conclusions one comes to in this debate what is done to increase

our safety

>will inevitably be a compromise. If we cannot accept this we shoud

not

>be driving them. There is the obvious compromise between safety

and originality ...

Ian, I concur. I believe this should be a personal decision. I
just hope that people who drive these cars grasp that they are not,
and cannot be, anywhere close to a modern car with respect to crashworthiness,
whether or not you have seatbelts, roll bars, and so on (though
a properly installed roll bar and 5 point racing harness is likely
going to improve your chances of surviving many types of crashes).
In almost everything we do in life there are risks, and weighing
the risks vs. benefits is something we do consciously or otherwise
everyday.

Bill Putnam

[Paul Edwards]

Gordon Bubb wrote: The best safety device we can have in ours cars these days is a pass
certificate from an advanced driving organisation, the IAM or RoSPA
here in blighty.

When I was taking the IAM test I zipped past some loiterer and the examiner said approvingly "What we say in the police is that if you're going to have an accident, you should have a bloody good accident". So he obviously didn't consider the impending certificate a perfect safety device.

On a more serious note I feel that the more fool-proof modern cars become the more of a danger their half-awake drivers become with their mobile phones, drink cans etc and the more we should protect ourselves against them. Now I know how much accidents hurt, I'm a lot more keen to minimise their effect.

Paul - TC 8351




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Donald Wilkinson]

digitaldon sez:

I wish to HELL we could quit referring to these occurences, (here and
everywhere else), as ACCIDENTS. These are frikken CRASHES. There's just
about NEVER anything accidental about auto "accidents".

OK, there's my 2cents worth of a pet peeve.

Don
TC 7993

>From: "Paul Edwards"
>To: "mg-tabc list"
>Subject: [mg-tabc] Seat Belts
>Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 23:35:03 -0000
>
>Gordon Bubb wrote: The best safety device we can have in ours cars these
>days is a pass
>certificate from an advanced driving organisation, the IAM or RoSPA
>here in blighty.
>
>When I was taking the IAM test I zipped past some loiterer and the examiner
>said approvingly "What we say in the police is that if you're going to have
>an accident, you should have a bloody good accident". So he obviously
>didn't consider the impending certificate a perfect safety device.
>
>On a more serious note I feel that the more fool-proof modern cars become
>the more of a danger their half-awake drivers become with their mobile
>phones, drink cans etc and the more we should protect ourselves against
>them. Now I know how much accidents hurt, I'm a lot more keen to minimise
>their effect.
>
>Paul - TC 8351
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

[Sam Suklis]

Paul wrote:

> On a more serious note I feel that the more fool-proof modern cars become

the more of a danger their half-awake drivers become with their mobile
phones, drink cans etc and the more we should protect ourselves against
them. Now I know how much accidents hurt, I'm a lot more keen to minimise
their effect.


Hi Paul:
The All-time record example of what you wrote, for us, was the day we were
on the interstate, Northbound in the right hand lane, cruising at 60, when
in my rear-veiew mirror, I caught sight of a Mercedes overtaking us at a
horrendous speed..what had to be about 100mph....As it flashed by, we could
hardly believe our eyes! Try to imagine this: Hot summer day, with windows
down, the woman at the wheel was sitting sideways, with the heels of her
feet resting on the passenger-side window sill...feet out in airstream, her
back resting on the drivers door, talking on a cell-phone with her right
hand, looking through the windshield over her left shoulder, and steering
with the other hand, the car obviously running on the cruise-control. My
wife commented "If she doesn't get killed, she deserves to". Alas,that
seems to be a common mentality of many drivers in the newer cars.

I say it's Darwin's law at work, thinning out the more dysfunctional
components of the gene-pool.

Best regards,

Sam

[vze4xyru]

The trouble is, folks, that stupidos like that will kill good people, not
just themselves. Especially when their car is built as well as the Mercedes.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Suklis"
To: "mg-tabc list" ; "Paul Edwards"

Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: [mg-tabc] Seat Belts


> Paul wrote:
> > On a more serious note I feel that the more fool-proof modern cars
become
> the more of a danger their half-awake drivers become with their mobile
> phones, drink cans etc and the more we should protect ourselves against
> them. Now I know how much accidents hurt, I'm a lot more keen to minimise
> their effect.
>
>
> Hi Paul:
> The All-time record example of what you wrote, for us, was the day we were
> on the interstate, Northbound in the right hand lane, cruising at 60, when
> in my rear-veiew mirror, I caught sight of a Mercedes overtaking us at a
> horrendous speed..what had to be about 100mph....As it flashed by, we
could
> hardly believe our eyes! Try to imagine this: Hot summer day, with windows
> down, the woman at the wheel was sitting sideways, with the heels of her
> feet resting on the passenger-side window sill...feet out in airstream,
her
> back resting on the drivers door, talking on a cell-phone with her right
> hand, looking through the windshield over her left shoulder, and steering
> with the other hand, the car obviously running on the cruise-control. My
> wife commented "If she doesn't get killed, she deserves to". Alas,that
> seems to be a common mentality of many drivers in the newer cars.
>
> I say it's Darwin's law at work, thinning out the more dysfunctional
> components of the gene-pool.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sam
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

[Martin Johnson]

I just don't want myself, my family or any TABC-er to be involved in the
crash they cause.
Be careful-
Martin Johnson
Long Beach, California
TC3586

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Suklis [mailto:ssp15@attbi.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 5:21 PM
To: mg-tabc list; Paul Edwards
Subject: Re: [mg-tabc] Seat Belts


Paul wrote:

> On a more serious note I feel that the more fool-proof modern cars become

the more of a danger their half-awake drivers become with their mobile
phones, drink cans etc and the more we should protect ourselves against
them. Now I know how much accidents hurt, I'm a lot more keen to minimise
their effect.


Hi Paul:
The All-time record example of what you wrote, for us, was the day we were
on the interstate, Northbound in the right hand lane, cruising at 60, when
in my rear-veiew mirror, I caught sight of a Mercedes overtaking us at a
horrendous speed..what had to be about 100mph....As it flashed by, we could
hardly believe our eyes! Try to imagine this: Hot summer day, with windows
down, the woman at the wheel was sitting sideways, with the heels of her
feet resting on the passenger-side window sill...feet out in airstream, her
back resting on the drivers door, talking on a cell-phone with her right
hand, looking through the windshield over her left shoulder, and steering
with the other hand, the car obviously running on the cruise-control. My
wife commented "If she doesn't get killed, she deserves to". Alas,that
seems to be a common mentality of many drivers in the newer cars.

I say it's Darwin's law at work, thinning out the more dysfunctional
components of the gene-pool.

Best regards,

Sam




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[joecurto@aol.com]

Do not delude yourselves that being in a crash in a T type is preferable to
a modern car, may I remind you all that Frank Churchill the # 2 man of the
"T". Register was killed in his TD by a woman who blew a stop sign and hit
him broad side, and had Frank taken the Lincoln he would be here today.
Defensive driving is the answer my friends, and don't tail gate in your T car
just think of the guy ahead of you with modern ABS brakes.

Joe Curto


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ray]

Do not delude yourselves that being in a crash in a T type is preferable to
a modern car, may I remind you all that Frank Churchill the # 2 man of the
"T". Register was killed in his TD by a woman who blew a stop sign and hit
him broad side, and had Frank taken the Lincoln he would be here today.
Defensive driving is the answer my friends, and don't tail gate in your T car
just think of the guy ahead of you with modern ABS brakes.

Very well said, indeed!!
Ray


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chip Hellie]

Ray,
There was a girl in Portland a few years back who was
run over by a semi in her MG TA. The car was totally
flattened, but thank God she was squeezed out like a
orange pip and survived. A Seat belt may have killed
her. Their is no sure way to figure whats best, every
wreck is has its own senario.
You have it right though, Drive defensively, and I
always drive like the other guy wants to "get" me and
so far I've never(knock on ash) been hurt.
Chip Hellie


--- Ray wrote:

>
>
> Do not delude yourselves that being in a crash
> in a T type is preferable to
> a modern car, may I remind you all that Frank
> Churchill the # 2 man of the
> "T". Register was killed in his TD by a woman who
> blew a stop sign and hit
> him broad side, and had Frank taken the Lincoln he
> would be here today.
> Defensive driving is the answer my friends, and
> don't tail gate in your T car
> just think of the guy ahead of you with modern ABS
> brakes.
>
> Very well said, indeed!!
> Ray
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

[Frank O_ The Mountain]

In a message dated 1/21/03 18:01:26 Pacific Standard Time,
chiphelli@yahoo.com writes:

>

That is so right! There was a head on today in Napa County. All four people
in the Japanese jelly bean that spun out of control and hit the Jeep Cherokee
head on were killed. All four had on seat belts according to the reports.
It just depends! But what are your chances if you get hit by an Urban
Assault Vehicle? And what are now the odds that indeed you will be involved
with a UAV?? The end is nigh!

Terry