[geeks] Mac definitions

[Phil Stracchino]

On 07/15/11 17:44, Shannon wrote:
> On 15-Jul-2011 17:12, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> 
>>> This kind of belt has been widely shown to be dangerous. They even tried
>>> to make the shoulder part automatic for a few years, with disastrous
>>> accident results (i.e. worse than not having one at all).
>>
>> Dangerous how?
> 
> Because it pushes your lower body into the floor in an accident if you
> don't wear the lap part, and they were not as strong and reliable as the
> non-automatic ones.

Oh, so like any seatbelt, "dangerous if not worn properly".

>> Large gaps, sure.  I basically left myself just enough slack to be able
>> to move around a little.
> 
> Three inches is very large. Even a little bit has an effect and it can
> be pretty big changes in the spike force in an impact.

I'm guesstimating the three inches at this point.  What I can tell you
is that I allowed myself less forward movement than  an inertia-reel
belt allows in a sudden stop before it latches.


>> But you, the adult, are not ALLOWED to have a five-point harness.
>> Because it didn't come originally with the car.  The law requires that
>> you wear the original factory installed seat belt.  
> 
> Oh I agree they have it backwards.
> 
> Of course remember that the law is not written for you and I: it is
> written for the slobbering morons out there. A lot of people would no
> doubt do really stupid things if they could install their own or "upgrade".

True.  I often think that we go too far in efforts to protect the stupid
from their own stupidity, when all of the rest of us would be better off
were more of the stupid allowed to select themselves out of the gene pool.

> I would like the option, but I'm not sure I would like what I can
> imagine as the possible results or think of effective ways to prevent or
> reduce it.
> 
> Interesting problem though: could we have a successful and safe market
> for restraint upgrades.

Well, not that I much like government mandates ... but one dead-simple
approach would be to require that all auto manufacturers who sell new
cars in the US provide a five-point-harness option, which must be
available either as a factory order in a new car or as an after-purchase
option installable by the dealer or by a manufacturer-certified installer.

>> You are REQUIRED BY
>> LAW to install a safer retention system for your child than was
>> installed at the factory, but FORBIDDEN BY LAW from installing a safer
>> retention system for yourself or any adult passengers.  The law requires
>> you to use the factory three-point belt that the law doesn't consider
>> safe enough to protect your kids.
> 
> I thought the reason for this was because the factory restraints are
> designed for a certain range of size and weight humans, and children
> fall under that size to the point where the factory harness is not good
> enough?

My understanding is that the laws are written as they are because it's
simpler to just mandate the use of the factory installed seat belts, and
the mandated seat belts are three-point inertia reel because they don't
believe they can persuade enough people to use a harness that requires
more effort.  They have a hard time persuading everyone even just to use
a single-buckle three-point belt.  Which brings us back to protecting
people from the consequences of their own willful stupidity.



-- 
  Phil Stracchino, CDK#2     DoD#299792458     ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
  alaric at caerllewys.net   alaric at metrocast.net   phil at co.ordinate.org
  Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, SQL wrangler, Free Stater
                 It's not the years, it's the mileage.