ANGELFIRE1 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Just ban all motor vehicles - end of motoring accidents. We all buy a horse, and the carnage starts again. Life is about risk, just live it and forget about the nanny state running your life for you. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muldoon Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Everyone should ride bicycles like me, I have a really nice old bike with a basket on that I found abandoned on waste ground last year. How many road deaths are there in bejing due to kids in cars being un belted, I wonder ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Just ban all motor vehicles - end of motoring accidents. We all buy a horse, and the carnage starts again. Life is about risk, just live it and forget about the nanny state running your life for you. Angel. Why not say what you really think? Do you not believe that wearing of seatbelts should be compulsory? What about children? Would you like to repeal the legislation that makes it compulsory for them to be safely restrained when travelling by car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratter71 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Rampant racism in just 8 posts, impressive even for this forum. Where? random Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) ESP? Explain what that does. Electronic Stability Programme Copied from a website (because I can't be bothered typing it all out): An Electronic Stabilization Program is an active safety system that uses the anti-lock brake and traction control sensors amongst others, to detect if a vehicle is sliding out of control. It 'reads' the road and senses if you're in trouble. Sensors monitor vehicle yaw rate (rotational movement of the car), speed, throttle input, steering wheel angle and others to determine if the vehicle is heading in its intended direction. If, for example, you are turning a corner and encounter oversteer (rear wheels are sliding), the sensors will reduce engine power, and apply the brake to the front outside tire. In this situation the front outside tire is being used as a 'pivot point' in which to get the car back on it's intended course. As you can see, a stability system can apply the brake to just one wheel, and/or reduce engine output. This will keep the vehicle headed in the right direction. A stability system works with the traction control system but unlike traction control, it monitors lateral vehicle movement in addition to longitudinal movements. Stability systems are well worth the money. They can dramatically enhance the safety of a vehicle. They can keep the vehicle on course and provide a safety net for a driver should something go wrong. ESP can significantly reduce oversteer and understeer. However, these systems are still subject to the laws of physics. If you take a corner way too fast or do some thing very reckless, a stability management system will not be able to rectify the situation. Different manufacturers use their own names for this system. Nissan for instance call it Vehicle Dynamic Control. Edited March 8, 2012 by Resident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Why not say what you really think? Do you not believe that wearing of seatbelts should be compulsory? What about children? Would you like to repeal the legislation that makes it compulsory for them to be safely restrained when travelling by car? I believe a mother and father know better than the nanny state does about the upbringing of their childer. As for seatbelts, parental choice would be my opinion. The state impinges far too much into our lives as it is, although I accept some folk require the state to nanny them along life's path. Some are incapable of making the smallest rational decisions for themselves. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barbiegirl80 Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 I believe a mother and father know better than the nanny state does about the upbringing of their childer. As for seatbelts, parental choice would be my opinion. The state impinges far too much into our lives as it is, although I accept some folk require the state to nanny them along life's path. Some are incapable of making the smallest rational decisions for themselves. Angel. I have to say, I strongly disagree with you here. Although I do agree with your point concerning parents knowing what's best for their children, the drivers I mentioned weren't exactly acting in the best interest of their child by leaving them unrestrained. And like I said, they made the choice to put their seatbelt on. Either they made that decision consciously and chose to completely ignore the danger, or they are just ignorant to their actions. At least let the kids grow up and THEN give them the option to take that risk, not take it on their behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Closet Guy. Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Rampant racism in just 8 posts, impressive even for this forum. Only if you want to see it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) I believe a mother and father know better than the nanny state does about the upbringing of their childer. As for seatbelts, parental choice would be my opinion. The state impinges far too much into our lives as it is, although I accept some folk require the state to nanny them along life's path. Some are incapable of making the smallest rational decisions for themselves. Angel. Clearly you are offended by the authorities insisting that you do your bit to stay out of harm's way as best you can by wearing a seatbelt. It is not nanny state-ism, it is pure economics. Mashed up bodies aren't pretty and the aftermath is always expensive. As for "rational", try bracing yourself at anything above 4mph impact and you might see the reason for a belt. Try jogging at a reasonable speed towards a lamppost (6 mph). When you get within arm's reach of the lamp try to stop yourself hitting the post. And that's when you don't need any reaction time. "Rational" might mean "but I'm not going to crash" but how many of the 20,000 yearly serious injuries were expected or planned? "Rational" might mean you don't like being told to do something. Ok, fair do's that's your choice of non-compliance. Don't tart it up as rational if you have any interest in keeping in one piece. Edited March 8, 2012 by DT Ralge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikita Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I believe a mother and father know better than the nanny state does about the upbringing of their childer. As for seatbelts, parental choice would be my opinion. The state impinges far too much into our lives as it is, although I accept some folk require the state to nanny them along life's path. Some are incapable of making the smallest rational decisions for themselves. Angel. Do you have children of your own whos lives you risk .or are you just happy to see other peoples children rattling about in cars. I cant imagine any sane person taking a child in a car with no child seat suitable for the childs age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now