4 ms·

That link isn't very fair, in 1956, he pushed ford to roll out safety as a sales point, they got plowed over by GM that year, and determined rightly, that safet

by Aloha 7y ago

That link isn't very fair, in 1956, he pushed ford to roll out safety as a sales point, they got plowed over by GM that year, and determined rightly, that safety doesn't sell. He was in favor of seat belts, opposed to airbags (I still think airbags have a poor rate of return - dollars for lives saved).

oblio 7y ago
> I still think airbags have a poor rate of return - dollars for lives saved It depends on how much you value your life and your body parts. I value them quite highly ;)
behringer 7y ago
How many lives saved until airbags are worth the cost?
- nate_meurer 7y ago
  Please don't do that. Although airbags are much less controversial now than when they were first introduced, there is still legitimate debate about cost vs benefit, especially given that airbags themselves are quite capable of causing injury.
  - behringer 7y ago
    Please don't do what? Debate the topic? Learn to communicate respectfully.
    - dang 7y ago
      You've broken the site guidelines in quite a few comments today. We ban accounts that do that. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and using HN in its intended spirit? We'd be grateful.
      - behringer 7y ago
        I'll concede your point and try to be more pleasant, but you definitely need to put a stop to these passive aggressive commentators. May I suggest a new rule to that effect?
    - nate_meurer 7y ago
      No, the debate is fine of course. But you framed your question as an oblique attack, implying some sort of ethical deficiency on the part of the parent. It presumes the least charitable interpretation of Aloha's comment -- that they are doing nothing more than comparing lives to dollars using a binary criteria. In reality, the debate over mandating safety technology is nuanced and not at all straightforward. Airbags are a great example. Yes they save a lot of lives, no question. But they're also explosive devices aimed at your head from two feet away, which can easily add tens of thousands of dollars to your hospital bill. Ask all the folks whose wrists are broken by airbags that deploy in otherwise relatively minor fender benders. Never mind the fact that airbags are a lethal threat to small or frail people like kids and the elderly and disabled. Airbags themselves are quite expensive. They add thousands of dollars to the purchase price of a new car, and they cost thousands of dollars to replace, if their deployment didn't cause your insurance company to total your car, which it frequently does. I keep only liability insurance on my car, because that's what I can afford, but that also means I probably can't afford to fix my car even after a minor accident if the airbags deploy. I appreciate the airbags' protection in the event of a catastrophic wreck, but I also live in just a little bit of fear of them because they can conceivably total my car and break my arms if I get rear-ended. It happens often enough that there are attorneys who have built careers on airbag lawsuits. So yeah, there's lots of room for argument here, and no surprise that there are strong feelings about it. And it also shouldn't surprise you that passive-aggressive comments to the tune of, "So exactly how much is a life worth to you?" might get you frowned at a little.
      - Aloha 7y ago
        You basically covered everything I wanted to say.
      - behringer 7y ago
        It was a valid question to the statement. He's saying the costs are too high for the safety they provide. Obviously this is categorically false on its face, considering car companies wouldn't use them if they didn't save lives. Secondly, I welcome a debate, instead all I got, before this last fine post, was you asking me to "please stop." and little else added to the conversation that isn't already obvious. My statement may have been a loaded question, but it was certainly not a passive aggressive statement on the order of politely being asked to sod off.

by Aloha 7y ago

oblio 7y ago

> I still think airbags have a poor rate of return - dollars for lives saved It depends on how much you value your life and your body parts. I value them quite highly ;)

behringer 7y ago

How many lives saved until airbags are worth the cost?

nate_meurer 7y ago
Please don't do that. Although airbags are much less controversial now than when they were first introduced, there is still legitimate debate about cost vs benefit, especially given that airbags themselves are quite capable of causing injury.
- behringer 7y ago
  Please don't do what? Debate the topic? Learn to communicate respectfully.
  - dang 7y ago
    You've broken the site guidelines in quite a few comments today. We ban accounts that do that. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and using HN in its intended spirit? We'd be grateful.
    - behringer 7y ago
      I'll concede your point and try to be more pleasant, but you definitely need to put a stop to these passive aggressive commentators. May I suggest a new rule to that effect?
  - nate_meurer 7y ago
    No, the debate is fine of course. But you framed your question as an oblique attack, implying some sort of ethical deficiency on the part of the parent. It presumes the least charitable interpretation of Aloha's comment -- that they are doing nothing more than comparing lives to dollars using a binary criteria. In reality, the debate over mandating safety technology is nuanced and not at all straightforward. Airbags are a great example. Yes they save a lot of lives, no question. But they're also explosive devices aimed at your head from two feet away, which can easily add tens of thousands of dollars to your hospital bill. Ask all the folks whose wrists are broken by airbags that deploy in otherwise relatively minor fender benders. Never mind the fact that airbags are a lethal threat to small or frail people like kids and the elderly and disabled. Airbags themselves are quite expensive. They add thousands of dollars to the purchase price of a new car, and they cost thousands of dollars to replace, if their deployment didn't cause your insurance company to total your car, which it frequently does. I keep only liability insurance on my car, because that's what I can afford, but that also means I probably can't afford to fix my car even after a minor accident if the airbags deploy. I appreciate the airbags' protection in the event of a catastrophic wreck, but I also live in just a little bit of fear of them because they can conceivably total my car and break my arms if I get rear-ended. It happens often enough that there are attorneys who have built careers on airbag lawsuits. So yeah, there's lots of room for argument here, and no surprise that there are strong feelings about it. And it also shouldn't surprise you that passive-aggressive comments to the tune of, "So exactly how much is a life worth to you?" might get you frowned at a little.
    - Aloha 7y ago
      You basically covered everything I wanted to say.
    - behringer 7y ago
      It was a valid question to the statement. He's saying the costs are too high for the safety they provide. Obviously this is categorically false on its face, considering car companies wouldn't use them if they didn't save lives. Secondly, I welcome a debate, instead all I got, before this last fine post, was you asking me to "please stop." and little else added to the conversation that isn't already obvious. My statement may have been a loaded question, but it was certainly not a passive aggressive statement on the order of politely being asked to sod off.