4 ms·
the seatbelt example isn't a 100% fit as seatbelt-opposers argued that seatbelts actually increase the risk of drowning, so they're not a security improvement b
by stefs 3y ago
the seatbelt example isn't a 100% fit as seatbelt-opposers argued that seatbelts actually increase the risk of drowning, so they're not a security improvement but a trade-off.
of course, cases of drowning in an automobile where the passengers would have survived without a seatbelt are incredibly rare, while all other accidents where seatbelts help are comparably common.
- pjmlp 3y agoThe book unsafe at any speed, is a good background on the resistance regarding security improvements in the car industry.
- dralley 3y agoI have doubts that would even be true. I'll gladly take a struggle to remove the seatbelt over receiving a head trauma immediately prior needing to escape the car and swim to safety.
- Ygg2 3y agoFirst, the biggest problem for drowning in a car isn't seatbelts but windows. People will remember to unhook the seatbelts, and by that time it will be too late to open windows. In essence, you're arguing for the removal of windows, not seatbelts. Second, the nirvana fallacy is comparing actual things to unrealistic, idealized alternatives. You're comparing actual (seat belts) to an idealized alterative (something that prevents all car crashes, no matter the cause). Third, it's a less generalized example. Stuff seatbelts don't protect and might even lessen chances of survival - rockets, gunfire, rhinoceros, trains, meteors, nuclear blasts, black holes, multiversal collapse.
- stefs 3y agothe argument that seatbelts cause drowning wasn't mine personally but one an original advocate against seatbelts brought. shortly after the guy died in a car accident. i don't even back out of the garage without my seatbelt on. could have been this one: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/seat-belt-advocate-killed/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/seat-belt-advocate-killed/