Another Cirrus BRS deployment:

SlackKiller claims: Actually, (IIRC), there was a surge in people
thinking themselves
invincible

Oyster responds: Had you asked
for corroboration and received "common talk" as an answer, I would
expect you to reply "bull****".

SixKilled adroitly responds:Why don't you go screw yourself, punk.


Proof positive that at least one jerk considers himself invincible, and
inarguable. Take away his seatbelts!

"StellaStar" wrote in message
...
SlackKiller claims: Actually, (IIRC), there was a surge in people
thinking themselves
invincible

Oyster responds: Had you asked
for corroboration and received "common talk" as an answer, I would
expect you to reply "bull****".

SixKilled adroitly responds:Why don't you go screw yourself, punk.


Proof positive that at least one jerk considers himself invincible, and
inarguable. Take away his seatbelts!

If you notice, I said (IIRC) which means, since you either don't know or
don't bother to pay close enough attention, "If I Recall Correctly"). How
does that claim invincibility?

I was making a comment, not trying to score debating points with a punk who
wasn't me to corroborate something that was a passing fancy 40 years ago.

If you think this spunk that comes back as so high and mighty is
"invincible" then have at it. Stella, you're a nice lady, but sometimes
you're really full of it.

John Ousterhout opined

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:18:54 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:

Did you also acuse pilots of flying carelessly once they had seat
belts?

Actually, (IIRC), there was a surge in people thinking themselves invincible
when seatbelts started becoming commonplace in cars (1960's).

Could you please cite a source for this dubious "fact".

- J.O.-

There is documentation for a simular effect. In the mid-80s Maggie Thatcher
mandated seatbelt usage in England. There was a drop in driver and passenger
deaths. There was also an increase in pedestrian and cyclist deaths. What was
not included in the New Scientist article was the net change in deaths.

It is strongly suggested that safety devices change operator behavior. See
also "moral hazard" and insurance.t



-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

Ash,

There was a drop in driver and passenger
deaths. There was also an increase in pedestrian and cyclist deaths.


Yes? So? What's the correlation?

There is a steady decline in both the number of newborn babies in
Germany and the number of storks living here. Is that proof for the
traditional belief that storks bring the babies?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert opined

Ash,

There was a drop in driver and passenger
deaths. There was also an increase in pedestrian and cyclist deaths.


Yes? So? What's the correlation?

Change in law, deaths inside cars go down with increased seatbelt usage as
expected. But there was an increase in deaths outside of cars at the same
time.

Sounds like a correlation to me.

There is a steady decline in both the number of newborn babies in
Germany and the number of storks living here. Is that proof for the
traditional belief that storks bring the babies?

It's a correlation.

There is a difference. There is no theory to tie storks and babies together.
There is a reason to tie seatbelt usage ( _and other safety devices_ ) to
changes in death rates. Insurance changes behaviour.



-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...
Thomas Borchert opined

Ash,

There was a drop in driver and passenger
deaths. There was also an increase in pedestrian and cyclist deaths.


Yes? So? What's the correlation?

Change in law, deaths inside cars go down with increased seatbelt usage as
expected. But there was an increase in deaths outside of cars at the same
time.

Sounds like a correlation to me.

There is a steady decline in both the number of newborn babies in
Germany and the number of storks living here. Is that proof for the
traditional belief that storks bring the babies?

It's a correlation.

There is a difference. There is no theory to tie storks and babies
together.
There is a reason to tie seatbelt usage ( _and other safety devices_ ) to
changes in death rates. Insurance changes behaviour.

BINGO!! Ash!

Finally someone understand the psychological aspects of something as simple
and commonplace as driving a car.

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...

It's a correlation.

There is a difference. There is no theory to tie storks and babies
together.
There is a reason to tie seatbelt usage ( _and other safety devices_ ) to
changes in death rates. Insurance changes behaviour.

Just like any other incentive/disincentive. Think of the pathologies that
the welfare systems created.