A thought on BRS

I'm not saying this is a good tradeoff or a poor one, but it's
disingenuous to pretend it's not there. It's equally disingenuous to
pretend that we couldn't prevent 95% of highway fatalities quite
easily. All it would take is a 35 mph speed limit for divided
highways and a 17 mph speed limit for other roads - and draconian
enforcement. It wouldn't prevent the accidents, but it would
eliminate most of the fatalities. Of course we don't do this because
we want to get where we are going quickly.

Michael

This has been the argument against raising the speed limits on our
highways, ever since they were lowered by that benevolent dictator
Jimmy Carter. The only problem, the argument is wrong! We learned that
after raising the limits and watched the fatality rates continue to
drop.

Common wisdom is, sometimes, uncommon nonsense.

I think the problem is tunnel vision safety analysis by "experts" that
vastly overrate their abilities. Part of the problem with the speed
limits is that drivers weren't obeying the limits to begin with.
Raising the limits merely reflected the reality of the situation.
Draconian enforcement simply won't work, at least not (fortunately) in
the U.S., because law enforcement works only by voluntary compliance.
There simply are not enough cops and jails out there to impose a law
that the vast majority of the population won't accept. This clearly
happened with the poorly thought out national speed limit. But there
still is a group that, even with all of the evidence to the contrary,
thinks that it will work.

Instead, we should put the effort into things that do work. The most
dramatic example of this is mandatory seat belt usage. In Washington
state this became a primary law (you can be stopped for it), which
resulted in compliance rates in the 85-90% range (instead of 15-20%
before there was any law). No changes were required to cars since the
belts were already there. Most people have accepted the law, but there
is still a vociferous minority that reject it. Everybody benefits,
besides being safer, with lower insurance rates.

Tom Seim

Tom Seim wrote:
by that benevolent dictator Jimmy Carter.

I miss the days when we had benevolent dictators,
rather than a not so benevolent one...

Marc

Marc Ramsey wrote:

Tom Seim wrote:
by that benevolent dictator Jimmy Carter.

I miss the days when we had benevolent dictators,
rather than a not so benevolent one...

Marc

LOL
not that its funny, really :-(

Marc Ramsey wrote in message .com...
Tom Seim wrote:
by that benevolent dictator Jimmy Carter.

I miss the days when we had benevolent dictators,
rather than a not so benevolent one...


Ah yes, those days of gas shortages, 15% inflation and international
humiliation at the hands of a bunch of rabid teenagers. Such fond
memories...

Tom

"Tom Seim" wrote in message
om...
snip
Instead, we should put the effort into things that do work. The most
dramatic example of this is mandatory seat belt usage. In Washington
state this became a primary law (you can be stopped for it), which
resulted in compliance rates in the 85-90% range (instead of 15-20%
before there was any law). No changes were required to cars since the
belts were already there. Most people have accepted the law, but there
is still a vociferous minority that reject it. Everybody benefits,
besides being safer, with lower insurance rates.

Tom Seim

Noticed the $94 seatbelt fine in Oregon and the $101 fine posted for
Washington (with the cost on a replaceable tag for both states). Here in
Weld County Colorado, the vast majority of fatal accidents are rollover
ejections where no seat/shoulder belt was in use by driver and additional
occupants.

Seatbelts are still a secondary offense in Colorado.

Frank Whiteley

(Tom Seim) wrote
I think the problem is tunnel vision safety analysis by "experts" that
vastly overrate their abilities. Part of the problem with the speed
limits is that drivers weren't obeying the limits to begin with.

I would suggest that this wasn't part of the problem but all of it.
You're right - speed limits were consistently ignored. Still are.

Draconian enforcement simply won't work, at least not (fortunately) in
the U.S., because law enforcement works only by voluntary compliance.
There simply are not enough cops and jails out there to impose a law
that the vast majority of the population won't accept.

I call bull****. What are you going to do - try to outrun the cop?
Not pay your ticket? Keep driving without a license when it gets
suspended? Join a militia? Get real. You will pay the first few
tickets, and then, when it's a matter of losing your license, you will
comply.

In any case, my point was not that we should have a 35 mph speed
limit. I'm in favor of no speed limit at all on the interstates, just
like the Germans have on the Autobahn. If that ever happens, I will
buy a sportscar again. My point was that a tradeoff between safety
and convenience/fun is reasonable, and anyone who says otherwise is
simply not being honest with himself.

Michael

Martin Gregorie wrote
As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

This issue is the topic of much debate on the other groups in the
rec.aviation hierarchy. Check it out.

Realize that BRS is not new. Some huge chunk of ultralights and
ultralight-type two-seaters are BRS-equipped. These systems have
existed long before the Cirrus, and were not controversial. It took
the Cirrus to make them controversial, for exactly the reason you
pointed out.

Michael

On 26 Apr 2004 11:20:49 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

Martin Gregorie wrote
As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

This issue is the topic of much debate on the other groups in the
rec.aviation hierarchy. Check it out.

Realize that BRS is not new. Some huge chunk of ultralights and
ultralight-type two-seaters are BRS-equipped. These systems have
existed long before the Cirrus, and were not controversial. It took
the Cirrus to make them controversial, for exactly the reason you
pointed out.


I knew that BRS has been around for a fair time. I suppose I got
fooled by the press release claiming that the three Cirrus uses were
the first, but I suppose they meant in a regular, certified aircraft -
with 300 hp in the front the Cirrus is no ultra light for sure.
However, it IS a pretty toy and I can imagine people with more money
than experience buying one and coming unstuck for exactly the same
reasons that would apply if they bought a Ferrari as a first sports
car.

In answer to an earlier poster: I personally don't think the
comparison of BRS and car seat belts is realistic: in a car there's no
close equivalent to flying into conditions you can't handle while
expecting the BRS / seat belt to give you an out. I grant you there is
evidence of seat belts making drivers more dangerous to pedestrians
and cyclists, but that is independent of the road conditions. closer
to the (apocryphal?) stories about Volvo drivers who, after years of
propaganda about driving the safest car on the road, think that they
are invulnerable no matter how badly they drive.
--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
It took
the Cirrus to make them controversial, for exactly the reason you
pointed out.

But the Cirrus gives you something (BRS) and then takes it away (safe
flying qualities). The only POH approved spin recovery for the Cirrus involves
pulling the BRS. Would we put up with that in a glider?

Vaughn



Michael

"Vaughn" wrote
But the Cirrus gives you something (BRS) and then takes it away (safe
flying qualities). The only POH approved spin recovery for the Cirrus involves
pulling the BRS. Would we put up with that in a glider?

No, but a Cirrus is not a glider. A glider is NORMALLY flown just a
few knots over stall in turbulent air, and thus at (relatively) high
risk of spinning. I certainly would not accept a glider that could
not recover from at least a one-turn spin. A cirrus is an IFR
cruiser, and there is no reason to have it flying less than 20% over
stall unless you are within a few feet of the ground. The spin
characteristics of most 200+ mph 4+ person IFR cruisers are pretty
iffy.

Did you know that the F-104 Starfighter not only would not recover
from a spin, but would not recover from a stall either? A stall would
immediately lead to a departure from controlled flight, generally
unrecoverable. Yet it had quite a career.

Michael