Re: Automatic fire sprinklers

[DD_BobK <rkazanjy@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 15, 10:19=A0am, Evan <evan.news.re...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:54=A0am, Smitty Two <prestwh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <d3b9024a-be23-4f66-9444-2a1b8ce51...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>
> > =A0Evan <evan.news.re...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > ... airbags became
> > > a requirement in cars because people were failing to use the
> > > seatbelts...
>
> > I'm not looking around intentionally for things to disagree with you on=
,
> > but you make some irrational assumptions about things.
>
> > Airbags are known by the acronym SRS for a reason. They were *never*
> > intended to replace seatbelts. The issue of people not wearing seatbelt=
s
> > was addressed with seatbelt laws, not airbags.
>
> Bullshit... =A0Airbags are supplemental, they work best when deployed on
> someone who is belted in...
>
> They will stop you from hitting the steering wheel and windshield if
> you
> aren't wearing your seat belt...
>
> Seat belt laws don't *MAKE* people wear them, even when it is a
> primary
> offense that the police could make a traffic stop if they observe you
> not
> belted in...
>
> Airbags are not just there to make it easier on the people properly
> wearing
> seat belts, they are a last ditch effort to save the idiotic who don't
> wear
> belts too...
>
> ~~ Evan

>>>>>>> Airbags are not just there to make it easier on the people properly=
 wearing
seat belts, they are a last ditch effort to save the idiotic who don't
wear belts too...  <<<<<<<

If that is intend their intended purpose do they really accomplish it?
What about collateral damge?

Any comment on this article?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/25466.php