Re: Automatic fire sprinklers

["krw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <krw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 04:58:08 -0800 (PST), nick markowitz
<nmarkowitz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Jan 16, 7:47 am, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In article
>> <prestwhich-6EA7DF.20541115012...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>  Smitty Two <prestwh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > >     It was known, FYI,
>>
>> > Looks like your transmission was cut off at the end, but thanks for the
>> > history.
>>
>>   Yeah and by now I have forgotten what tremendously salient point I was
>> trying to make (g). I have always thought it sort of an interesting
>> example of the law of unintended consequences that airbags were
>> originally thought as a replacement for seat belts, until they started
>> killing people. Bureaucratic oopsy.
>>    ALthough to be fair, the regs for airbags called for inflation forces
>> that were above what most of the airbags at the time were doing. (Which
>> triggered another round of rulemaking, BTW). I have often wondered if
>> the less aggressive airbags might have actually done their job.

Less aggressive air bags certainly would be better, assuming seat belts are
properly worn.  OTOH, if everyone wore seat belts, airbags would likely have
never made the scene.

>> --
>> "Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
>>  ---PJ O'Rourke
>
>Just look at anti lock brakes how they where suppose to save lives and
>instead end up taking lives when people push down here the strange
>noise there suppose to make and then let off and try to pump there
>brakes instead.
>again lack of education and people die.

Seat belts are hardly an issue of lack of education.