NationStates Jolt Archive

Please place your approval on this propsal:

Most Industries today have to raise their prices for the things they make because the government has put on regulations. Most of these regulations are stupid, such as having to have a seat belt or an air bag in a car. If the person who buys the car does not want one, then why make them buy it. Those little extras which are added raise the price of goods. Plus, with so many companies competing in today's world, the average Industry is making the best thing possible to compete in the market. Therefore all nations are strongly recommended to reduce their regulations on Industries. This would increase the economy.

We of Chumba, feel that the regulation placed on Industries shouldn't be lifted. The reason a car comes with the added safety extras is for the safety of the occupants. As within Industry, the regulations stay to make the work enviroment a better and safer place for all, and for the enviroment.

Those 'extras' are essential to saving lives. I'd rather have an accountable electable official deciding what makes machinary safer than a businessman interested in his bottom line.

Those 'extras' are essential to saving lives. I'd rather have an accountable electable official deciding what makes machinary safer than a businessman interested in his bottom line.

I a person does not want to have a seat belt in their car, I think it is ok, because they would only be hurting themselves.

industrial rites in carlemnaria consist of the traditional quadranual indigenous blessing of automated robotic manufacturing facilities

these are perfomed on every solstice and equanox

other rites are often conducted by scantily clad young apprentice priestessess in the company of their male counterparts or with the assistance of mechanical substitutes

=^^=
.../\...

Those 'extras' are essential to saving lives. I'd rather have an accountable electable official deciding what makes machinary safer than a businessman interested in his bottom line.

I a person does not want to have a seat belt in their car, I think it is ok, because they would only be hurting themselves.

Unless of course their lack of a seatbelt launches them into the person in front of them or even out of the car. At that point they become 100+ pound projectiles travelling at as much as 75 mph on some highways. That seems pretty dangerous to the other parties in my eyes.

Just give the Industries some slack, thats all I am saying. Plus not everbody could own a car and if you got rid of seat belts and air bags than they might be able to afford a car.

Everyone has the right to build his products how he wishes, however dangerous they are. If someone does not like the product, he's free to choose not to buy it.

Everyone has the right to build his products how he wishes, however dangerous they are. If someone does not like the product, he's free to choose not to buy it.

Could not agree more. :D

If safety laws are not put into place, then people will be made unaware of them. If it costs a few billion dollars here or there, then it is still worth it. You can't put a price on a persons life.

Everyone has the right to build his products how he wishes, however dangerous they are. If someone does not like the product, he's free to choose not to buy it.

Wrong. If minimum standards are not in place, manufacturers will sell products with less safety restrictions at lower costs. This will result in economically disadvantaged people being forced to use unsafe products, while the rich can buy safety.

When money is a factor, people are not "free to choose not to buy". Londana believes that safety standards should not be bought, but should be provided to all citizens.

I hate to say this but No your wrong. Companies won't install these safety features in vehicles if it isn't law. These companies are rutheless corporations who are only interested in making money, the first thing they will cut is safety. Think of the tabaco industry. Do you think that they would put health information on the packages if they weren't forced to. Read between the lines.

If you had read my post instead of just reading the first word and hitting the "Post Reply" button, you'd have understood that I was agreeing with you. I was responding to the post above yours when i said "Wrong".

But thank you for proving that these forums seem to be more about talking than listening.

Lumpy Nuts would not support this proposal. It is one thing to reduce the price of a product by not installing features, but to remove safety features of products is to put citizens at risk of hurting themselves.

Lumpy Nuts does not approve of stupidity and a lack of common sense, but it recognizes that it's citizens, who contibute to the economy and society, may have moments of sheer idoticy when it concerns getting "value" for their hard earned money.

Lumpy Nuts will therefore ensure that all products that are sold in the Nation will be safe for it's citizens

I hate to say this but No your wrong. Companies won't install these safety features in vehicles if it isn't law. These companies are rutheless corporations who are only interested in making money, the first thing they will cut is safety. Think of the tabaco industry. Do you think that they would put health information on the packages if they weren't forced to. Read between the lines.

You are all stupid. The only things you have to buy in life are food, water, and clothing. No one makes you buy their products. Your reason is just like the people who sued McDonalds, by saying that it made them fat. Wake up idoits, no one made you buy that food. It was your choice. You do not need to buy a car, nobody forces you to do so. :x

Everyone has the right to build his products how he wishes, however dangerous they are. If someone does not like the product, he's free to choose not to buy it.

Wrong. If minimum standards are not in place, manufacturers will sell products with less safety restrictions at lower costs. This will result in economically disadvantaged people being forced to use unsafe products, while the rich can buy safety.

You're free to do without altogether.

What is this "McDonalds" you speak of?

Those 'extras' are essential to saving lives. I'd rather have an accountable electable official deciding what makes machinary safer than a businessman interested in his bottom line.

I a person does not want to have a seat belt in their car, I think it is ok, because they would only be hurting themselves.


What about if they have a child in their car? Plus, airbags and seatbelts in total don't cost more then about $600 to my knowledge, and that's for the buyer when it comes to replacement, I guarantee you the factory buys them cheaper.

WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?! :roll:

Let's create a police state...it's for the children.

What if the person who causes the accident has a seatbelt... but the victim, the good driver in the other car who is not at fault, with no seatbelt dies?

OOC - A bit of real-life info: in 1983 the UK made seat belts compulsory, mainly to try to reduce the number of people killed and injured in car accidents. And it worked.

But:

When people drive, they accept a certain amount of risk. If you make their cars safer, you reduce risk - so they take more risk with their driving (driving faster, making 'riskier' decisions etc).

So the end result was: number of car drivers killed and injured fell.
Number of pedestrians and cyclists injured and killed increased.

Shee City
(who is full of useless bits of information like this!) :D

Why, when the speed limits on most highways rarely exceed 70mph (apologies to Metric users), are automobiles produced with engines capable of delivering speeds well in excess of 110+ mph?

I am surprised beyond my years that some ninnie hasn't sued the auto industry because excess speed caused a wrongful death and that the liability should be shared by the auto industry (or "my, my, we need to raise the amount of the award since the insurance companies have limits... I know, let's sue the auto industry for making a product which exceeds the common man's good sense prompting him to excessive speeds through advertising and innuendo! Torts and legal immunities aside, lawyers will become rich!)

Safety equipment is a requirement of law in most areas. So it's useless to argue some facets of this point.

However, business acts in its own self-interest and would certainly eschew this equipment if not required to install it.

As for the driver who does not use it or disconnects it or otherwise bypasses its purpose... they should be arrested for aggravated dumbass!

OOC - A bit of real-life info: in 1983 the UK made seat belts compulsory, mainly to try to reduce the number of people killed and injured in car accidents. And it worked.

But:

When people drive, they accept a certain amount of risk. If you make their cars safer, you reduce risk - so they take more risk with their driving (driving faster, making 'riskier' decisions etc).

So the end result was: number of car drivers killed and injured fell.
Number of pedestrians and cyclists injured and killed increased.

Shee City
(who is full of useless bits of information like this!) :D

Sic hoc ergo propter hoc. That's all it was :) You can't say that

(1) Seat belts mandatory, therefore

(2) Number of pedestrians and cyclists injured and killed increased

unless all other things remain equal. What other laws were made ? could they have had any effect ? :) I might as well say

(1) People drink more coffee, therefore

(2) Number of pedestrians and cyclists injured and killed increased

Because they're so keyed up they're less careful, and then tend to ride and walk faster.

or (1) People consume more sugar

or (1) People eat too much, and thus they're fatter and slower. :)

Sic hoc ergo propter hoc. That's all it was :) You can't say that

(1) Seat belts mandatory, therefore

(2) Number of pedestrians and cyclists injured and killed increased

unless all other things remain equal. What other laws were made ? could they have had any effect ?

I seem to remember I originally read it via RoSPA - Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents - who tend to research this kind of thing a lot. I suspect the seat-belt legislation was the major cause at the time, simply because it was such a major change; I remember a hell of a lot of resistance to it at the time. Thing about perceived risk is a well-known human thing, it just has more of an effect when you're moving a ton of metal at up to 70mph.

SC

Why, when the speed limits on most highways rarely exceed 70mph (apologies to Metric users), are automobiles produced with engines capable of delivering speeds well in excess of 110+ mph?

The argument goes something like: if it will only perform up to 70mph, it will only perform efficiently to 50mph and then struggle; raising performance ensures good performance at the speed limit.

The other thing is, some nations don't have speed limits - though the only one I can think of is Germany, and then only on the autobahns.

SC

Ursoria believes in giving private industry a lot of freedom. Freedom for entrepreneurs to start businesses. Freedom for businesses to expand and to flourish. Freedom for private companies to develop new products and to serve consumers according to the dictates of a free market.

But we don't believe that this freedom is, or can ever be, absolute. We don't want people working in unsafe factory conditions, needlessly losing their lives and limbs because their employer failed to install proper safety equipment. We don't want companies mislabelling the foods they sell, or marketing harmful products to children. We don't want companies trashing the air we breathe or the water we drink. And, yes, we do like having some real forests around for our people to enjoy.

So we see a certain amount of regulation as desirable. The important thing, however, is for the regulation to be rationally thought out--rather than badly-written, spur-of-the-moment, "feel good" laws that ruin the economy without solving the problems they were supposed to address.

That's why we don't like many of the latest U.N. resolutions.

Airbags kill children. That's why they say put your kids in the back seat; the passenger side airbag will break their necks.

What they don't say is that passengers 5'2" and shorter will also have their necks broken.

You cannot even have your airbags removed because mechanics are afraid of being sued if you are later injured.

Down with airbags.

If you deregulate there should be full disclosure of hazards so that consumers are aware of assumed trisks and can make an informed choice.

Sic hoc ergo propter hoc. That's all it was :) You can't say that

(1) Seat belts mandatory, therefore

(2) Number of pedestrians and cyclists injured and killed increased

unless all other things remain equal. What other laws were made ? could they have had any effect ?

I seem to remember I originally read it via RoSPA - Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents - who tend to research this kind of thing a lot. I suspect the seat-belt legislation was the major cause at the time, simply because it was such a major change; I remember a hell of a lot of resistance to it at the time. Thing about perceived risk is a well-known human thing, it just has more of an effect when you're moving a ton of metal at up to 70mph.

SC

Well, I guess anyone can suspect what they like.. but it's not a fact until it's proven :)