What you really have to be concerned about, is that you would never see
these warnings if someone wasn't dumb enough to do it first! It's like Jeff
Foxworthy says in one of his skits-he was told, when his wife was about to
give birth-"Do not have s*x after your wife's water breaks". To him, this
was needlessly stated common sense, but somebody must have tried it to
prompt the medical profession to tell patients!
Regards,
Doug Pewterbaugh
dpewter@msn.com
Denton, TX
49 3104 216 5-Window
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Lake <lakek@oit.edu>
To: Lewis Osborn <losborn@teleport.com>; oletrucks-digest@autox.team.net
<oletrucks-digest@autox.team.net>
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [oletrucks] Off-topic: Older vs. Newer vehicles- which is
safer?
>I couldn't have said it better my self. I often wonder about the
>intelligence level of some people. Why should you have to have a warning
>sticker to tell you that your coffee is hot, or that you shouldn't drink
>your shampoo? I think somebody is trying to legislate "natural selection"
>out of existence. Just my two cents worth. I used to work with a guy who
>nearly died when his "boom box" fell into his hot tub. The only thing that
>saved him was a neighbor that new CPR and the fact that his thrashing
>around pulled the plug from the wall. You just have to wonder some times.
>
>Kevin Lake 56 napco/burb GMC
>
>
>----------
>> From: Lewis Osborn <losborn@teleport.com>
>> To: oletrucks-digest@autox.team.net
>> Subject: Re: [oletrucks] Off-topic: Older vs. Newer vehicles- which is
>safer?
>> Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 7:55 AM
>>
>> From: Jeremy Eastman <jeastman@appliedtheory.com>
>>
>> >Don't take this as my having a grief with seat belts or good brakes (I
>> have
>> >'em both), but there's a theory here about modern automotive safety
>> devices
>> >and traffic fatalities that some ole trucker's might find interesting.
>> >
>> >Risk Homeostasis and the Futility of Protecting People from Themselves
>> >http://www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Personal%20Freedom/RiskHomeostasis.htm
>> >
>> >Basically, [steel dash = more perceived risk = safer driving]
>> >(Or, if we all had 2 gallons of nitro under the dash, would there be as
>> >many traffic accidents?)
>>
>> Problem is, all those other drivers have rubber dashes and air bags.
>>
>> I think about this often, as my other hobby is motorcycle touring, where
>> there is no such thing as a "fender-bender." When I was growing up, the
>> only reason there were infant/child car seats was so the kid could see
>> out easier. I/we found it was easier for me to stand up in the seat. I
>> also rode in the back of pickups and trucks every once in a while. Seat
>> belts? I never used one until I was old enough to vote. I survived my
>> childhood. Did some kids die who would have lived had they been
>> following todays laws? Sure, but I think that people, in general, had
>> more common sense, and gave more thought to the consequences of their
>> actions 40 years ago than they do now. Why? I don't know, but it
>> _could_ have something to do with the fact that the government is
>> "offering" to to so much of our thinking for us, anymore. Why should it
>> be necessary to tell us to keep fresh meat refridgerated or frozen, for
>> instance?
>>
>> I'm not suggesting that safety features should not be used. If I had
>> kids in my home, I'd use car seats, and I use seatbelts all of the
>> time - and a helmet when I'm on the motorcycle. I do agree that some -
>> many? - people use "safe" cars as a reason to be a less "safe" driver.
>> I'm sure that there will soon be a law against being an 'un-safe"
>> driver. :-)
>>
>> Lewis - K7LVO Valley of the Rogue-Medford, OR
>> "The Forty" - 40 Chevy PU - One Owner
>> http://www.teleport.com/~losborn/1940.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
>oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
|