I suggest you do some serious inflection then. The auto locks are a security feature, period, no politics. Once again you butt into your own business and place it where it doesn't belong.
Airbags may save your life because some drunk driver smashed into you. It is a safety device. Does the government think we are so stupid that they need to baby us and lock our doors for us?
What does that have to do with the government? You're not doing a good job of demonstrating that you're not so stupid. I've no real concern about car safety but I do think we need some protection from the angry fantasists who think the evil liberal government is out to get them.
We are not fanatics. We just don't fall down at the feet of government and worship it as our god the way libs do.
Taxcutter says; I don't start the post but I do use "Taxcutter says" to foreclose the jackasses on this forum who like to put words in other people's mouths. On balance, regulations have become evil in the US. Maybe at one time they were a necessary evil but now they are just plain evil. - - - Updated - - - Taxcutter says: The author was discussing the exterior looks of cars and says so up front.
Not at all. Why are libs so jealous of Limbaugh? True, he mocks libs who take themselves very seriously. But Limbaugh has no power other than the force of his ideas. What libs hate is having to debate stuff that they have been brainwashed to believe without having to think about it.
I said fantasists, not fanatics. Fanaticism requires some kind of focus or purpose. Fantasists just create their own false image of the world, which probably explains why you saw what you wanted to read rather than what I actually wrote.
It is insulting to basically be told that you are incapable to taking care of yourself, even on minor issues like this. And what do you mean by "what does that have to do with the government"?
That doesn't stop it being true . Anyway, most regulation is about people who are incapable of taking care of others, and there are clearly far too many of them out there. That was specifically in reference to someone moaning about some kind of auto-locking system, which I very much doubt it the result of government regulation but simply a design choice by the manufacturer. It can probably even be switched off.
Typical head in the sand thinking. A few years ago, I bought a 1966 Falcon. It had been a long time since I had driven a 1960's vintage car on the road. It was quite an experience. I realize that you take every feature on your modern car totally for granted, as you seem to do everything else, but things have inproved quite a bit. The Falcon had a steel dash with portruding knobs sticking out like the points of a set of brass knuckles. The steering wheel was attached to a steel shaft aimed straight at my chest. The car wallowed all around the road on its skinny bias ply tires and seemed to need a half mile to stop with its small drum brakes. There were no anti lock brakes, radial tires, airbags, padded dashes, laminated glass, or anything else. BTW, your chances of getting killed in an auto accident have dropped by more than half since then, even as the number of cars on the road have more than doubled, and miles driven have increased. Nearly all of that is due to safety regulations. BTW, it's a lot easier to tell the difference between a Toyota Corolla, a Ford Escort and a Mazda 3 than it is to tell the difference between a 1965 Chevelle, a Fairlane or a Plymouth Belvidere.
All cars have automatic locks now. It is a safety feature, because a locked door is significantly less likely to spring open in an auto accident. It's features like these and the other ones that wingnuts are all whining about here that make it far more likely that you'll walk away from a crash in a modern car than you would have 40 years ago.
Dinner parties. That's it in a nutshell. We have friends and family over for dinner. Dinner parties. How ridiculously self-entitled.
Hurr durr. Thank you. I will keep that in mind next time I am at a stoplight and a drunk (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) decides to rear end me at 30 MPH.
Any car I've ever owned was pre-1995. Never had a door pop open on me once while driving. This should be restricted to minivans or SUVs where kids might be involved. Otherwise, you should be in charge of your own car rather than car made idiot-proof to look after you and at additional cost to you at the dealership with more systems to break-down. Not every driver is an idiot. And those bumper regulations did ruin profiles of some models, such as on Lincolns going from Mark IV to Mark V. Same for Thunderbirds, Mustangs etc. It took a few years before the new heavy bumpers were somewhat stylistically improved, until someone finally came up with an idea of "internal" shocks covered by a plastic bumper shell. It was all over for chrome though.
Fortunately I can still ride a motorcycle. No locks, no doors, no seat belt, no airbags, no helmet (around these parts) and no emissions tests.
Exactly. Defensive driving sure didn't help my wife when she was stopped at a light on an offramp and then got hit from behind so hard that our Jeep was driven halfway through the other SUV in front of her. Thanks to all of the crumple zones and air bags and the seat belt, she just had some neck strain. 40 years ago, she probably would have been knocked unconscious and had a few broken bones.
Busted few knees riding around on scooters. It was discomforting as it was getting pinned underneath one for few seconds before shaking it off. Don't know how you motorcycle people put up with the danger?
She probably would have been killed. Jeeps, while sturdy in terms of off road capabilities, offered little protection in an accident. Like nearly all cars built in that era, they were essentially steel boxes made out of sheet metal, bolted on top of a frame. Not only did they fold up in accidents, they often became part of the hazard inside the car. - - - Updated - - - I hate to be the one to break the news, but the bumper regulations did not change during the years between the Lincoln Continental Mark IV and Mark V.
