This is an interesting thread. I looked at the reference and read it all.
Makes sense, but I don't think people consciously decide they need to
restore some level of risk, it is just a natural thing. Too safe is boring,
I guess. It is for me.
I have always been kind of a risk taker. Nothing too drastic, but I find
some excitement is needed. Never thought I am much different than other
people...
Lately safety has become a sales tool. See the advert about the Chevy Blazer
driving through a rain storm and the announcer telling everyone how safe
they are inside. To me, a blizzard or heavy thunderstorm is an exciting
event which breaks up the daily monotony. I enjoy them, not fear them. But I
notice my wife is not the same way - she enjoys them if I'm driving, but not
if she is.
Don't mean to get too heavy with the philosophy, but the purpose of life is
not to be safe (IMHO). The purpose is to DO SOMETHING, and that means you
need to take some risks. Avoid the big risks, and don't take too many
foolishly (but go ahead and take that hang-glider lesson if it interests
you) but don't sit around worrying about how to be safer.
I have always worn seat belts and shoulder harness in autos and airplanes.
(Note how they used to be called seat belts and now they are called safety
belts !!) Bought a 70 Chevy C-50 without belts and really feel uncomfortable
driving it without them. But I don't much care whether I have an air bag or
ABS.
Someone commented about the warnings on food and products. Why all the
warnings? Is it because people are not aware of the common details of life?
Kids seem to learn about hot stoves before they are old enough to read
warning labels etc. IMO if you don't know a cup of coffee is hot when it is
poured, you deserve to find out the hard way. That lesson will stick with
you.
This will probably sound very crass, but I don't think it is. Many 'safety
issues' are really about power and control. If a special interest group
wants to get something done, they say it is for safety or for the children
and then it is hard to oppose them. Death is a part of life. All we can do
is tinker with the timing. As someone else said about this: my epitaph
should read only, "When he was alive, he lived."
Gwyn Reedy
Brandon, Florida
mailto:mgr@mgrcorp.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-oletrucks@autox.team.net
> [mailto:owner-oletrucks@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Lewis Osborn
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 10:55 AM
> To: oletrucks-digest@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: [oletrucks] Off-topic: Older vs. Newer vehicles- which is
> safer?
>
>
> 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
|