Solution to noisy vehicles

In article et>, Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:

>> Ford, 1950s before any such law. Their failed marketing of safety.
>>
>> 1956 Lifeguard safety package, including
>>
>> * deep-dish, energy-absorbing steering wheel,
>> * double-grip, impact-resistant door latches,
>> * double ball and shatter-resistant, interior rear-view mirror
>> * optional padded instrument panel and sun visor
>> * factory installed, front and rear safety belts (first U.S.
>> manufacturer)
> http://www.ford.ca/english/LearnAbou...st/default.asp )
>
> This was an option installed at extra cost, was it not?

I think so, but ford marketing pushed it pretty hard so I would expect a
fair number of cars on dealers lots were so equipped, but I could be
wrong. The public didn't care for the package anyway, and this set the tone
for the big 3 for years to come. That the market simply didn't want it.

>>> and airbags for examples.
>>
>> Airbags were first installed in GM (and Chrysler?) vehicles in the early
>> 1970s, close to 20 years before the mandate. The automakers found these
>> safety devices had safety problems and correctly fought their use based
>> on that data. Once mandated, their fears were realized.
>
> The problem wasn't with the airbags per se; it was with their design. IMHO
> the design of the airbags was the party line used for delay, but the real
> factor was cutting into profits.

The big problem was the design the government was trying to mandate,
which was the airbag saving an unbelted male. This is what they had the
data on, showing safety problems for smaller people, etc. Now if the
mandate had been for an airbag system with such low deployment force that
it wouldn't save any unbelted passengers but would help belted ones, I
doubt there would have been as much resistance.

> Thanks for the info on the Big Three, though.

They did a lot more, a lot sooner than people give them credit for.
They've done alot of things they deserve blame for too.

Often the systems were trialed on a couple models and failed to be popular
for one reason or another. Years later an 'adovcate' learns of the gizmo
and uses the usual political methods to turn it into an evil plot to
surpress the gizmo. When really what happened was the big company spent
big money developing it only to see it fail in the marketplace or to run
into problems they didn't see worth spending the money on an unpopular
gizmo to solve.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:00:48 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> wrote:

>> Ford, 1950s before any such law. Their failed marketing of safety.
>>
>> 1956 Lifeguard safety package, including
>>
>> * deep-dish, energy-absorbing steering wheel,
>> * double-grip, impact-resistant door latches,
>> * double ball and shatter-resistant, interior rear-view mirror
>> * optional padded instrument panel and sun visor
>> * factory installed, front and rear safety belts (first U.S.
>> manufacturer)
>http://www.ford.ca/english/LearnAbou...st/default.asp )
>
>This was an option installed at extra cost, was it not?


If it were an extra cost today, would you get it?

"Cartlon Shew" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:00:48 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Ford, 1950s before any such law. Their failed marketing of safety.
>>>
>>> 1956 Lifeguard safety package, including
>>>
>>> * deep-dish, energy-absorbing steering wheel,
>>> * double-grip, impact-resistant door latches,
>>> * double ball and shatter-resistant, interior rear-view mirror
>>> * optional padded instrument panel and sun visor
>>> * factory installed, front and rear safety belts (first U.S.
>>> manufacturer)
>>http://www.ford.ca/english/LearnAbou...st/default.asp
>> )
>>
>>This was an option installed at extra cost, was it not?

> If it were an extra cost today, would you get it?

It's a safety feature required by federal law, and its cost is included in
MSRP. So this question is moot.

>> If it were an extra cost today, would you get it?
>
> It's a safety feature required by federal law, and its cost is
> included in MSRP. So this question is moot.

That's like saying "no no wood could a woodchuck chuck because a woodchuck
can't chuck wood". It's an irrelevant answer to the question.

IF the friggnin woodchuck COULD chuck wood, what would it's capacity be?

Big Bill wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2005 00:53:18 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
> >Big Bill > wrote in
> :
> >
> >> On 9 Mar 2005 17:36:06 -0800, "Furious George"
>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> OK. Define "noise pollution" for us, ****forbrains.
> >>>
> >>>It's either unpleasantly loud or it isn't. If it is too loud,
then no
> >>>one really cares why it's too loud.
> >>
> >> That's a non-starter.
> >> Define "unpleasantly loud" in terms that would stand up in court.
> >>
> >
> >The "reasonable man" standard.
> >Police are already trusted with many infractions just on their word.
>
> Bu tthe police isn't allowed to say, "That muffler was just too loud;
> I didn't like it."
> The police must be able to defend their "judgements". If their
> citastion is based on somethijng as vague as "too loud" with no
> measurements to back it up, it will be dismissed in court.

Most police officers are equipped with two sophisticed measuring
devices known as E.A.R.s For the tiny minority of police officers with
malfunctioning ears (like Sue Thomas) a "too loud" reading actually
means the offending vehicle is MOTHER****ING WAY TOO LOUD. Thus when
in doubt the E.A.R. system gives the motorist the benefit.

> >
> >And the same should go for auto sound systems.
>
> What? Someone says it's "too loud", so the user should get fined?
> No, it simply doesn't work like that.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Change "g" to "a"

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:18:14 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> wrote:

>"Cartlon Shew" > wrote in message
>news
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:00:48 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Ford, 1950s before any such law. Their failed marketing of safety.
>>>>
>>>> 1956 Lifeguard safety package, including
>>>>
>>>> * deep-dish, energy-absorbing steering wheel,
>>>> * double-grip, impact-resistant door latches,
>>>> * double ball and shatter-resistant, interior rear-view mirror
>>>> * optional padded instrument panel and sun visor
>>>> * factory installed, front and rear safety belts (first U.S.
>>>> manufacturer)
>>>http://www.ford.ca/english/LearnAbou...st/default.asp
>>> )
>>>
>>>This was an option installed at extra cost, was it not?
>
>> If it were an extra cost today, would you get it?
>
>It's a safety feature required by federal law, and its cost is included in
>MSRP. So this question is moot.
>

No, it's not moot at all. It's a hypothetical question.

Today's consumers are very different. I would willingly pay extra for
most (but not all) safety features that have been mandated by law if
it came down to a choice between having them or not having them.

In the '50s, I suspect the attitude of most consumers would be that it
was expensive crap that they wouldn't do much for them in an accident
anyway.

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>>> If it were an extra cost today, would you get it?
>>
>> It's a safety feature required by federal law, and its cost is
>> included in MSRP. So this question is moot.
>
> That's like saying "no no wood could a woodchuck chuck because a woodchuck
> can't chuck wood". It's an irrelevant answer to the question.
>
> IF the friggnin woodchuck COULD chuck wood, what would it's capacity be?

That's like saying, "If we had some ham we could have some ham and eggs, if
we had some eggs." It's a vicious circle.

John , I see your point. Speculation is fun, and can keep us warm and
occupied on long, cold winter nights. But we have to deal with facts. And
the fact is, we don't have a choice if we want to have a car--it has to have
seat belts, padded dash, and other working safety features (with a few
exemptions for historic vehicles).

"Furious George" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Most police officers are equipped with two sophisticed measuring
> devices known as E.A.R.s For the tiny minority of police officers with
> malfunctioning ears (like Sue Thomas) a "too loud" reading actually
> means the offending vehicle is MOTHER****ING WAY TOO LOUD. Thus when
> in doubt the E.A.R. system gives the motorist the benefit.

Hey George--did you know that's a musical term? We use them on drummers.
They have two volumes at which they can play: FL & MFL

"Cartlon Shew" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:18:14 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Cartlon Shew" > wrote in message
>>news

>>> If it were an extra cost today, would you get it?
>>
>>It's a safety feature required by federal law, and its cost is included in
>>MSRP. So this question is moot.
>>
> No, it's not moot at all. It's a hypothetical question.

It's speculative, and you really don't want me speculating on the auto
industry, Carlton--trust me on this one

> Today's consumers are very different. I would willingly pay extra for
> most (but not all) safety features that have been mandated by law if
> it came down to a choice between having them or not having them.

Like it or not--we are already paying for them. We've nochoice in the
matter.

> In the '50s, I suspect the attitude of most consumers would be that it
> was expensive crap that they wouldn't do much for them in an accident
> anyway.

I've viewed congressional testimony and industry executives debate this, but
I've yet to see a market survey on this topic. That would make for some
interesting reading.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Cartlon Shew wrote:

> If [safety features] were an extra cost today, would you get [them]?

I'll take that question.

Seat belts, retractable 3-point with pretensioners, all seating
positions: Yes

Steering column, safety collapsible: Yes

Beams, door side impact guard: Yes

Restraints, driver and passenger head, high-rise: Yes

Airbag, front, driver: No

Airbag, front, passenger: No

Airbags, side, front and rear passenger: No

Occupant impact-protection, vehicle interior, incl. recessed controls,
knee bolsters, etc: Yes

Suspension, ECE type approved: Yes

Steering, ECE type approved: Yes

Brakes, ECE type approved: Yes

Tires, ECE type approved: Yes

Lighting and signalling system, exterior ECE type approved: Yes

Buzzer, warning, seat belts: No

Buzzer, warning, key in ignition: No

Interlock, shift/ignition: No

Interlock, shift/brake: No

Lamps, daytime running: No

What'd I leave out?