XPost: comp.mobile.ipad, comp.mobile.android   
   From: twsherman@REMOVE_THISsouthslope.net   
      
   On 2/28/2014 7:31 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > In article   
   > <657b9$53112cae$43da7656$4366@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, Liam   
   > O'Connor  wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:03:10 -0500, nospam wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> other reasons include better safety requirements in cars, better roads,   
   >>> including impact absorbing barriers, and much more.   
   >>   
   >> Just to be clear, I knew that but I was keeping on the   
   >> topic of the cellphone.   
   >>   
   >> But, I do agree that a primary factor was seatbelts, which   
   >> started to be ubiquitous in the 70s or so, and then the   
   >> crash test worthiness factors helped a lot (e.g., airbags).   
   >>   
   >> At some point, the 55mph speed limit helped.   
   >>   
   >> Also the impact-absorbing and breakaway barriers helped,   
   >> as did better lighting (remember when Halogen came out?)   
   >> and electronic stabillity control (e.g., ABS & DSC).   
   >>   
   >> Other than the electronic systems, I'm not sure what   
   >> has occurred in the past 5 years though, other than   
   >> a cellphone in a car is a safer car than without.   
   >   
   > The problem with all the electronic "safety" systems is that all the   
   > morons now blindly think they are safer and even "better drivers", and   
   > therefore they continue to stupidly campaign to get speed limits   
   > raised.   :-\   
   >   
   Do these "safety systems" do anything to protect pedestrians, pedal   
   cyclists, and motorcyclists?  Or are they just an appeal to people's   
   base, anti-social side of their personality?   
      
   Whenever someone asks me about my motorcycle, "Isn't that dangerous?",   
   my reply is, "No, it is much safer for other road users than if I was   
   driving my car."   
      
   --   
   T0m $herm@n   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)