XPost: comp.mobile.ipad, comp.mobile.android   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article , T0m $herman   
    wrote:   
      
   > 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?   
      
   The latest systems are starting to deal with pedestrians (for example   
   airbags to pop the bonnet / hood to lessen the impact) as well as   
   design ideas (less "brick wall" fronted vechicles).   
      
      
      
      
   > 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."   
      
   Depends on how you drive it. Some of the fools on motorcycles here in   
   New Zealand zoom along the roads and motorways weaving across different   
   lanes right in front of cars and trucks. If a startled car driver tries   
   to swerve or suddenly stop, then it will, and probably has, make a big   
   mess caused by that (by then long-gone) motorcyclist.   :-(   
      
   Bicyclists are evene worse since many of them don't believe the road   
   rules even apply to them - as well as lane zig-zagging, they ignore   
   traffic lights, stops signs, etc. There was a recent accident here   
   where a bicyclist died under a big truck at an intersection, and all   
   the usual knob heads started whining on again about needing separate   
   cycle lanes and drivers being having to be more careful ... despite the   
   fact that from the very first new story it stated clearly that the   
   truck had the green traffic light and therefore the cyclist had simply   
   ignored the red light (and all the stopped cars he no doubt passed!)   
   telling him to stop.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)