National Gangrene

[Stella_Omega]

That is simply nonsensical. Car manufacturers are driven by profit. Profit is unatainable without sales. The consumer drives the market, not the other way around. I bought a Corolla because it was the best combination of fuel efficiency, safety, and durability. The car manufacturer saving $500 by producing a vehicle with poorer fuel efficiency just means that people looking for gas mileage will look somewhere else. Vehicles that sell well get produced in larger quantities. It really isn't a difficult concept.

Uh... if only it were that simple.

For instance, I simply cannot afford anything but the cheapest of cars. I'd rather buy a hybrid- only I can't afford to. So there's no consumer choice for me to make. I have to take what's already on offer. Therefore, my purchase is perceived as preference-- it isn't. There simply isn't an "elsewhere" to look to.

(actually, I buy used cars, never new, and soon enough hybrids will be turning up used in my budget range)

 

[BlackShanglan]

It just seems to be that it's time for the name-calling and the ideology to stop and the problem-solving to start. What's wrong with us us that we're locked in this war of ideolgical purity and so nothing's getting the fuck done. It's "liberals this" and "conservatives that" and it's stupid. There are some things that government does better and some things that the private sector does better and you use whichever tool gets the job done. I don't know when we became such doctrinaire purists. I guess it was back in the 80's and 90's when things were going well enough that we had the luxury of indulging in such nonsense.

But we don't have that luxury anymore. Things are seriously wrong and need to be fixed. We got to the mess we're in today because of ideological purity and zealotry, and I'm hoping that whoever can first build a coalition free of this ideological acrimony will win the future and put an end to it, and it's really about time. We've really had enough of the politics of hatred. It's killing us.

With you on that. But I think the roots of it are more pernicious. It's easier to run a party as a "brand," and it's easier to attack one as well. When the louder mouthpieces from either side talk about "staying on message," what they're really saying is that they've found it more renumerative to repeat a few central ideas over and over than to try to deal with individual issues in a complex way. That's the basic idea behind branding as well - focus on a core image and don't distract people with details or attempts to cover multiple concepts. Ultimately, the goal isn't product quality; it's sales. And brands sell. Clever us for buying them.

Shanglan

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Uh... if only it were that simple.

For instance, I simply cannot afford anything but the cheapest of cars. I'd rather buy a hybrid- only I can't afford to. So there's no consumer choice for me to make. I have to take what's already on offer. Therefore, my purchase is perceived as preference-- it isn't. There simply isn't an "elsewhere" to look to.

(actually, I buy used cars, never new, and soon enough hybrids will be turning up used in my budget range)

Precisely - market preferences may change, but it will take a few years for everyone's hardware to catch up. (I also only buy used. I could conceivably afford to buy new, but a glance at the annual depreciation chart for any given model on cars.com shows that one is almost nuts to do so, vs. buying say a one-year old car with less than 20k miles.)

 

[rgraham666]

I agree with dr_m and Shang.

But the problem is ideological purity is easier to sell because it has an emotional resonance. By finding the spots in our psyche that trigger emotions they bypass our critical faculties. Fear and anger are best for this, which is why they're most often used.

Another problem is we've confused the two meanings of the word 'free'. One meaning is in the political sense, the other in the economic sense. The former has to do with what we can do in society, the latter with 'something for nothing'.

Political freedom isn't free. It costs. Money at the very least. A lot of sweat and time should be the usual cost. On rare occasions the cost is life and limb.

Too many of us are not even willing to pay money anymore.

 

[S-Des]

Uh... if only it were that simple.

For instance, I simply cannot afford anything but the cheapest of cars. I'd rather buy a hybrid- only I can't afford to. So there's no consumer choice for me to make. I have to take what's already on offer. Therefore, my purchase is perceived as preference-- it isn't. There simply isn't an "elsewhere" to look to.

(actually, I buy used cars, never new, and soon enough hybrids will be turning up used in my budget range)

OK...and if you want them to be even more unaffordable, the best way is to have more government intervention. Part of what makes a vehicle affordable is what you do with it. For me durability was a huge issue, because I drive for work (approximately 800 miles/week). A cheaper car that would most likely die at 125k-150k wouldn't be a bargain. I'm actually not paying anything for my car. It gets about 20 mpg better than the pickup I used to own, so it pays for itself in the gas savings. In the long run, it will be even better because Corollas have a history of going over 200k if properly cared for. The hybrid's wouldn't have been an option for me because there is no way the bugs are worked out yet. You'll see long-term problems with them that will eventually get worked out (plus repairs will be costly).

Vehicle emission tests here just changed their rules slightly. Now your car fails it's emission test (which was supposed to have been implemented to protect the environment) if any of your idiot lights aren't properly working. So if my seatbelt light is malfunctioning, I will have to pay hundreds of dollars (at least) to get it fixed, or risk having my license suspended for being a "polluter" (although what an idiot light has to do with pollution is anyone's guess). I hate to risk sounding as anit-beaurocracy as Ami, but they do manage to fuck up practically everything they touch. Sometimes it's unavoidable because we need certain protections, but the less the better IMHO.

 

[amicus]

That reminds me of something I learned the other night when watching a forensics television show. They were discussing a crime that took place in Australia, and mentioned a simple and telling fact. At the time that the crime took place, cars in the United States had safety glass, and cars in Australia did not. The technology was proven, the manufacturing process was understood, and the benefit to the driver and passengers was the same. In fact, there was only one real difference. In the United Sates, it was required by law. And so it was there.

Shanglan

~~~

The Unholy duo of Pure and Shanglan, with the tagalong, 'me too', complicity of the brainless wannabee RGraham, are ideology driven and can not be trusted in anything they post.

***

http://www.glasslinks.com/newsinfo/ag_history.htm

THE PAST AND THE FUTURE
The first automobile windshields were a luxury, sold as optional equipment to motorists who needed something a little more dashing than goggles. Soon came closed cars, busses and trucks. The demand for vehicle glass rose sharply, and has been climbing ever since.


The first milestone was the acceptance of "wrap-around" glass in cars. By as late as 1919, 9 out of 10 cars had only a one-person top and side curtains. This meant that driving a car was truly a fair-weather endeavor. But ten years later, by 1929, 9 out of 10 cars were now equipped with glass all around, to provide protection from wind, rain, mud splashes, road dust, and flying debris. Driving had now become an all-weather activity, and the era of pleasure driving – to see and, perhaps more important, to be seen – had begun. No longer was the car primarily a means to get from one place to another; it was now an integral part of our social fabric. And the manufacture of glass made several notable changes to support this growing trend. In 1924 the process for plate glass was changed from the "batch" method to a continuous ribbon method making the production of glass much more efficient, reliable and affordable. Four years later PPG introduced a process to mass produce sheet glass which further improved quality and availability. These advances significantly improved the vision through the windshields, eliminating much of the distortion that had previously existed and made the product affordable enough to be widely used in the automobile. The innovations in the glass industry with improved optics and affordable costs, made the widespread use of glass windows in cars practical. These growing industries nurtured the social acceptance of pleasure driving and the resultant love affair that Americans still have with their cars.

INCEPTION OF SAFETY GLASS

Another manufacturing milestone occurred in 1927 when laminated windshields were introduced. Prior to this, windshields were made of common glass, which shattered into sharp shards upon breaking. By laminating a layer of film between two layers of thin glass, safety glass was made possible. PPG introduced Duplate® laminated safety glass in 1928. The film served to hold the glass in place upon breaking, greatly reducing injuries from flying glass. It also provided occupant retention and eliminated cuts that arms and heads received from going through a windshield. The interlayer has improved over the years, as has the quality of the glass, and laminated windshields are found in all cars today. Since 1966, all passenger cars produced in the United States have been equipped with an improved laminated windshield with additional built-in safety. It is designed to withstand about three times the impact velocity of the windshield previously in use.



http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/safglass.htm

Fascinating facts about the invention
of Safety Glass by Edouard Benedictus in 1903. SAFETY GLASS

Today safety glass, which will not splinter when exposed to shock, is everywhere-in windshields for cars, goggles for machinists, and windows and doors for many public buildings. Essential as it is, safety glass was the result of a clumsy mistake. Edouard Benedictus, a French scientist, was working in his laboratory. The year was 1903. Benedictus climbed a ladder to fetch reagents from a shelf and inadvertently knocked a glass flask to the floor. He heard the glass shatter, but when he glanced down, to his astonishment the broken pieces of the flask still hung together, more or less in their original contour. On questioning an assistant, Benedictus learned that the flask had recently held a solution of cellulose nitrate, a liquid plastic, which had evaporated, apparently depositing a thin coating of plastic on the flask’s interior. Because the flask appeared cleaned, the assistant, in haste, had not washed it but returned it directly to the shelf.
As one accident had led Benedictus to the discovery, a series of other accidents directed him toward its application. In 1903, automobile driving was a new and often dangerous hobby among Parisians. The very week of Benedictus’s laboratory discovery, a Paris newspaper ran a feature article on the recent rash of automobile accidents. When Benedictus read that most of the drivers seriously injured had been cut by shattered glass windshields, he knew that his unique glass could save lives.

As he recorded in his diary: "Suddenly there appeared before my eyes an image of the broken flask. I leapt up, dashed to my laboratory, and concentrated on the practical possibilities of my idea.,, For twenty-four hours straight, he experimented with coating glass with liquid plastic, then shattering it. "By the following evening," he wrote, "I had produced my first piece of Triplex [safety glass]-full of promise for the future.



http://www.ford.com/en/company/about/publicPolicy/vehicleSafety.htm

What Ford is doing to improve vehicle safety
Ford is an auto industry leader in making motor vehicles safer for drivers and passengers, starting with our pioneering use of shatter-resistant auto safety glass in the 1920's. Ford also was the first automaker to feature factory-installed safety belts in the 1950's.


~~~

Swayve and Deeboner, suave and debonair, well educated, erudite, both Pure and Shanglan; ask yourself why they open themselves to accusations of falsehood over such an easily researched item as automobile safety glass.

Ideology driven to such and extent it blinds them to truth and reality, the use of faulty information does not concern them as long as it furthers their ideology of human slavery.

Like the Walmart/Home Depot name dropping, forget the quality goods, low prices, convenience of a larger department store, forget the service and savings to a larger public, Walmart will not bow down to Union Labor and that is why, the only why, the Left is beating up on them.

Roxanne, love ya dearly, but you cannot debate these folks on a level playing field, they cheat and lie and use any subterfuge to reject and demean the concepts of individual human freedom and a free market place.

regards...


amicus....

 

[Pure]

At least one neutral source confirm Shanglan's impression-- not a universal claim-- about introduction of safety glass. Indeed Amicus' first source states:

Another manufacturing milestone occurred in 1927 when laminated windshields were introduced

This is consistent with the account below, from ideafinder.com:

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/safglass.htm

Safety Glass History [...]


As one accident had led Benedictus to the discovery, a series of other accidents directed him toward its application. In 1903, automobile driving was a new and often dangerous hobby among Parisians. The very week of Benedictus’s laboratory discovery, a Paris newspaper ran a feature article on the recent rash of automobile accidents. When Benedictus read that most of the drivers seriously injured had been cut by shattered glass windshields, he knew that his unique glass could save lives.

As he recorded in his diary: "Suddenly there appeared before my eyes an image of the broken flask. I leapt up, dashed to my laboratory, and concentrated on the practical possibilities of my idea.,, For twenty-four hours straight, he experimented with coating glass with liquid plastic, then shattering it. "By the following evening," he wrote, "I had produced my first piece of Triplex [safety glass]-full of promise for the future."

Unfortunately, automakers, struggling to keep down the price of their new luxury products, were uninterested in the costly safety glass for windshields. The prevalent attitude was that driving safety was largely in the hands of the driver, not the manufacturer. Safety measures were incorporated into automobile design to prevent an accident but not to minimize injury if an accident occurred.

It was not until the outbreak of World War I that safety glass found its first practical, wide-scale application: as the lenses for gas masks. Manufacturers found it relatively easy and inexpensive to fashion small ovals of laminated safety glass, and the lenses provided military personnel with a kind of protection that was desperately needed but had been impossible until that time. After automobile executives examined the proven performance of the new glass under the extreme conditions of battle, safety glass’s major application became car windshields.
===

As to seat belts, i think they were little used, even when available until legislation in the 60s and 70. In the 60s in parts of Australia.

Despite the cries from the far right about tyrranical suppression of freedom, most people now use them, and experts agree they help save the lives of persons in cars, when they crash. It's a pyrrhic victory, amicus, if you assert your freedom here, and keep it... having injured your spinal cord so that you're in a wheelchair for the rest of your life.
Hey, but at least you can wheel yourself to meetings of the local Objectivist society and complain about the oppressive government.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Pure]At least one neutral source confirm Shanglan's impression-- not a universal claim-- about introduction of safety glass. Indeed Amicus' first source states:

Another manufacturing milestone occurred in 1927 when laminated windshields were introduced

This is consistent with the account below, from ideafinder.com:

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/safglass.htm

Safety Glass History [...]


As one accident had led Benedictus to the discovery, a series of other accidents directed him toward its application. In 1903, automobile driving was a new and often dangerous hobby among Parisians. The very week of Benedictus’s laboratory discovery, a Paris newspaper ran a feature article on the recent rash of automobile accidents. When Benedictus read that most of the drivers seriously injured had been cut by shattered glass windshields, he knew that his unique glass could save lives.

As he recorded in his diary: "Suddenly there appeared before my eyes an image of the broken flask. I leapt up, dashed to my laboratory, and concentrated on the practical possibilities of my idea.,, For twenty-four hours straight, he experimented with coating glass with liquid plastic, then shattering it. "By the following evening," he wrote, "I had produced my first piece of Triplex [safety glass]-full of promise for the future."

Unfortunately, automakers, struggling to keep down the price of their new luxury products, were uninterested in the costly safety glass for windshields. The prevalent attitude was that driving safety was largely in the hands of the driver, not the manufacturer. Safety measures were incorporated into automobile design to prevent an accident but not to minimize injury if an accident occurred.

It was not until the outbreak of World War I that safety glass found its first practical, wide-scale application: as the lenses for gas masks. Manufacturers found it relatively easy and inexpensive to fashion small ovals of laminated safety glass, and the lenses provided military personnel with a kind of protection that was desperately needed but had been impossible until that time. After automobile executives examined the proven performance of the new glass under the extreme conditions of battle, safety glass’s major application became car windshields.
===

As to seat belts, i think they were little used, even when available until legislation in the 60s and 70. In the 60s in parts of Australia.

Despite the cries from the far right about tyrranical suppression of freedom, most people now use them, and experts agree they help save the lives of persons in cars, when they crash. It's a pyrrhic victory, amicus, if you assert your freedom here, and keep it... having injured your spinal cord so that you're in a wheelchair for the rest of your life.
Hey, but at least you can wheel yourself to meetings of the local Objectivist society and complain about the oppressive government.[/QUOTE]


~~~

Curious....half of the unholy duo reposted an article I included previously, addding: "...Unfortunately, automakers, struggling to keep down the price of their new luxury products, were uninterested in the costly safety glass for windshields..."

I did not copy and paste that paragraph as it is blatantly political, insinuating that same, anti-business, anti-industry that is so prevalent among adherents to the left. It is an opinion, not a fact.

Whether the issue is safety glass or seatbelts, the collectivists want the decisions to be made by, 'Big Mother', (thanks Roxy), rather than by individuals or corporations.

Now I don't mind if one claims to be and advocates socialism, matter of fact I rather like it, it being so easy to defeat, feed me another socialist.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

A Kentucky newspaper's summary of the history of safety glass, and tempered glass

windshields, seat belts, and air bags.

http://www.courier-journal.com/foryourinfo/021802/021802.html [Kentucky]

Ford Motor Co. began equipping cars with this laminated safety glass in the windshield in 1927. But it wasn’t until 1966 that federal law required carmakers to use what’s called “tempered glass.” Tempered glass is made when a sheet of glass is heated in an oven, which hardens the glass. The glass is much stronger and breaks into pebbles, making it less likely to cut someone in an accident.

SAFETY AS SCIENCE

Safety glass prevented some injuries, but hundreds of thousands of people still died when they flew through the windshield in car accidents. But a doctor named William Haddon changed that. [beginning, mid 1960s and through the 1970s and on.]

Until Haddon, authorities tried to reduce accidents by teaching people to drive more safely. But Haddon realized that carmakers really needed to change the design of cars. Haddon collected data on safety to make his case.

Haddon thought cars should have seatbelts and steering columns that gave way in an accident instead of staying in place, where they would hit drivers in the chest in an accident. He also wanted better safety glass, roofs that didn’t cave in during a rollover, door locks that didn’t give way in an accident so that the car’s occupants flew out, and other safety measures.

Stephen Oesch is a senior vice president with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which studies automobile safety. He says federal statistics show that seat belts saved 135,000 lives in the nation between 1975 and 2000.

“If you're traveling along at 30 miles per hour and the vehicle gets into a crash, what happens if the driver is not wearing a seat belt, they will continue moving forward at 30 miles per hour until they are violently thrown into the steering wheel or the instrument panel or the windshield,”' Oesch said.

The impact – even at 30 miles per hour – could kill a car driver or passenger or injure them very badly, he added.

A GOOD BELTING

The first seatbelt, introduced in 1949, wasn’t very good. But Swedish carmaker Volvo came up with a much better design it put into its 1959 models. The design had a belt across the person’s lap attached to a strap that went across the person’s chest. It’s called the three-point belt.

At first, American automakers
didn’t want to include seatbelts. Executives from Ford, General Motors and Chrysler testified in Congress against requiring seatbelts in 1957 and 1959. But so many people wanted seatbelts that, by 1964, American cars came with lap belts in the front seats – but not straps across the chest.

In 1966, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued 19 safety standards – including a requirement for the three-point safety belt. The three American car companies complained.

In 1984, New York State became the first state to require drivers to wear their seat belts. Oesch said. Almost every state has followed New York's lead, he added. Today every state except New Hampshire requires car riders to use seat belts, he said.

According to studies coordinated by the U.S. Department of Transportation, 73 percent of American drivers use seat belts – up from just 14 percent in the early 1980s.

[...]

Carmakers fought even harder against airbags than they did against seat belts. American carmakers tried for 10 years to get the government to change its mind. Federal law required all new cars to have airbags beginning in 1997, Oesch said.

Transportation Department statistics show airbags, which inflate quickly after a crash to cushion people in the front seat, saved 6,553 lives between 1987 and 2000.

Forty-three people – nearly all children who weren’t wearing seatbelts or weren’t wearing them correctly – died from airbags.


Sources: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (http://www.kytc.state.ky.us/home.htm); U.S. Department of Transportation (http://www.dot.gov) “Escape Through Time: Car,” PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/escape/timecar.html); Chicken Littles in Detroit (http://www.chickenlittle.org/timeline.html).

 

[S-Des]

As to seat belts, i think they were little used, even when available until legislation in the 60s and 70. In the 60s in parts of Australia.

Despite the cries from the far right about tyrranical suppression of freedom, most people now use them, and experts agree they help save the lives of persons in cars, when they crash. It's a pyrrhic victory, amicus, if you assert your freedom here, and keep it... having injured your spinal cord so that you're in a wheelchair for the rest of your life.
Hey, but at least you can wheel yourself to meetings of the local Objectivist society and complain about the oppressive government.

And a very under-reported fact is that they cost lives as well (although obviously not as many as they save). I know two people who were thrown clear of accidents (and survived) that would have died if they had been wearing seat belts. There are no statistical analysis' available (or ever attempted, as far as I can tell) that look into fatal accidents and the possibility that not wearing a seat belt would have given the occupants the chance to survive. Although I wouldn't claim it's better to not wear one, personally knowing two people whose lives were saved by not wearing them can't be that much of a coincidence.

 

[Pure]

actually, amicus, i don't think Shang is a socialist; i'm ok with the term, but prefer 'social democrat' the latter term is to indicate that, unlike you, i accept the validity of legislation by the US Congress, the British parliament, the French and German legislative bodies. in the present case, legislation to do with auto safety. i'm sorry it doesn't suit you.


i doubt if all the name calling advances your case; the facts about auto industry foot dragging over safety measures are so well known as to be beyond controversy, except for the folks obsessed with evil government.

indeed, if the automakers were as profit obssessed as you, doesn't it make sense they'd fight the government? your perspective gives the motives for industry opposition to having safety regulations. you can't have it both ways, i.e. leaders in bringing safer cars and dedicated opponents of safety recommendation and regulations..

 

[amicus]

Ah, the loquacious, verbose one replies.

If you wish to have safety glass, seatbelts and airbags installed in your vehicle, please do so.

Adding those features to a basic automobile adds X% to the cost and if those are things you value, by all means, pay for them.

But to insist that, 'Big Mother', (sic), force manufacturers to include and customers to purchase, for whatever reason, is not something that belongs in the free market place.

Yes, I know, in your utopian, best of all possible worlds, you would forcefully protect each and everyone is a safe sex cocoon word of automatons.

Over my dead body.

Thanks R.Richard.


amicus...

By the way...the legislation you mentioned had its' roots in the 60's, didn't it?

A really bad idea among so many really bad ideas from the 'love' generation...sighs....

 

[Pure]

amicus proclaimed:

If you wish to have safety glass, seatbelts and airbags installed in your vehicle, please do so.

Adding those features to a basic automobile adds X% to the cost and if those are things you value, by all means, pay for them.

But to insist that, 'Big Mother', (sic), force manufacturers to include and customers to purchase, for whatever reason, is not something that belongs in the free market place.

Neither the US, Britain, France, Germany, etc. are "free market places" by your definition; for the US, it is not so, because of its constitution as properly amended.

I'm sorry the elected legislators in US, Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, etc. do not agree with your view of their rightful powers; nor do their court systems. It saddens me, too, that California, New York, and dozens of other state legislatures are passing safety laws you don't like, upheld in their court systems ... What can i say, "it's democracy."

It's not "Atlas Shrugged," which I remind you, is a novel.

 

[amicus]

Sighs...there was also legislation that women could not vote or own property, nor could people of color, that witches could be hanged and that alcohol could be banned as tobacco is about to be.

Legitimizing legislation because others do, is a silly way to justify mandating laws, I think.

When it comes to issues such as freedom of choice to kill a child in the womb, or to marry, genderwise, whom you please, you are all for 'freedom of choice', and opposed to legislation that says otherwise; yet why I claim that same, 'freedom of choice', in other aspects of the economic world, you claim to be baffled by my antiquity.

As a 'social democrat', what the hell ever that is, you claim the authority to enforce your world view on others. I simply claim the authority to live my life as I choose and grant that right to all others and you try to come off as the 'good guy'?

Gimmee a break.

Your, 'social democrat' ethos, is no different than any other dictatorial oppressive scheme, as Papistical and Allah-like as one can be to absolutely insist upon the efficacy of mobocracy to serve the greater good.

Ask me if I care?

But if it walks like a duck, chances are, it is. Your continual preaching about the, greater good', for the benefit of all, is so outdated and worn I am surprised you still spout it.

Shanglan went on for pages, preaching to the choir about how individual freedom had limitations, of course it does, we all know that. My objection is and always has been that you and your Roosevelt Ilk's, want to take my freedom for your comfort, I rather object to that.

amicus

 

[BlackShanglan]

Huzzah! I'm half of an unholy duo!

Pure, truly - did you ever think you'd see the day? Particularly during the yearish-long stretch when we were declining to speak to each other? I'll try not to attribute this reconciliation and repurposing too wholeheartedly to the peace of God's love reaching out between us; that would be atrociously papist of me. On your behalf, I'll concede that it's probably just a triumph of common sense.

After all, even radically different people can agree that Amicus has no idea what he's doing with that Google engine. For heaven's sake, someone take it away before he does himself an injury. What between posting completely irrelevent information like the year in which safety glass was invented (what on earth is that meant to tell us?) and excising out of documents anything he doesn't like the look of, Amicus is to supporting research what the Donner party was to fine dining.

Really, Amicus, you did better on the education thread, where you simply admitted that you saw the facts, didn't like them, and so chose to ignore them. It's a short phrase - "I simply cannot be bothered with facts at all" - and it will spare you hours of Googling for pointless blobs of tangential factoids. Alternatively, if you've got that kind of time on your hands, I'd suggest searching for "Toulmin" and "warrants" and discovering the heretofore unknown country that connects grounds to claims. It's the bit where you establish that they have anything to do with each other, and it will spare you writing and us reading bizarre constructions like "Automobile safety glass was invented in 1927, and therefore the horse is in unholy collusion with Pure to lie about a television show."

Shanglan

 

[amicus]

Oh, my, the lil pink pony has a small sense of humor, how rewarding.

The origin and history of, 'safety glass', was a subtle refutation of your assertion that it was government regulations instituted its use. Well, the history shows that industry fully had it in place for forty years before, 'Big Mama', decided to mandate it in the industry.

Which is to say, the the free market place, be it safety glass, seat belts, airbags or public mandatory education can do just fine with your stupid meddling, as education did for the first century of this nations history.

While you and your ill suited bed partners may applaud the necessity of government, use of force, to impose restrictions on liberty and trade, I say again, we don't need you, go way.

Now I am about to watch the final episode of,"Deadliest Catch", for this season, so don't bother me.


amicus...

 

[elsol]

*yawn*

Let's see:

Averaging: 35 miles to the gallon:
12000/35 = 342 * $4 = 1368.xx

Averaging: 25 miles to the gallon:
12000/25 = 480 * 4 = 1920.

A difference of $552 a year.

Now, while fully understanding that $500 is a significant amount of money to a lot of people, it's about a 1/4 of my dog's yearly allowance so puppy will have to go with a few less treats as long as I get to keep my car engine.

Maybe the Honda Fit... but Rox and I must define comfort and conveniences differently, because I ain't giving up the feel of my car for an econo-box.

The difference between 45 and 25 is around $900 dollars a year... yeah, you all keep shooting for that fuel effiency, maybe you'll get fuel prices lower for me.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Oh, my, the lil pink pony has a small sense of humor, how rewarding.

One does one's best. You'll be happy to know that you bring it out in me.

The origin and history of, 'safety glass', was a subtle refutation of your assertion that it was government regulations instituted its use. Well, the history shows that industry fully had it in place for forty years before, 'Big Mama', decided to mandate it in the industry.

Indeed it was subtle. Subtle to the point of imperceptable. Australian cars didn't (allegedly, by this program, which had no interest in markets but only in a murder) have the stuff, and US cars did, well after the stuff had in fact been invented. US cars were required to have it; Australian cars were not. Notice how all of the relevent facts occur after the invention part?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Hey. Wait a minute!

I thought I was the loquacious, verbose one. Now he's just trying to hurt my feelings.

 

[elsol]

Now I am about to watch the final episode of,"Deadliest Catch", for this season, so don't bother me.


amicus...

Eh... how does someone on the internet bother you while you're watching TV?

Do you have a like a little alarm on your computer that yells out "FUCKING LIBERAL BASTARDS TRYING TO BRAINWASH OTHER MINDS" whenever one of the usual suspects posts?

That would be pretty cool... maybe Rox and Pure could get them "QUICK! QUICK! YOUR NEMESIS HAS PUT UP A NEW POST!!!"

I think mine would say "DUDE! DUDE! MCKENNA POSTED!!!"

 

[Belegon]

I think mine would say "DUDE! DUDE! MCKENNA POSTED!!!"

I like yours best...

 

[emap]

Actually, the government started making new laws requiring safety glass, seat-belts and airbags because the more people driving who don't know how the more dangerous it is and of course people can't take responsibility for their own inability or inactions so they scream to the government to make a company make something safer.

 

[Pure]

"they scream at the government to make a company make something safer..."

and behold the government spoke, and things did get safer.*

and experience showed the national govs of a dozen countries and most of the 50 states that deaths were reduced, and none now seriously talk of undoing the legislation. belts, like airbags, have caused or contributed to some deaths, but most people looking at the problem have found the balance in favor of safety.

i'm not sure why the government is "Mom" or "nanny", for taking action. is it sissy to be smart? i LIKE it when the US gov, unlike the Chinese, tells manufacturers that they mustn't put poisonous cough syrup on the market. no one in the US has died, in contrast to Ecuador and Haiti.... both reliant on the free market ethos and the Chinese state's inaction; an approach Amicus would applaud, i gather.
---

*and sales were not hurt and the feds did not become tyrranical, did not start jailing people with no charges until GWB came along much later.

 

[Pure]

coming back to the thread topic

the executive seems "stuck" in its ways, unresponsive. it doesn't 'lead' and address a number of serious problems. Congress, similarly, although it's not executive by nature, but, in theory, deliberative and carefully controlling the purse strings. ha!

didn't someone post elsewhere that GWB has spent more than all previous presidents combined?

dare i say immigration is a good example; now, status quo, it's 'no effective wall' and 'de facto amnesty.' what does Bush, seconded by Kennedy propose: 'no effective wall and de facto amnesty.'

it's so ludicrous that some among both conservatives and liberals don't see the sense of it.

 

[Pure]

Illustrative of Mab's point. Protection of Chemical Plants and of

rail routes; Dangers to Cities.

Failure to Act; Failure of Leadership.

Although the reporter below is not very critical, it's easy to see that these regulations about chemical plants are little and late. THIS SUMMER, some facilities will be looked at. 111 of them, if attacked strongly, could lead to one million deaths in the people in the vicinity, including the city of Chicago. And having huge tankcars of chlorine move through cities, continues while the matter is studied and railways are consulted about this no-brainer.

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0704a/chemplantantiterror.html, April 5, 2007.

U.S. CHEMICAL PLANTS MUST MEET NEW ANTI-TERRORISM STANDARDS


(ENS) WASHINGTON -- For the first time [i.e. April 2007], high risk chemical facilities will have to abide by federal security regulations to safeguard against terrorist attacks, according to a rule issued Monday by the Department of Homeland Security, as required by Congress. The rule meets with the approval of chemical companies, but critics worry that rail transport of hazardous chemicals is not covered.


The rule establishes risk-based performance standards and requires chemical facilities housing quantities of specified chemicals to complete a screening assessment that determines their level of risk and identify security vulnerabilities.

About half of U.S. chemical plants, about 7,000 facilities, are thought to be at high risk of either a terrorist attack or an accident, the department said.


This summer, the department will begin conducting site inspections and audits, focusing first on the 300 to 400 facilities considered to be of the highest concern.

If a company has even the smallest amount of some chemicals, such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and methyl bromide, on-site, it must do a screening assessment. The list of "Chemicals of Interest" specified under the rule is online here.
High risk facilities must develop and implement Site Security Plans that meet the risk-based performance standards.

Facilities will be required to achieve specific outcomes, such as securing the perimeter and critical targets, controlling access, deterring theft of potentially dangerous chemicals, and preventing internal sabotage.
The new rule gives the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, authority to seek compliance through the imposition of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day and the ability to shut noncompliant facilities down.

"The safety and security measures that we take need to be tough and balanced," said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. "We will significantly reduce vulnerability at high-consequence chemical facilities, taking into account important efforts in certain states."
Some states have existing laws for regulating chemical facilities. Only state laws and requirements that conflict or interfere with the new regulations will be preempted, Chertoff said. Currently, the department has no reason to conclude that any existing state laws are applied in a way that would impede the federal rule, he said.

On March 30, just two days before the new interim final rule was issued, U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez of New Jersey, all Democrats, introduced legislation to improve security at chemical plants. Their bill, the Chemical Safety and Security Act of 2006, has many of the same feature as the DHS new interim final rule.

"There may be no greater failure of our government than the fact that we have done almost nothing to secure one of America's most vulnerable targets -- the 15,000 chemical plants in America," said Obama. "These chemical plants represent some of the most attractive targets for terrorists looking to cause widespread death and destruction. Despite this, security at our chemical plants is voluntary -- left to the individual plant owners. While many chemical plant owners have taken steps to beef up security, too many have not."

Citing media reports of Chicago chemical plants with "dilapidated fences, insufficient guard forces, and unprotected tanks of hazardous chemicals, Obama said "these plants are basically stationary weapons of mass destruction. Their security is light, their facilities are easily entered, and their contents are deadly."

There are 111 facilities in the United States where a worst-case scenario attack on a chemical plant could threaten more than one million people, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Two of these facilities are within Chicago's city limits.

Illinois has at least 11 facilities where a large-scale chemical release could threaten more than a million people.

"Chemical plant security is a serious problem and the combination of lax security and deadly chemicals is a toxic mix," said Durbin. "Illinois has more facilities that store extremely hazardous materials then any other state -- with over 100,000 pounds of hazardous substances stored in over 600 facilities. It is unacceptable that we have chemical plant facilities in our state and in other parts of this country that anyone can stroll onto. This bill puts a lock on the door and real fencing in the yard."

Before issuing its interim final rule, the Department of Homeland Security sought and reviewed comments from state and local partners, Congress, private industry, and the public to develop the guidelines.
Covered facilities contacted by the department will have 120 days from the publication of the regulation in the Federal Register to provide information for the risk assessment process. Other requirements follow that time period. Additional facilities will follow a similar timeframe after future Federal Register publications, the agency said.

The department will provide technical assistance to facility owners and operators as needed.

Representing chemical companies, the American Chemistry Council, ACC, supports the new interim rule.

"The nation is safer today, thanks to landmark federal regulations that will drive enhanced security protections for America's chemical industry," the Council said in a statement Monday. "This rule is the culmination of years of hard work by members of Congress, the Department of Homeland Security and industry leaders working cooperatively to improve national security."

"For the first time, a federal agency is authorized to enforce national risk-based performance standards to ensure that chemical facilities assess security vulnerabilities and implement security plans to address them," the Council said. "Equally important, DHS has clear authority to inspect these facilities and apply strong penalties, including facility shutdowns, for those that fail to act."
"These new regulations will complement existing state programs and the significant security enhancements already undertaken voluntarily by our members to protect the chemical industry and the nation," the Council said.

The Council says that since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in total its members have invested over $3.5 billion upgrading security.
The ACC has planned a workshop later this month where DHS will brief members on their regulatory obligations so that they can hit the ground running when the rule becomes effective in June.
Greenpeace criticized the measure because it does not require chemical plants to switch to safer alternatives or to keep smaller quantities of hazardous chemicals on-site.

The Center for American Progress, CAP, a progressive think-tank based in Washington, DC, issued a report Monday faulting the new interim rule for failing to cover rail shipments of toxic chlorine gas to water and wastewater utilities across the country.

"These massive railcars traverse some 300,000 miles of freight railways, passing through almost all major American cities and towns," the CAP report says. "A rupture of one of these railcars could release a dense, lethal plume for miles downwind, potentially killing or injuring thousands of people."

The Department of Homeland Security and other security experts have warned that terrorists could use industrial chemicals as improvized weapons of mass destruction. "Terrorists recently attacked and blew up several trucks carrying chlorine gas in Iraq," said CAP Monday in a statement.

CAP is urging drinking water and wastewater facilities to switch to a less hazardous disinfectant, such as liquid bleach or ultraviolet light, so that rail transport of chlorine gas will not be necessary.
Only 24 drinking water and 13 wastewater facilities still use rail shipments of chlorine gas. These facilities endanger more than 25 million Americans who live nearby, and millions more near railways that deliver the chlorine gas, said CAP.

At least six drinking water and 19 wastewater facilities have eliminated rail shipments of chlorine gas since 1999 by switching to a less hazardous disinfectant, the group said.
The Department of Homeland Security, DHS, responds by saying, "Regulating chemicals in the railroad system is a complex issue, and DHS continues to evaluate it."

The DHS says it "presently does not plan to screen railroad facilities" for inclusion in the regulatory program, and therefore will not request that railroads complete the Top-Screen risk assessment methodology.
The DHS says it may re-evaluate the coverage of railroads in the future and would issue a rulemaking to consider this matter.
The Transport Safety Administration, an agency within the DHS, has initiated some recent efforts to address rail security, including voluntary agreements with the rail industry and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Rail Transportation Security issued last December.
The DHS interim final rule will be published later this week in the Federal Register, and is online here.

The public is welcome to submit comments, identified by docket number 2006-0073, online at the federal eRulemaking portal.
Comments are welcome now, but once the rule is in place, information to the public will be limited. The DHS does not intend to provide a means of notifying the public about the status of local chemical facilities.
"We will continue to consider this issue as the program progresses, however, and issue a subsequent notice if necessary," the agency said in the interim rule.

Nor has DHS incorporated specific whistleblower protections into this rule, saying the authorizing legislation did not provide for protecting whistleblowers.

"The Department does, however, value frank information concerning security vulnerabilities," the interim rule states, adding, "Employees with daily involvement at high-risk facilities can certainly be a valuable source of information."
To allow a channel for public reporting, the DHS intends to establish a telephone line through which individuals, including employees of chemical facilities, can submit report concerns. Callers will have the option of remaining anonymous.