Liberal logic at work (Page 2/5)
rinselberg AUG 28, 07:50 PM

quote
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:

Nope....some people still believe personal choice and freedom wins over "social responsibility"

If you dont like the risk of riding in cars without certain features it's very simple. Stay out of them (YOUR personal choice). If you dont like the risks associated with agressive flying, stay out of those kinds of planes. If you dont like the risk associated with motorcycles, dont ride them. If you dont like the risk of your Kia being stolen, buy something else.

You dont get to dictate to the rest of we have to abide by and finance YOUR safe-spaces ideals.


The summary of the lawsuit that's been published by the office of Brandon Johnson, the 57th mayor of the city of Chicago and customarily addressed as "His Honor, the Mayor," emphasizes the risks and burdens that are borne by the inhabitants of Chicago, including risks and burdens that are incurred, but not because they are owners of these vehicles, or because they voluntarily elect to ride as passengers in these vehicles. This is the relevant wording:

quote
Moreover, offenders have used stolen Kia and Hyundai vehicles to commit other crimes, including reckless driving, armed robbery, and murder.


To borrow some of the language for the health hazards of cigarette smoke, these are "second-hand" effects of the alleged negligence by Kia and Hyundai in their not having included "industry-standard engine immobilizers" in these vehicles as standard equipment.

An online link to the summary of this lawsuit was duly posted by MidEngineManiac and customarily addressed as "MEM," when he inaugurated this topic by creating the Original Post or Post Zero, as I sometimes call it. That, obviously, is the very first message in this thread.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-28-2023).]

Wichita AUG 28, 07:57 PM

[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 08-28-2023).]

82-T/A [At Work] AUG 28, 09:28 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:

Oh Boo-hoo! Poor little multi billion dollar corporations. It is so mean to make them be responsible citizens. We should go back to not having safety glass in cars or seat belts. Who cares if hundreds of thousands more people will be killed or horribly mutilated in car wrecks? We can't be mean to corporations just because it saves human lives. There profits are more important than human blood.



LOL, and here Fredtoast is conflating KIA, a company that's only been selling cars in America since the late 90s, with thousands of people being killed because of lack of safety glass and seat belts from the ~1950s. Not to mention that both of which (safety glass and seat belts) were invented and installed in cars first because of capitalism, well before they were regulated.
WonderBoy AUG 28, 09:48 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:
Thankfully government regulations were put in place that have prevented millions of deaths and serious injuries.

Unfortunately some people still believe profits are more important than human suffering.


Now do 'Big pHARMyA' and 'Big AddictYa'

Situation 1
Patient: I'd like for you to cut off my hands
Doctor: obviously you're mentally ill and I'll recommend a colleague whom you'll pay $x,xxx.xx many times to treat you

Situation 2
Patient: I'd like for you to cut off my penis and testicles
Doctor: you're so brave, let's schedule this (constant $$$ stream)

You're pathetic.
Like your buddy whom adores fully automated luxury communism, where personal responsibility and actual thinking are a thing of the past.
MidEngineManiac AUG 28, 09:54 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

To borrow some of the language for the health hazards of cigarette smoke, these are "second-hand" effects of the alleged negligence by Kia and Hyundai in their not having included "industry-standard engine immobilizers" in these vehicles as standard equipment.

An online link to the summary of this lawsuit was duly posted by MidEngineManiac and customarily addressed as "MEM," when he inaugurated this topic by creating the Original Post or Post Zero, as I sometimes call it. That, obviously, is the very first message in this thread.




<sigh>

Rinsey.....repeat after me.

Chicago's car thieves, or the damage they cause, are NOT Kia's problem to solve. Period. They are Chicago's.

Now keep repeating until the entire concept makes sense to you.

Then try to apply that concept elsewhere. The results might surprise you. You might even figure out Sony is not responsible for Playstation looting and Apple is not responsible for drug deals made over iPhones.

WOW !!!!!! WHAT an eye-opener.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 08-28-2023).]

rinselberg AUG 28, 10:16 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
LOL, and here Fredtoast is conflating KIA, a company that's only been selling cars in America since the late 90s, with thousands of people being killed because of lack of safety glass and seat belts from the ~1950s. Not to mention that both of which (safety glass and seat belts) were invented and installed in cars first because of capitalism, well before they were regulated.


I'm not at all familiar with the history of safety glass. But I believe it's a fact that the car manufacturers did not provide seat belts as standard equipment in all models until it was mandated by the federal government. That changed the economics of seat belts from a relatively costly option that any buyer could select, to part of the price of every vehicle, and it reduced the price of seat belts on a per vehicle basis because of the economies of scale.

Vehicle buyers could no longer opt out, but that was equitable, because it was society as a whole that was seen as being unnecessarily burdened when there were vehicles on the road that did not have seat belts.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-28-2023).]

82-T/A [At Work] AUG 29, 07:44 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

I'm not at all familiar with the history of safety glass. But I believe it's a fact that the car manufacturers did not provide seat belts as standard equipment in all models until it was mandated by the federal government. That changed the economics of seat belts from a relatively costly option that any buyer could select, to part of the price of every vehicle, and it reduced the price of seat belts on a per vehicle basis because of the economies of scale.

Vehicle buyers could no longer opt out, but that was equitable, because it was society as a whole that was seen as being unnecessarily burdened when there were vehicles on the road that did not have seat belts.





I think you're intentionally shifting the argument here. Fred was essentially heaping half a century of automotive deaths on a car company that's only existed in America since the late 90s. I stated that both seat belts and safety glass were invented by private car companies, installed intentionally because it helped sell the cars, and were installed in many vehicles well before the government got involved and mandated it.

It seems you are trying to dance around that and reemphasizing that seat belts saves lives. No one has a problem with common sense regulation. I do have a problem with overly grandiose arguments.
williegoat AUG 29, 09:41 AM
Vehicle theft is not a safety issue. Although manufacturers certainly may offer antitheft features, it is not something that should be addressed in the FMVSS.

Theft prevention is within the purview of the police, i.e. the city. Chicago is just trying to unload their responsibility onto someone else. It is sleight of hand, “Hey, look over there!”

Kia could, however, offer a special Sorento Windy City Edition complete with running boards, bullet proof glass and a police scanner.
ray b AUG 29, 10:12 AM

quote
Originally posted by Wichita:






the cult always claims not to be a cult

but look and see the real cult in action

you guys are in a cult

get help
fredtoast AUG 29, 11:44 AM

quote
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:

Chicago's car thieves, or the damage they cause, are NOT Kia's problem to solve. Period. They are Chicago's.

Now keep repeating until the entire concept makes sense to you.





I don't know if a lawsuit is the best course of action. Perhaps lobbying for a regulation would be better, but I will never favor corporate profit over human suffering.

So your concept will never make sense to me.