>>>>>>>>>>
Digressing a little bit, I really doubt that the move towards airbags
was a study in rational engineering. Meaning it had little to do with
"better and cheaper" OR "what most people will use." Rather, my belief
is that it was at best a compromise between industry & government, and
a perfect example of design by committee. The world is full of mandates
and standards that don't make a whole lot of technical or business sense,
because the developers got sick and tired of arguing and finally struck
a deal somewhere in the middle.
>>>>>>>>>
Here in the US it's design to the lowest common denominator (assume people are
idiots and will take no resposibilty for their actions) vs make people go to
drivers school and learn to buckle up. I think the lawyers like to keep it that way
(only in America can grandma sue McDonalds for 60 mil cause she spilled hot
coffe on herself :-( With that mentality there is supposed to be the equivalent
of mommy to tuck you into your car (you don't know how yourself) so we get things
like the motorized seat-belt thingies and seat-belt spider-webs to get entangled
in. Rational ideas have little to do with it! :-)
-Bob T.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:07 EDT