Why is it dangerous?

[Ian Collins]

Ian Collins said:


It's an analogy to do with the use of gets(), first raised in this thread
by Eric Sosman, in which he suggests that those who use gets() despite its
known dangers are analogous to those who refuse to wear seatbelts. As
such, it's reasonably relevant. Although it is possible to stretch an
analogy too far (which is why "proof by analogy is fraud", as Stroustrup
rightly said), I don't think this has happened yet in the current case.

Ah. This thread had reached the point where it required interpretation!

Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

No, it is an outrageous affront to personal freedom.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I am in a car. I am not an idiot. But who in
the hell does the state think it is to try to legislate and say that I
can't be an idiot if I damn well want to?

 

[Andrew Poelstra]

No, it is an outrageous affront to personal freedom.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I am in a car. I am not an idiot. But who in
the hell does the state think it is to try to legislate and say that I
can't be an idiot if I damn well want to?

The wide world of stdin is far more dangerous than the roadways, and
it's much less obvious - especially to somebody new to the field -
what horrible things could happen by feeding gets() a finite buffer.

 

[santosh]

No, it is an outrageous affront to personal freedom.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I am in a car. I am not an idiot. But who
in the hell does the state think it is to try to legislate and say
that I can't be an idiot if I damn well want to?

Because one of the "state's" responsibility is to improve the safety of
it's subjects and to inform them of the same?

BTW, this debate about seat-belts is mildly amusing to me, seeing as
here, most cities do not mandate even drivers to wear seat-belts, while
even in the few that do, the very vast majority put them on at traffic
intersections (where a cop or a CCTV might be watching you) and take
them off as soon as they are on their way again.

The accident rate is horrendous, but that has nothing to do with
seat-belts, but with poor driving and completely flouting road
regulations and safety. This is one issue where the "state" might do
well to let it's subjects work it out for themselves and in the
meanwhile accept the minutely larger fraction of causalities that might
result from non-enforcement.

 

[Ian Collins]

No, it is an outrageous affront to personal freedom.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I am in a car. I am not an idiot. But who in
the hell does the state think it is to try to legislate and say that I
can't be an idiot if I damn well want to?

Because the 200lb twat in the back of a 70mph car carries on moving at
70mph when the car comes to an unscheduled stop, not only doing himself
harm (fair enough) but taking out the poor souls in the front on his way
to oblivion.

Same happens to the careful project team when the stubborn nonconformist
idiot team member uses gets.

 

[kenny.riodan]

AntoninusTwinkwrote:


Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using theirbelt
injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.

[citation needed]

This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a country
where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case the data
came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat belt.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416

Other studies using dummies also show how violent the damage
to the front seat person is. See this YouTube video for instance:

Canada and Japan and several US states currently mandate
that back seat passenger must wear seat belts.

- Kenny Riodan

 

[kenny.riodan]

AntoninusTwinkwrote:

Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?

Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using theirbelt
injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.

[citation needed]

This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a country
where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case the data
came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat belt.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416

Other studies using dummies also show how violent the damage
to the front seat person is. See this YouTube video for instance:

Canada and Japan and several US states currently mandate
that back seat passenger must wear seat belts.

It was just pointed out to me that UK also mandates
rear seat passengers must wear seat belts.
This UK Police pamphlet states the reason very well:
http://www.psni.police.uk/seatbelts-leaflet.pdf

"In a crash at 30mph, if you are unrestrained, you will hit the
front seat, and anyone in it, with a force of between 30
and 60 times your own body weight"

Now 30mph is not "high speed". And let's say your rear passenger is
150 lb.
Would you like to be hit with a force of 4500 pounds?

- Kenny Riodan

 

[Doug Miller]

Doug Miller said:


We are not having an argument, merely a contradiction. As such, it is
pointless to continue it.

It's a "contradiction" instead of an argument only because you keep snipping
my arguments instead of responding to them -- a sure sign that you know you've
lost the debate.

'bye.

 

[Serve Lau]

On 16 Aug 2008 at 10:38, Joachim Schmitz wrote:
AntoninusTwinkwrote:

Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?

Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using
theirbelt
injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.

[citation needed]

This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a country
where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case the data
came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat belt.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416

Other studies using dummies also show how violent the damage
to the front seat person is. See this YouTube video for instance:

Canada and Japan and several US states currently mandate
that back seat passenger must wear seat belts.

It was just pointed out to me that UK also mandates
rear seat passengers must wear seat belts.
This UK Police pamphlet states the reason very well:
http://www.psni.police.uk/seatbelts-leaflet.pdf

"In a crash at 30mph, if you are unrestrained, you will hit the
front seat, and anyone in it, with a force of between 30
and 60 times your own body weight"

Now 30mph is not "high speed". And let's say your rear passenger is
150 lb.
Would you like to be hit with a force of 4500 pounds?

you're assuming that accidents are always frontal which they arent. Most of
the time people try to steer away or are hit by a car from the side who was
trying to steer away. crash test dummies dont do that.

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

No, it is an outrageous affront to personal freedom.

Utter nonsense. Your freedom ends, were the other's freedom starts. It is
forbidden to kill, this is not a matter of personal freedom. It is forbidden
to put someone elses life at danger, this is not a matter of personal
freedom either.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I am in a car. I am not an idiot. But who
in the hell does the state think it is to try to legislate and say
that I can't be an idiot if I damn well want to?

Of couse the state (whichever) cannot prevent you from being an idiot.
But it can punish you for being one. The jails are full of idiots.

Bye, Jojo

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

On 16 Aug 2008 at 10:38, Joachim Schmitz wrote:
AntoninusTwinkwrote:

Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?

Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using
theirbelt
injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.

[citation needed]

This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a country
where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case the data
came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat belt.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416

Other studies using dummies also show how violent the damage
to the front seat person is. See this YouTube video for instance:

Canada and Japan and several US states currently mandate
that back seat passenger must wear seat belts.

It was just pointed out to me that UK also mandates
rear seat passengers must wear seat belts.
This UK Police pamphlet states the reason very well:
http://www.psni.police.uk/seatbelts-leaflet.pdf

"In a crash at 30mph, if you are unrestrained, you will hit the
front seat, and anyone in it, with a force of between 30
and 60 times your own body weight"

Now 30mph is not "high speed". And let's say your rear passenger is
150 lb.
Would you like to be hit with a force of 4500 pounds?

you're assuming that accidents are always frontal which they arent.

But that's the worst case scenario you're best prepaired for. And frontal
chrashes do happen frequently enough.

Most of the time people try to steer away or are hit by a car from
the side who was trying to steer away. crash test dummies dont do
that.

Bye, Jojo

 

[Antoninus Twink]

You've completely missed the point.

I'm not arguing for a second that having all occupants of a car wear
seatbelts isn't an extremely efficacious safety measure that anyone with
half a brain cell would insist upon when they were driving.

The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid taking
the risk.

If I go abseiling and trust my life to someone I know to be drunk or
incompetent, should that be illegal? If I choose to drive allowing the
person in the seat behind me not to wear a seatbelt, should that be
illegal?

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

You've completely missed the point.

I'm not arguing for a second that having all occupants of a car wear
seatbelts isn't an extremely efficacious safety measure that anyone
with half a brain cell would insist upon when they were driving.

The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid
taking the risk.

If I go abseiling and trust my life to someone I know to be drunk or
incompetent, should that be illegal? If I choose to drive allowing the
person in the seat behind me not to wear a seatbelt, should that be
illegal?

Committing suizide _is_ illegal. The attempt gets punished.

Bye, Jojo

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Committing suizide _is_ illegal. The attempt gets punished.

Who said anything about suicide?

 

[santosh]

Who said anything about suicide?

Ignoring basic safety rules can be construed as being motivated by a
death wish.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

You've completely missed the point.

Of course. This is clc. What did you expect?

I'm not arguing for a second that having all occupants of a car wear
seatbelts isn't an extremely efficacious safety measure that anyone with
half a brain cell would insist upon when they were driving.

I'm geninely confused by this. I don't think most American cars have
back seat seatbelts. I may just be out of touch with modern trends.

The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid taking
the risk.

This gets into politics and life views. I'm a little surprised to see
it being discussed here. But let me just say that the idea that the
world *should* be made as safe as possible - and that government is the
tool that should be employed to bring this about - does have a lot of
appeal. Like "int main()", it is kinda hard to argue against it.

If I go abseiling and trust my life to someone I know to be drunk or

What is "abseiling"? A typo?

 

[kenny.riodan]

you're assuming that accidents are always frontal which they arent. Most of
the time people try to steer away or are hit by a car from the side who was
trying to steer away. crash test dummies dont do that.

I did not assume anything. The statistics takes into account
the different types of collision and their relative occurrence
frequency.

Fact is, two separate studies (one says 80%, the other says 75%)
the front seat passenger dies 80% (or 75%) more likely when
the rear passenger isn't buckeled in. And that's with all
types of collisions considered, in an entire country,
with rural and urban and short trips and long trips all combined.

 

[kenny.riodan]

You've completely missed the point.

No, *you* missed the point. Someone pointed this possibility to you.
You said "has this really happened?" and you asked for "citation".
So here is the citation. Now you say it's pointless. What's it gonna
be?

I'm not arguing for a second that having all occupants of a car wear
seatbelts isn't an extremely efficacious safety measure that anyone with
half a brain cell would insist upon when they were driving.

The question was whether the state should *force* people
to avoid taking the risk.

Argue with your congressman then (if you're in Canada, UK, Japan,
or some of the select US states), or just be happy (if you live
elsewhere)

 

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Committing suizide _is_ illegal. The attempt gets punished.

The dead body gets locked up forever.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

But let me just say that the idea that the world *should* be made as
safe as possible - and that government is the tool that should be
employed to bring this about - does have a lot of appeal. Like "int
main()", it is kinda hard to argue against it.

Well, not really. The state shouldn't ban something just because it's
dangerous. The state should trust people to make their own judgment
about what level of personal risk they want to take, insofar as it
doesn't seriously affect others. It's just the difference between a
liberal society and a totalitarian one.

What is "abseiling"? A typo?

I don't think so?