Saw an item on CBS news for 7/23 that the EPA is now agitating to require child-safe furniture that a kid can't turn over on himself. Seems that something like 180 kids manage to get themselves killed every year by turning over furniture on themselves.
So be careful with making anything that a kid might turn over.
The more idiot-proof we attempt to make things the more idiots are permitted to exist and dilute the gene pool.
For proof, just look at our pathetic excuse for a president.
That has always been a concern with every thing I build. Most tall cabinets get anchored to the wall at the top.
I thick the victims might be a bit too young yet to call idiots. Of course we could get rid of child safety seats, return lead to the paint, etc.
IMHO you have to be an idiot to have to be reminded to consider a child's interaction with anything you might build.
You know the government-mandated child-safety seats were originally mandated to protect the kids from the government-mandated airbags do you not?
LOL... Damn catch 22 situation... ;~) I suppose the seat belts fall in there too.
Not the seat belts per se. They were mandated in the '60s and at one point there was an interlock so the car wouldn't start unless the belt was buckled (which led to many people just buckling the belts and sitting on them). The air bags were the government's response to the refusal of the general public to pay any attention to their safety advice--won't do what we say, well we'll FIX you my little pretty . . .
Then it was revealed that the airbags kill short people (I guess the gummint took to heart the song that was popular around that time--"Don't want no short people 'round here) and FUD about being killed by airbags finally motivated people to start wearing seat belts, with the result that eventually most states enacted laws that one must wear a seat belt.
snips
snips
Here in Canada - child safety seats for autos - - pre-dated auto air-bags - - by about 15 years or so .. IIRC - .. but never let the facts interfere with your beliefs. There could very-well-be a widely accepted scientific Fox News study - that absolutely proves me wrong. :-) John T.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---
Actually, I believe that you'll find the impetus driving the states to enact seat belt laws was not a desire to save lives, per se, but rather a desire to keep those Federal Motor Fuel Tax monies coming in along with highway aid. The Feds simply said... "If you don't enact mandatory seat belt laws AND ENFORCE THEM, no money for you."
At first they let it be a secondary offense, i.e. if you were stopped for speeding, you could be cited for no seat belt as well, but you couldn't be stopped for just not wearing your seat belt. Then once they got all the states to go along with the seat belt law, it was changed from a secondary to a primary offense meaning if you're driving perfectly fine and just no wearing a seat belt you could be stopped and ticketed. Since even that did not garner 100% compliance, the Feds did what they do best. Threw money at the problem in the form of seat belt enforcement grants to the states. They pay departments sufficient funds to hire back their officers on overtime to sit alongside the road like a pack of feral hogs and "attack" anyone driving by without a seat belt and ticket them. Cops get some nice overtime and the cities, etc. get a nice chunk of fine money.
Sadly, the seat belt law is a good one. It is the totalitarian enforcement being forced upon us that sucks.
I've investigated traffic crashes for more than 49 years - 25+ in law enforcement and nearly 36 years in private practice (there's overlap of the two which is why the numbers don't make sense). Seat belts save far more lives than the anecdotes offered by opponents indicate are lost. They also prevent many crashes by allowing the driver to remain in control of his/her vehicle during emergency avoidance maneuvers. I rarely, if ever, wore a belt before spending a couple of weeks at a emergency vehicle operations course (back then it was police pursuit driving school but...). I was amazed at the things I could do with a souped up Pontiac Bonneville cruiser and the speeds at which I could do it, when buckled up vs. slip sliding on the seat. They work and it's probably been about 46 years since I've driven a car without my seat belt on - even in a parking lot. It's become as automatic as breathing and the belt is latched before the door is closed on the car.
I digressed but that's why the states are toeing the line with the Feds! It ain't about the money, it's ALL about the money!;)
The interlock was in 1974. It could also be overridden by a button switch under the hood. Mostly overridden because of the unreliable set up and they did not want drivers to be stranded. I had to push that button on my fathers car a number of times and not because we were not buckled up.
And the Federal law did not get enacted until it was possible to sell it on the basis that the seat belt was necessary to save people from airbags.
I would like to see the Constitution amended so that no jurisdiction may recieve any portion of any fines imposed in or by that jurisdiction. The imposition of fines for the purpose of raising revenue should not be allowed.
A law that encourages totalitarian enforcement is not a good one regardless of the benefit.
I think you really mean most members of Congress!
Them too. And governors, and state legislators, and city aldermen and school board members and all the rest.
I saw that IKEA is giving away what you need to anchor cabinet with drawers to the wall. Many flat screen TVs come with a cord you can anchor it with.
If people used common sense there would be no need for government intervention.
If you do not believe that fines are a large part of the income of local governments. Drive I-95 through North Carolina. The speed limit goes up for no apparent reason and then goes down for a few miles, again for no apparent reason.
Some cities place changes in speed limit in places that is not logical or designed so they will not be seen. There is one place I know that is rural, a half dozen houses in a several mile stretch. Most of the road is wooded. After driving the one section, the speed limits drops by 10mph, and with in a short distance drops another 10 mph. This change is on good road, no houses, and through the wooded section of the road. At the end of this there is a cop that sits there waiting for someone to miss the speed limit changes. I will bet he never misses his monthly quota of tickets.
Places like this not only supports the city, the County, but also the local tech College, with offer training classes to get your fine reduced.
As always follow the money to learn the reason something illogical is being done.
Leon wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
Makes you wonder how the hell any of us ever got out of childhood, doesn't it.
John
I think you really mean most members of Congress!
I think you mean the insurance industry. I would think they are the ones that drive such "innovation."
Dave in soTex
Exactly. Some feel they actually have to be reminded and further, ordered to think of what might happen.
Oh I think it is very apparent, just not ethical. I have seen this practice for as long as I have been driving, 45 + years. AAMOF Corpus Christi, TX, where I learned to drive, had a very strict and up to date police department. One day the police department was out in force along one of the busy streets. Cars were pulled over everywhere. The police department just got their first radar guns and decided to try them out. They replaced one 35 mph sign with a 30 mph sign and as soon as someone passed that sign going 41 mph they were pulled over and issued a warning ticket.
But once you make something foolproof, they just grow bigger fools.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.