View Single Post
      08-16-2014, 09:42 AM   #19
bradleyland
TIM YOYO
United_States
1504
Rep
3,282
Posts

Drives: 2013 M3
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vero Beach, FL

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisny View Post
Ignoring the dramatic nature of your response (computers, really?)
I think you might have confused hyperbole and drama. Drama is creating tension, leaving the reader wanting for a resolution. Hyperbole is a rhetorical device wherein the writer exaggerates to make a point. I'm guilty on the hyperbole part, but there's no drama in my statement. If you find my hyperbole distasteful, feel free to ignore it and simply argue against my premise:

As technology moves ahead, it requires adaptation. This adaptation is necessary in order for progress to exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisny View Post
I don't think you are correct assuming the majority of the world resides in larger cities with paid emergency services. Quite the opposite, I would imagine. I live in the suburbs of New York City where my real estate taxes are quite high. Our emergency services are plentiful, and they are volunteers.
That's a fair point. Using paid vs volunteer probably isn't the best vector for comparison. I know that the majority of the population (over 80%) lives in urban centers, but I have no idea what percentage of the population is served by paid vs volunteer fire departments. The mistake we're both making though, is in assuming that volunteer fire departments are categorically less competent or well equipped. I am certain that many volunteer fire departments would take issue with that. Do some Google searching for volunteer fire departments. Their rigs are every bit as sophisticated as the ones at our paid department, and there is no shortage of press coverage espousing their heroic performance.

Note: I just did a quick search, and it looks like 94% of volunteer firefighters serve communities with less than 25,000 residents (as of Dec 30, 2011). Taken with the fact that 80% of the US population lives in "urban" areas, I'd say your intuition was incorrect in this circumstance. Your anecdotal circumstance is a statistical outlier.

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/e...#ixzz3AZ2vALhx

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisny View Post
My point was not that cars should never change, never said nor implied such a thing. My point was simply that I have no desire to be in one of these cars until the responders have been properly trained, to the extent that one can safely assume anywhere they are, they'll be in good hands in the event of an accident. I say this is alarming because it is, and it's something I hadn't considered before reading this thread. If you want to compare it to use of computers in an office, I would ask you, how many people have been trapped inside of a burning computer with firemen that didn't know how to get them out? Sorry, guess I didn't ignore the absurd comparison after all.
I'll happily discard the computer hyperbole so we can move along with the conversation. Consider it a moot point (I even restated my premise more plainly above).

Let's accept your premise: that you won't buy one until you're sure that all (or at least the ones in your area) first responders are prepared to extract you from one after an accident. What are the outcomes of that kind of decision making? What if everyone adopts that viewpoint? It seems fairly obvious to me: no one would buy cars that present new challenges to safe, expedient extraction.

Rather than drag far-fetch analogies in to the debate, we can simply look at the history of the automobile. Here's a short list of technologies that had Chicken Littles up in arms over safe occupant extraction, yet have improved occupant safety and are prevalent in today's cars:

Air bags - Yep, the Chicken Littles all said that air bags were unsafe for first responders because, were the airbags not deployed during the accident, they could deploy during extrication, causing injury to occupants and first responders.

Ultra high-strength steel (UHSS) - UHSS is all the rage in car safety today, but it poses many of the same challenges as CF components do. Hydraulic extrication tools that are designed for standard stamped steel don't perform reliably with UHSS.

Internal combustion engine - Don't freak out here; this is not hyperbole. At one point in history, cars were powered by steam. The makers of steam powered cars tried to use FUD campaigns to scare buyers away from gasoline powered cars. Turns out, the gasoline is safer than a boiler, because gasoline is less likely to ignite during an accident than a boiler is to rupture and burn all the occupants with steam.

Keep in mind that not too long ago (within my lifetime, certainly), fire fighters pried open cars with long steel rods and wedges with hammers. The "Jaws of Life" were a revolution in vehicle extrication. There is no shortage of enthusiasm for life-saving in the US. I have tremendous confidence that first responders will rise to this new challenge quickly.

Getting back to the rebuttal of your reasoning. Auto manufacturers only build what their research and intuition tells them consumers will buy. I speak out against viewpoints like yours, because I think it's vital to the advance of technology.

I have little hope of changing your mind. You have too much invested in this argument, but I do hope that someone reading this thread and considering an I3 won't make a snap judgement about the safety of these new technologies on the basis of what I believe is short-sighted thinking.
__________________
His: 2019 R1250GS - Black
Hers: 2013 X3 28i - N20 Mineral Silver / Sand Beige / Premium, Tech
Past: 2013 ///M3 - Interlagos Blue Black M-DCT
Past: 2010 135i - TiAg Coral Red 6MT ///M-Sport
Appreciate 0