The Gummint and furniture design

[J. Clarke]

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.

[Gordon Shumway]

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 15:24:02 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.
>

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.

[Leon]

That has always been a concern with every thing I build. Most tall
cabinets get anchored to the wall at the top.

[Leon]

On 7/26/2015 3:01 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 15:24:02 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> The more idiot-proof we attempt to make things the more idiots are
> permitted to exist and dilute the gene pool.

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.



>
>

[J. Clarke]

In article <w-ednaIkVI3w1ijI...@giganews.com>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

>
> On 7/26/2015 3:01 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 15:24:02 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > The more idiot-proof we attempt to make things the more idiots are
> > permitted to exist and dilute the gene pool.
>
> I thick the victims might be a bit too young yet to call idiots.
> Of course we could get rid of child safety seats,

You know the government-mandated child-safety seats were originally
mandated to protect the kids from the government-mandated airbags do you
not?

[Leon]

On 7/26/2015 4:10 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <w-ednaIkVI3w1ijI...@giganews.com>, lcb11211
> @swbelldotnet says...
>>
>> On 7/26/2015 3:01 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 15:24:02 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>> <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The more idiot-proof we attempt to make things the more idiots are
>>> permitted to exist and dilute the gene pool.
>>
>> I thick the victims might be a bit too young yet to call idiots.
>> Of course we could get rid of child safety seats,
>
> 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.

[J. Clarke]

In article <ePKdnQ62IMKKwyjI...@giganews.com>, lcb11211

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.

[hub...@ccanoemail.com]

snips

>
> You know the government-mandated child-safety seats
> were originally mandated to protect the kids from the
> government-mandated airbags do you not?
>

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: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Unquestionably Confused]

On 7/26/2015 5:33 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

[snip]

>
> 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.

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!;)

[Leon]

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.

[J. Clarke]

In article <Hvdtx.140714$rZ2.1...@fx20.iad>, puzz...@ameritech.net
says...

>
> On 7/26/2015 5:33 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> 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."

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.

> 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.

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.

> Sadly, the seat belt law is a good one. It is the totalitarian
> enforcement being forced upon us that sucks.

A law that encourages totalitarian enforcement is not a good one
regardless of the benefit.

[graham]

I think you really mean most members of Congress!

--

[J. Clarke]

In article <zHftx.354241$1l7.2...@fx29.iad>, gst...@shaw.ca says...

Them too. And governors, and state legislators, and city aldermen and
school board members and all the rest.

[Ed Pawlowski]

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.

[Keith Nuttle]

On 7/26/2015 7:49 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> 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.

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.

[John McCoy]

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:w-ednaIkVI3w1ijI...@giganews.com:

> 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.

Makes you wonder how the hell any of us ever got out
of childhood, doesn't it.

John

[Mike Marlow]

I was going to post that very same thought when this thread fist began!

--

-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net

[Dave in SoTex]

"graham" wrote in message news:zHftx.354241$1l7.2...@fx29.iad...

I think you mean the insurance industry. I would think they are the
ones that drive such "innovation."

Dave in soTex

[Mike Marlow]

Well - there are a lot of groups that have a particular interest in
different things - from insurance companies to lawyers, to CPA's, and more.
In the end those particular interests end up on the door step of regulatory
agencies, whether that be Congress, the FAA, the FCC, or any number of other
Federal or State agencies. Bottom line - they all have their own special
interest they are trying to protect. At a point, there is, or there should
be a discriminating mind behind the helm that can sort out the practicality
of these special interest ideas - I'd say that would be our legislative
bodies. That's where I tend to point my finger of blame. I don't blame the
corporation from trying to protect their special interest, I blame the
legislative bodies for falling prey to that.

--

-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net

[Leon]

Exactly. Some feel they actually have to be reminded and further, ordered
to think of what might happen.

[Leon]

On 7/26/2015 9:42 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 7/26/2015 7:49 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> 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.
> 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.

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.

[krw]

But once you make something foolproof, they just grow bigger fools.