This Made Me LOL

[mrplunkey]

1) I was talking about airbags and seatbelts,but since you bring up ABS.....

2) ABS is a performance feature you dolt brain!! Airbags and seatbelts do not directly contribute to the performance of the car nor it's desireability therefore there was no value perceived in the addition of those systems.

When ABS was first introduced it was in "luxury" class cars. I honestly don't know when ABS became standard on affordable mainstream cars, but i'm pretty sure it was the Japanese who started putting ABS on their entry line cars. In any case it doesn't matter, ABS keeps your car straight when you apply the breaks. Yes it's a safety feature but it's also a performance feature and can marketed as such. Idiot. Take a marketing class.

I always enjoy watching you talk yourself into a corner. It's entertaining when you rant the hardest hoping no one realizes you just got called out for being full of shit.

If you hadn't said such an incredibly stupid quote-worthy thing in the past, this would be my new quote:

"Airbags and seatbelts do not directly contribute to the performance of the car nor it's desireability"

Because the best part is you really believe that. Know why? Because if you did have a full-frontal impact in an accident, it certainly couldn't (1) mess up your brain any more than it already is and (2) wreck that cro magnon face any worse than it already is either.

 

[mrplunkey]

So c'mon Mr. Db. Let's hear your answer.

Detroit spent billions (if not tens of billions) on anti-lock breaking systems despite them not being government mandated. What gives? Are the car companies just that generous and benevolent?

 

[redsamurai]

Because the best part is you really believe that. Know why? Because if you did have a full-frontal impact in an accident, it certainly couldn't (1) mess up your brain any more than it already is and (2) wreck that cro magnon face any worse than it already is either.

what you're describing are safety features in a car, nothing that contributes to performance numbers which is what american people care about. You sure you're not on loonies anymore? I'll repeat so we're clear....seatbelts and airbags are not performance ehancing features of an automobile. They are "safety" features. No less important in my estimation but in the U.S back in the 70's this wasn't a big deal and therefore, again, Detroit would not have adopted them until much much later had it not been for the govt. U're starting to make alot of spurious correlations, you know that right? Somethings goin wrong upstairs you should have checked.

 

[redsamurai]

So c'mon Mr. Db. Let's hear your answer.

Detroit spent billions (if not tens of billions) on anti-lock breaking systems despite them not being government mandated. What gives? Are the car companies just that generous and benevolent?

Because the japanese made them standard and marketed that POD heavily. That's why. Not hard. Take a marketing class at cybercollege cause ur vandy paper ain't makin it. <---- oh man i kill me.

 

[redsamurai]

So c'mon Mr. Db. Let's hear your answer.

Detroit spent billions (if not tens of billions) on anti-lock breaking systems despite them not being government mandated. What gives? Are the car companies just that generous and benevolent?

So the govt hasnt' mandated ABS breaks...why would that be hotshot? Could it be because the car companies pretty much handled it on their own so govt involvement wasn't necessary? Now take seatbelts and airbags, why did those come to have to be mandated? Could it possibly be because the auto companies resisted fitting most vehicles except for their expensive models with these features? So the govt say's that's not entirely acceptable and so we have a case where the market did kind of fail and govt did kind of not fail. Would these features have eventually made into all cars, of course....but in the meantime you bet your old saggin ass that the govt saved more than a couple lives by saying y'all gotta put some seatbelts in ur automobiles even if it's a cheap low end model. Same with airbags.

 

[mrplunkey]

I love watching you flip and flop around like a fish that just got hauled into a boat.

This is where you and DB differ. He's smart enough to know when he's been hooked (which is much harder than it is to hook you, which is simple). But when it happens, he just goes quiet for a bit, whereas you ramble and rant.

This entertains me.

 

[redsamurai]

I love watching you flip and flop around like a fish that just got hauled into a boat.

This is where you and DB differ. He's smart enough to know when he's been hooked (which is much harder than it is to hook you, which is simple). But when it happens, he just goes quiet for a bit, whereas you ramble and rant.

This entertains me.

well go on then opcorn:

 

[Mr. dB]

So c'mon Mr. Db. Let's hear your answer.

Detroit spent billions (if not tens of billions) on anti-lock breaking systems despite them not being government mandated. What gives? Are the car companies just that generous and benevolent?

You think your one single feature is a "gotcha"? Yawn.

It probably reduced their liability when they made it standard equipment on pickups and vans in the late 1980s. Prior to that it was available on a few top Chryslers, Lincolns and Caddys, but not even available as an option through the rest of the model lineups. The feature had been known and available elsewhere for decades before Detroit finally jumped on the bandwagon.

They had to be forced to include seatbelts, collapsible steering columns, door beams, and other safety features, so you harping on anti-lock brakes is kind of like saying "Mussolini made the trains run on time". So fucking what?

 

[Mr. dB]

Trucks didn't even have crumple zones or passenger cages until almost the turn of the century.

 

[Mr. dB]

Once again your lack of analytical comprehension is astounding to me.

I think it's far more likely that he is aware of the red herrings and leaps of illogic he presents, he is just being disingenuous because that's what his agenda requires.