...is that there's not much sense of proportionality. When we here of a driver who was measured at
Then sell me a car that can safely drive me home.
IF cars had 4-point belts worn tightly or with auto-tensioning, front airbags might not help (but side bags still would, unless you're going to wear a helmet). Otherwise, yes, they definitely help when factory belts are worn properly. I would have agreed with you a decade ago, but there's just too much evidence to the contrary. The real travesty was allowing motorized belts to qualify as passive protection for a few years. Horrible devices they were.
"Drive your car and keep your mouth shut." Amen. Driving around with a hand clapped against the head isn't apparently as big a problem as driving around totally engaged in a conversation (including with someone in the car).
I think it's been demonstrated that "shatterproof" safety glass windshields are no safer in crashes than tempered glass, though either are much better than the murderous shards from the stuff before. However, I'd choose the safety glass due to all the junk falling off/out of trucks, as I'd expect it to resist penetration a little better.
You know what's really a great safety device? Those yellow signs stating "Baby on Board".
I generally agree, but manufacturers ignore some obvious issues forever, as long as they never occur until the warranty has expired and won't trigger a recall.
Please don't underrate the Cavalier's underpinnings. The J-body was one of the best, most space efficient, stiffest (sedan variants, not hatches and convertibles) platforms well into the 1990s, and was the best part of the Cavalier, not the worst. Most cheap cars today are based on much crappier chassis, regardless of when they were designed. Unfortunately, most of the base and even upscale J variants had very poorly spec'd springs and shocks, which defeats any goodness underneath.
This is very much like the guy who figured out the algorithm for the Press Your Luck TV game show machine. He just kept winning, while the PYL people realized something was going wrong for them. But they graciously handed over the winnings and redesigned the machine. PYL greatly benefitted just from the publicity about the show in general, not to mention royalties from replaying that episode of the game repeatedly for years to come. The casinos should pay up, then extract whatever they can get out of the manufacturer. I'm not surprised that they're pursuing the players, since their policy is to attack anyone doing anything defined as cheating by them. But 1) that doesn't mean the prosecutors have to do what the casinos want, and 2) that's a short-sighted policy. It would be smarter for the casinos to repair/replace the machines and keep quiet. Word would get around, and most likely there'd be an increase in revenue as people try to find bugs. Monitor the machines and quickly fix any bugs found. The end result will be more revenue, not less.
And yes, Cotton Thaggard was wrongly convicted (civil charge). The bank that pressed the issue likely netted less profit in the following years due to bad publicity.