Tuesday, October 30, 2012

The Road to Hell is Also Paved with Stupidity 4

Word about town is that the N.T.S.B. is YET AGAIN threatening to make it illegal for parents to carry their infants on their laps during air travel - for safety's sake. But it's stupid. I mean, yeah, it may in fact save the lives of one or two infants per decade but can we at least look at the ramifications? People choose their mode of transportation based upon a number of factors, not the least of which is money. How many of these individuals, in an effort to avoid having to fork over the additional $200-400 per seat, are simply going to forgo air travel altogether and instead take their vacation via automobile, A MODE OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IS  INFINITELY MORE DANGEROUS THAN AIR TRAVEL? I mean, I know that these bureaucrats aren't necessarily bred to think beyond the immediate and all but, geez, you gotta have a little bit of common sense, no?

21 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

It would be interesting to see some injury, not necessarily death, statistics for infants traveling in airplanes on their parents' laps.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And compare it to injuries, not deaths, from automobile accidents.

Jerry Critter said...

I'm not sure comparing airline injuries with car injuries is very instructive. Clearly auto injuries are much higher. On that basis, it would be hard to justify airline seatbelts let alone even seats.

Ema Nymton said...

.

"... for safety's sake. But it's stupid. I mean, yeah, it may in fact save the lives of one or two infants per decade but can we at least look at the ramifications?"

... can we at least look at the ramifications? What make you think that the people at NTSB did not look at the ramification?

" I know that these bureaucrats aren't necessarily bred to think beyond the immediate and all but, geez, you gotta have a little bit of common sense, no?"

So tell US oh mighty mouth of moronic mumblings, "How many infants are you willing to have killed?" Where else do you feel safety should be optional for the sake of profit?

Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

dmarks said...

Ema said: "What make you think that the people at NTSB did not look at the ramification?"

They are bureacrats. The American nomenclatura. Their first priority is getting rich directly at the public expense.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

It's instructive in the sense that if these same people chose automobiles instead of airlines (because of the policy and the cost of it), the number of deaths AND injuries would be significantly higher.............Think about what you say before you say it, Ema. This policy will INCREASE airline profits at the expense of the consumer.

BB-Idaho said...

Travel with infants can be problematic
...

Jerry Critter said...

"This policy will INCREASE airline profits at the expense of the consumer."

What a novel concept! Imagine that!

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The question is very elementary. Will this policy cause less deaths and injuries or more deaths and injuries. I would respectfully submit, more.

Jerry Critter said...

It is safer to fly than to drive on a based on deaths/injuries per mile traveled. Therefore I propose a policy of limiting airline profits and forcing them to lower ticket prices so that more people will fly instead of drive. You should agree with this policy since you favor policies that have the lowest injury/deaths associated with them.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

No, I'm vociferously opposed to government price controls (a la Hoover, FDR, Nixon) and limitations on how much a private company can accrue via the market place, a) philosophically and b) because of the unintended consequences of THAT (reductions in both supply and quality).

Jerry Critter said...

Hey! I'm just sliding down that slippery slope of your airline reasoning.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And we could clone Mussolini and make the airlines run perfectly. Jerry, I was examining the effects of A policy, whether it's a good policy or a bad policy. There aren't any slippery slopes involved in that.

Jerry Critter said...

The slippery slope is the justification, not the policy.

Happy Halloween!

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You, too. Time for some Junior Mints, I say.

Rusty Shackelford said...



Jerry,are you serious?You really want to limit the profit a public company can make? Please explain the reasoning behind that.

Jerry Critter said...

Of course I am not serious. It was just an example of taking Will's logic to an extreme.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I do devil's advocacy, too, Jerry. It must be a part of our DNA.

Jerry Critter said...

Yes, I know you do. I have been on the receiving end of it more than once, :)

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

No offense intended.......John Myste, he's another one who does it, too. Very well, in fact.

dmarks said...

Rusty said: "Jerry,are you serious?You really want to limit the profit a public company can make?"

No, what he proposes won't limit their profit. He will just make sure that his over-regulation and over-taxation forces the company to make money in another country. Another country that sees the benefit of the jobs, products, and investment.