May I Have This Post?

Is Your Post Card Filled?

Value and Romance on a Small Bit of Paper

You see them around all over the place, now mostly in tourist travelled trading places, guest shops, souvenir shops, and landmarks and you might have heard people telling you to send in a card with your name, address and current phone number to various places. (image to right -- image from Image*After¹) Of course you have seen the business reply cards in magazines and as warranty registration cards. Of course I am talking about postcards -- something that has been with us for over a century now. They officially came into being in 1861 -- developed by John P. Charlton from Philadelphia who transferred his copyright to H.L. Lipman -- "Lipman's Postal Card, Patent Applied For". Governments took over, including exclusive right to call them "Postcards" in 1893.

What is the value of a postcard? They are a very simple way to send a message by post for one thing and often they can be sent at a lower price than a regular letter. Today the cost to mail one is not too much different from a letter and of course anyone can read what is written on them. My Mom used to say that the person on vacation sending you a postcard -- or post card -- most often already had returned home by the time it reaches its recipient because each person in the post office who handles it take a moment to read it.

(images above from A Brief History of Post Cards²)

I imagine there are no secrets in a post card... unless you put it into an envelope or parcel or deliver it by hand.

But postcards have something special to them, mailed or not. In picking out a postcard to send someone, you are in a foreign location perhaps, maybe on vacation, maybe on business, but taking a few moments out of your day to think of others. I am getting away from the business sorts, like business reply mail and warranty cards here. They also are something from that place although it is possible to order postcards of exotic locations from the comfort of your home. A person might take their own photographs and write something on the back of them as mementos to send or keep, but still there is an interesting feeling with postcards.

Postcards historically are of values in that they capture a bit of a time and place and sometimes sentiment and feeling of that time. They trace the progress of a community with their snapshots of buildings and roads. Even showing one thing they often show others. A shot of a building might also show cars and people in it and give a glimpse at how they lived. If you look at a postcard from two different periods you might see how telegraph wires were added to be replaced by telephone wires to be replaced by underground wiring.

Postcards could be "wishes" of places a person wanted to visit or things they wanted to purchase or they might be telling of where they finally got or what they got. Businesses have often created PR with postcards and often very artistic ones.

You can find Canada's official Postcard Barrel at the Port Moody Station Museum. Deposit or pick up unstamped postcards during Museum open hours for hand delivery around the world.

Some subjects of postcards: Distant places, Architecture, Vacation Destinations, Advertisements, Street Scenes, Artwork, Landmarks, Cities, Towns, Wars, Heroes, Events,  Politics, Celebrities, and probably other subjects.

Our museum -- The Port Moody Station Museum³ (image to right) -- has a "Postcard Barrel" which is Canada's Official Postcard Barrel! I know there is one on the Galapagos Islands as well. They are an odd sort of thing, you drop a post card into it that you want sent somewhere in the world and people visiting have a look through and pick out ones close to where they are going and hand-deliver them. (see inset left)

You can always send an email, or take a picture to share, or buy postcards to take with you and give to friends -- but to mail it from afar, where it takes on a postal cancellation stamp, and perhaps a local stamp as well, and travel through the postal system until it reaches a friend's home and hand -- that ads something special and romantic to the whole thing. It is a bit more than a photo or a letter. It is a special souvenir not only of a place, but a time and a person.

Later!
~ Darrell

136.

__________
¹ Image*After Unattributed images from Image*After.

² "A Brief History of Postcard Types" Stefano Neis - Yahoo! GeoCities/Heartland/Meadows.

³ "The Port Moody Station Museum" 2734 Murray Street, Port Moody, BC

"Why Use A Postcard" Anders Eriksson - Post Cards usinfo.info

"History of Postcards" Emotions Greeting Cards.

Mile i Pod

Watching What You Want to Watch Where You Want to When You Want to

Alright here is something perhaps new for you... Where do your rights start when it comes to where you can watch or surf something on the privacy of your own PED (Personal Electronic Device -- Notebook or Laptop computer; iPod; Portable DVD player; mp4 player; personal video player...)?

American Airlines has an in-flight Wi-Fi service now for passengers which started on some flights August 20th¹ and there are concerns voiced by flight attendants and passengers about people using the service to access porn sites while on flights. An article on Bloomberg.com mentions that there were "a lot of complaints"¹and that the Association of Professional Flight Attendants has brought up the issue with management  They recommend that American filter its Wi-Fi service -- blocking black-listed sites -- in order to block offensive content² as I believe there are plans to screen VoIP service as well³. VoIP is Voice over Internet Protocol which basically is the primary way of making telephone calls by way of your Internet connection. (image to left* from Image*After)

There are a number of issues involved. There are the worries that passengers will complain that their neighbouring passengers are watching objectionable material on their PED. Of course there are also worries that passengers might be disturbed that their ability to access any site they could from home would be blocked in a form of censorship. More seem to be accepting of this in the case of the VoIP¹. Perhaps they can see that is in direct competition with the telephone service the airlines already charge for on flights?

Flight Attendants in addition to not wanting to get an eyeful of something they'd rather not see on someone's PED also do not want to become "moral policemen"¹ and have one more area where they might have to lay down the law. They have their hands full with other aspects of the job and likely don't want to have to settle disputes between passengers -- which might be either "they've got something objectionable on their screen" or "the person behind me keeps looking over my shoulder". Another aspect is people doing lewd things while watching explicit content.

(image to right from Image*After)

This is not something that came up just with the introduction of WiFi and Internet connectivity on airliners. This issue also comes up with whether an airline can prohibit what sorts of DVD or other content a passenger is viewing on their PED. A person can have a DVD with nearly any sort of content imaginable and pop it into a player -- whether computer or not -- and play it with no Internet involved at all. Likewise for video podcasts or even audio ones -- remember the "faked orgasm scene" from "When Harry Met Sally".

Of course these things did not appear with digital electronics. The same problems can be said about explicit magazines. Anyone could flip open the magazine of their choice on the airplane and start "reading the articles". Things like this have been a part of life for quite a while and are not really new.

Anyone who is offering the service of an Internet hookup probably has the right to say what they want to provide or block -- perhaps other than the actual providers? If  coffee shop provides WiFi connection to its customers, they probably can block access to some sites with blocking programs. I know when I go to places that provide such services the first thing I get when I try to access the Web is a screen asking if I accept the limits and risks imposed on me and that I might be exposed to by connecting to the Internet there. I can just imagine someone suing a coffee shop for a virus they picked up on their computer when the were downloading pirated game software.

(Image to left from Image*After)

I am not sure if it is a "non-problem" really. I don't know that it has been a problem with people sitting in coffee shops drinking Latte and watching XXX. For the most part regular people behave themselves in public. The times they don't seem to tend to be the times when they are getting intoxicated or high... and that is an issue on its own whether on land, "see" or airline. Control the booze and you likely won't have to worry  about controlling the people.

(image to right from Notebook Review¹¹)

Of course if you control porn sites, then you'll want to control pirate software sites too. You'll want to screen out any site that would have illegal activity on it. But what about violent video games? ...music with violent lyrics? ...content that might be deemed offensive for racial, religious, or other sexual reasons? What if someone is watching news content from an enemy country? ...or news from a country that has opposing views to your own country? What if one person is offended that the person next to them is watching religious programming?

I think that often the answer given by peace officers is "then don't look" -- though sometimes it is hard when it is presented nearly on your own lap. Luckily nearly everyone has the decency to use headphones or earphones. I think that rather than blocking things, it perhaps should all be taken care of on a case by case basis.

I was remembering back when I was in university and calculators were a novel thing still, but becoming commonplace. There were worries about people cheating by seeing the numbers on someone else's calculator. I think that manufacturers foresaw this because it wasn't very long before calculators -- at least scientific and engineering calculators -- had recessed numbers so that you could only read the display from where you were using it. If you were to the side at all you couldn't read the numbers.

Anti-glare shields that came out for early computer monitors (image to left - image from Ergo in Demand) also had this function and it was considered to be a feature for offices where you wouldn't want confidential information seen by people nearby. With some older laptops it was difficult to see the screen unless you were in front of them. But because many people want to share what they show on their laptop screen, many consider it a bonus to have the screen viewable from a broad range of angles -- otherwise there would be less problem with neighbours seeing what you see.

But there are purposes for such a product for notebooks especially and perhaps there are such products out already... Yup There is a 3M PF14.1 - notebook privacy filter! (image to right - image from CDW Canada)

Perhaps though there might be a market for disposable/resusable "blinders" for computers? Perhaps the airlines might offer them for safe viewing? They could also double as glare shields from the cabin lighting.

Protection provided for your viewing pleasure.

Later!
~ Darrell

135

__________
¹ "American Air Attendants Urge Fiters to Bar Web Porn (Update3)" Mary Schlangenstein, Sept. 10, 2008; Bloomberg.com: News.

² "Porn on a plane: Flight attendants fret over inappropriate Web surfing" David Carnoy, Sept. 12, 2008; Crave, the gadget bog -- CNET, news.cnet.com.

³ "Airlines planning to filter, censor in-flight 'Net access" Jacqui Cheng, Dec. 24, 2007; From the News Desk -- ars technica.
"Porn on a plane! Concerns raised over naughty in-flight WiFi" Jacqui Cheng, Sept. 12 2008; From the News Desk -- ars technica.

¹¹ "Coffee Shop Laptop Zombies" Andrew, May 23, 2007; Notebook Forums and Laptop Discussion - Notebook Review

* Images of airliners not intended to represent American Airlines or specific airline

A Different Perspective

Looking at Things From a New Angle

I think there has been a change in how many people look at things in the Western World. For much of the 20th Century -- up until the 1970's or 80's we were very much driven by paper. If we were doing a report or take notes we would write it on paper that was oriented vertically. Our TV's and movie screens however were oriented horizontally. The current terms used for these orientations -- at least in the world of the Internet, so far as I know -- are "Portrait" (image to left by DWP¹) and "Landscape" (image to right by DWP¹).

Where this comes important is when video digital terminals and later personal computer monitors came into common use. The terminals and monitors were nearly all in landscape orientation. There were a few notable exceptions I'll get to. This wasn't of great importance until people began to be able to compose documents on the computer or electronic word processor. The screen just didn't fit the printed word on paper. Paper of course normally in publication is in the portrait orientation.

To begin with there was little issue because people wrote on the computer and what they wrote was really not in the same format as what they expected to see printed on paper. Good "word processors" would have a tool for previewing what the printed document should look like and it was okay if this just took up a portion of the landscape oriented screen. Later word processing software and office suites -- to be joined with actual "Desktop Publishing" software -- actually was WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get). That meant that what you saw on the screen more and more resembled what was actually going to be seen on paper and at full size. Of course the screen went one way and the paper the other. For the most part that has just been accepted and programs have included modes that let you see shrunken versions that will fit on the monitor screen or just let you see a part of the page. Sometimes it is nice to see a two page or even multi-page preview on screen to see how things fit together as a whole document.

Apple did take a step forward with their Portrait Display for the Macintosh²³ (image to right - image from "myoldmac.net"). It was monochrome like the original Macs and since so were printers at the time, black print on white screen was just fine. (or many shades of grey) There also was pride on very white screens if I recall the term "paper white screen. There were also monitors developed that would rotate from landscape to portrait orientation. I think that the portrait oriented monitors were/are mostly used by people who do a lot of desktop publishing.

With the ability to have multiple monitors hooked up to computers now and shared desktops and so forth, there is a resurgence in use of portrait oriented monitors. (image to left - image from "MacNN Forumsª")  Probably the new thin designed screens also makes it easier to design and implement considering the lighter components inside without the hefty cathode ray tube (CRT) and transformers.

Note how the second portrait monitor fits so nicely to the left of the main, quite large monitor.

Consider this though: will there be a bias when people design pages, for them to design to the landscape page more often now than the portrait? I got to thinking about that a few years ago when designing event posters for the museum I volunteer at. (The Port Moody Station Museumº) I was designing the posters to fit on regular "letter" sized paper and thought about how we orient such stuff on the paper. Often maps will go landscape while small posters go portrait. When people put together websites although the screen tends to be landscape, the pages tend to either be designed to fit one page landscape or extend portrait style.

I was wondering if people seeing more and more things in text on a landscape screen would be tending to design documents on that landscape orientation? I know some things just fit better one way or the other. Many people do read things more easily in narrower columns so a wide page is a problem. (Sorry but I can't cite a source at the moment on that, it is something told me by teachers and I have read in articles on learning disorders. It has to do with the eye skipping up or down a line more easily on long lines.) But a wide page can take multiple columns like the news papers have.

Still I think people are more used to scrolling down a long web page than across one. Though the trackpad on my Macbook and the MightyMouse I bought for it can scroll horizontally with equal ease, most mice I have come across are intended to scroll vertically. I wonder though if younger people have less bias against horizontal scrolling and horizontally presented pages? Of course... do people have any bias at all in either direction? .

Later!
~ Darrell

134.

__________
¹ "DWP" -- That's me.

² "myoldmac.net -- Apple Macintosh Portrait Display -- Buy it!"

³ "Apple Portrait Display" MonitorWorld.com.

ª "The New Power Mac Picture Thread -- Page 13" blakespot; Sept 29, 2006, 6:00 pm: MacNN Forums

º "The Port Moody Station Museum Blog" 2734 Murray Street Port Moody, British Columbia, Canada (604) 939-1648 run by the Port Moody Heritage Society

What a Body Count -- an ultimate lineup

All Known Bodies in the Solar System Larger Than 200 Miles in Diameter -- to scale lined up in a row.

Perhaps you have to be a science or astronomy buff -- or into science fiction -- but I found the content of this web page incredible. It is not so much that there is a lot of new information nor that any great high tech or fancy web tricks are being used. It is merely that it is interestingly laid out and in a way that even a layman can appreciate -- I think.

The page is: KOKOGIAK -- All (known) Bodies in the Solar System Larger than 200 Miles in Diameter. It was posted March 29, 2007 and so a little bit out of date, but not so much as it can't be enjoyed and appreciated.

Of course this is only a thumbnail of the original. The original is 1000 pixels high or tall enough that the Earth -- that first blue marble to the left -- should be approximately screen height on most monitors. To make it reasonable in size the creator -- and I believe it is the Website Developer, Alan Taylor, decided to scale things to the height of the Earth. He is representing the larger planets by showing a section of their "limb" -- an arc of the edge of their disk -- to give an impression of their relative size. Otherwise the smaller bodies would shrink to insignificance. His choice of 200 miles as being a cut-off is that it is the approximate size of Mimas (247 miles in diameter) and he is fond of this satellite of Saturn's.

I think he made a good choice. I think one can scroll horizontally across one of the three choices of views of the image. One has the metric and Imperial measurements for the planet's diameter along with the name, the next is the same image, but with only the metric measurement, the last has the image without any text labels. I have a bit larger scale image cropped here as a thumbnail to give a slightly better feel for things. (image to left -- image from KOKOGIAK) This is still much smaller than the actual image.

It does use actual images where possible. I think the only place where I might criticize is with regard to Venus and that the image he uses seems to be dilated horizontally somewhat even if you take into consideration the fact that part of its disk is in shadow like Titan's is. I do believe that the artist -- for I do believe it is artful -- tried for teh colours you might see with the naked eye, or some semblance of them.

If you are at all interested in the Solar System -- whether you agree with Pluto's current designation or not -- I recommend you go to this page and have a look at the presentation of this image. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

More information on KOKOGIAK can be found on their main page http://www.kokogiak.com/default.asp. I suggest you have a look at the window below where the title "KOKOGIAK" is written and click on the menu items for "Who" "What" and "Where" to find out more about the site. I think I'll be having more of a look there.

Later!
~ Darrell

133.

Blinders - To See or Not to See

Today's Fashion Frames -- Glasses Bring Focus

Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I like my peripheral vision. That is your ability to see things to the side of you while looking straight ahead. It helps you avoid people running lights or climbing into your blind spot while driving and enhances your shoulder checks. It also lets you know when someone has come up beside you when it is too noisy to hear them. Peripheral vision does that sort of thing for you.

(Reading glasses -- image to right from Image*After)

But looking at fashionable frames on the typical glasses I see more and more people wearing I see frames with temples that seem to block most peripheral vision except maybe from gophers and pigeons sideswiping you. Temples -- by the way - are the side arms of the glasses that go from the hinge part back and over the ears. My Mom worked for an optometrist and glasses manufacturing company for a while and she passed on some of those terms to me.

For myself I have gone to thinner and thinner temples and thinner frames. My frames are a bit ancient... I guess not too many are wearing glasses from the 20th century... and have metal frames all around the lenses and metal temples. I am wearing them in many of my biography pictures I have in my columns. Mine aren't as frameless as the ones above and to the right.

The ones I see more and more often on office people, news reporters, and fashion conscious folk are like the ones to the left. (image to left -- image from iOffer). I do admit they can look sharp. Sometimes they seem a bit odd when the lenses are frameless and have these massive wide temples. They can almost look like the person isn't wearing glasses at all, just the wide dark temples sticking forward from their ears like errant combs or pens.

Still I wonder at how much peripheral vision they remove. I do see from my looking for example photos of the wide templed glasses that the narrow templed ones are still there and still stylish enough. That is a relief for I fear my old faithful frames should likely be replaced soon.

But I wonder... are those blinders good or bad... are there so many distractions in the workplace that people need blinders so that they can focus on their work and the job at hand? Perhaps with a cellphone in one hand and a latte in the other while walking to the subway -- I hope not while driving -- they need a way to focus on the sidewalk ahead with fewer distractions. Just like the draft horses of the past...

Later!
~ Darrell

132.

Undisabling -- Maintaining Accessability II

Doing More Than Minimum

A few years ago a new "super store" was opened locally and it was a great success in most ways. They did follow some new design ideas that are being incorporated more often now for the environment. They also probably help the bottom line...

One in particular is the incorporation of parking under the grocery store. A "super store" basically is a grocery store expanded to include much of a department store -- and in fact a department store and grocery store to rival a warehouse store or big box store. They are reminiscent to me of the old department stores that included a grocery store which rivalled any grocery store chain's store.

In this case of this new store's opening, that is one of the things that people were critical about. It wasn't that valuable space was saved in putting parking under the store, but rather that access to the store was made by ramps.

Other stores of near identical design had been built in Metro-Vancouver without so much complaint, but this one had a small difference -- this one did not also have elevators. The other stores all had elevators in addition to the ramps. The ramps are fairly gradual in slope and not too much effort for an able bodied person to climb. I think perhaps people with health issues might find them a bit taxing though. There are also stairs, I believe, though it has been a little while since I was there. People wanted to know why elevators were not included in this store and the reason given by the chain: "City bylaws did not require us to have elevators so we did not include them."

I think that it might be very important for municipalities, provinces, countries and other levels of government to have laws establishing minimum levels of compliance for such things as whether a building has elevators or what degree of slope an access ramp might have, but even if these might differ from area to area, certainly what should also be looked at is function. I can understand that having or not having an elevator does change the cost of a building, but especially when we are talking about a chain that has designs already made for the same or similar store with elevators, why not include an elevator simply to make the store more functional?

The cynic in me can think of reasons/excuses why not to put one in. One that comes to mind is that if you put one in, then you are liable for any accidental injury that it will cause. Of course you could always counter that with how many accidental injuries might be caused by not having it. I'm not a lawyer so I am probably naive in that counter argument.

What reminded me of this was a situation of someone I know who has been sick and in the hospital for a while. They have been doing fairly well with their artificial leg, but after recent surgery just are not up to climbing stairs or long ramps. Normally they use canes but for the moment they are using a walker. They aren't going out much but they have to go to the Doctor from time to time -- of course Doctors just don't make house-calls. The issue is that to get from the "Handicapped Parking" stalls to the door, a person has to negotiate either a long ramp or stairs.

This is not a building which has been retrofitted to allow for the handicapped parking. The building was designed as a medical-detal-legal office building from the start. In the designing didn't anyone anticipate that people who might be going in and out of such a building might actually be disabled and so it might be handy if there weren't major changes in elevation between the parking and the elevator lobby?

Probably the whole design does fit in with the Civic Bylaws and all the minimum standards set by the different levels of government with perhaps a few amendments which were applied for and granted in exchange for other accommodation. But the if the minimum is the bar that people aim for all the time, perhaps the bar has to be raised? -- at least for new buildings.

I can understand that when retrofitting existing structures minimum standards might be what is aimed for -- if at all possible -- but not for new structures. There might of course also be standards for voluntary compliance perhaps?

I am starting to consider if I might change my shopping patterns with a bias toward the more accessable locations. After all, if they are more willing to accomodate people with accessability issues, they probably also will do right by all of their customers.

Later!
~ Darrell

131.

__________
Handicapped signage image from Image*After.

Of Belts and Books, Briefcases and Backbacks... Part-1

Belting One On -- Front Seat Bad-Backseat Good

I come from a reckless generation... perhaps lucky we were wreck-less.

When I grew up, cars seldom had seatbelts as standard equipment -- as I mentioned in "Wandering Wags: Travelling Time With Your Dog" -- with our first car with seatbelts being a '66 Meteor. (image to right -- image from "Winged Messenger - Canadian Cars") That is referring to our Parent's car, that is. Our '72 Mercury was the first care that had convenient seatbelts and we only really started regularly using them towards 1976 or so. Those were such reckless times...

Back then too, my Sister and I considered it a treat to ride up in the front seat with Dad. There really were only a few times when that happened: When Mom stayed home -- she didn't drive and so the passenger seat was Mom's seat; when we went on a long highway trip and my Sister got carsick -- and Mom would have her sit up front with her; when there were more than two guest passengers in the car meaning that the back seat was full so there'd be three up front; and when on a few rare occasions when the trunk was so full of stuff -- like when Grandpa gave Dad a side of beef one Christmas -- that the suitcases took up the half of the back seat that my Sister normally sat on and so she had to sit in the front seat. Those were such reckless times...

(image to left, 1972 Mercury Monterey -- image from "Down On The Street")

I won't say my Parents were neglegent. Things were different in the 60's and early 70's. My Parents were quite strict actually that my Sister and I were to stay seated in the car while we travelled and that we were not to be standing on the seat like it seemed at least half the parents let their children do. They also didn't let us hang out the window like the family dog either like it seemed some families did. Even our dogs were required to keep their heads inside the car... true they were allowed to have their front paws on the back of the front seat so their nose could get out the window, but they had to keep their head in the car.

As time went on, accelerated -- perhaps with my defensive driving courses which my parents thought it was a good idea to have -- I began to figure it a good idea to wear a seatbelt. I worked to get myself into the habit of wearing one which was enforced in Driver Training. I decided I would always wear one driving and that it became part of my driving ritual when I got my first car when I was 17. I have always worn one since if there was a seatbelt and if it was at all possible or prudent. On some jobs as a security officer doing patrols on the dock it wasn't prudent. Driving without wearing a seatbelt feels naked to me.

Airbags seemed like a good idea to me. I did worry about people deciding not to wear seatbelts becausethey had airbags, but... people will be people. I do recall there being discussions early on about the dangers of airbags, but airbags were only found on upscale cars as options. Issues about dangers of airbags to children and smaller adults were something that were in the hands of the people who opted for the airbags. Things were different when airbags started becoming the norm. (airbag deployment image to right -- image from "GarageLibrary.com")

That is history. Since then seatbelt use, like helmet use on motorbikes and now bicycles, has become manditory and enforced by law. (image of child in bicycle helmet to left from "HAMAX") There have been stricter and stricter regulation on seating for children riding in motor vehicles. At first the regulations did rankle me because I was a poor student and though I had a car never had much money and I tended to taxi around friends who did not have cars yet had children. I could not afford to buy carseats for children or modify my older though well loved and cared for cars. Still since then there have been put into place resources for low income families to buy carseats for their kids even if they don't have a car so that they have them when it comes time to transport their children.

I think that carseats are a good idea, just like I think seatbelts are. (image to right from U.S. Census Bureau) I think that other safety equipment like airbags are good things too.

But there is something that has been bothering me... it is about the whole thing of it being a bad thing for children to be in the front seat of a car. I can agree that if the airbag is dangerous to children and small adult, that a child should ride in the backseat. ...but... I think there is a problem -- the problem not being with where the children ride, but why they must ride there. I think that the problem is with airbag design and rather than moving children and small adults out of the front seat, airbags should be made safer!

I see many arguments about the back seat being inherently safer from objects penetrating the interior of the car or crumple damage. There is validity there, and long, long ago I recall Mom talking about the front passenger seat being called "the suicide seat" -- though a lot of that was from pre-seatbelt days due to the fact that the front passenger would be catapulted through the windshield since they didn't have anything in front of them to stop them. The driver had the steering wheel and the back seat passengers had the back of the front seat to stop them from hurtling forward... remember this was before people so regularly wore seatbelts.

Okay so there were more dangers in the front passenger seat. That is especially true I know when nobody wears seatbelts. I think though where the argument wears thin is that if the back seat is safer... why let even the driver sit in the front seat? I know that sounds stupid. But if the seat is dangerous, then should anyone be allowed to sit there? Couldn't the front seat be made as safe as the back?

(image to left of forward facing car seat from "AAP -- Car Safety Seats: A guide for Families -- 2008")

I think in part the airbags and shoulder harness in the front seats -- especially for the passenger seat -- were to increase that safety, as were things like padded dashboards and so forth.

I think rather than all the propaganda to push children to the back seat, airbags that are not dangerous to them should be designed! There is a flaw in the airbags if they injure. I would have thought more research would have been done in the time since they were invented to solve this problem. There are better airbag systems coming out now and in development, but I rather think that kids are being asked to sit in the back of the bus.

Later!
~ Darrell

130.