Airbags are useful; they should stay in the cars.
In 1997,Mr Robert. H.Nelson wrote an article called "The New Prohibitions"ÃÂ. The article can be classified into two main parts. The first part is mainly about the sentiments of Mr. Robert. H.Nelson towards the government. He felt that the Congress was rash in passing a law without considering the consequences. Mr. Robert. H.Nelson also felt that it was ironic for the Congress to claim great confidence in the judgment of the citizens, but kept passing laws that would seem otherwise. Mr. Robert. H.Nelson strongly believed that the citizens are able to take care of themselves and discouraged the government from enforcing unnecessary and non-beneficial laws. The second part of the passage deals mainly with Mr. Robert. H.Nelson views on air bags. From his use of words such as, "ÃÂsillier', "ÃÂexpensive nuisance', "ÃÂcan be outright harmful', "ÃÂdon't do much good', we can see that he is strongly against air bags.
He felt that installing air bags was a waste of money and reckons that they bring more harms than good. In his conclusion, he urged the congress to revoke the decision on compulsory installation of air bags and let the car owners have a choice.
After reading this article, one question came to my mind. Would you prefer to land on an air bag or the hard steering wheel in time of a crash? I felt that Mr. Robert. H.Nelson's main purpose of writing this article was to express his displeasure against the government. He stated the 1991 congressional mandate regarding implementation of air bags as the main tool of his argument. He was clearly disturbed that too many laws had been passed and the Congress was impulsive in implementing them, without foreseeing the consequences. Most importantly, I felt that he was...