I have a mommy and don't need another one appointed by our nanny state. Sorry to be so direct, but without natural selection, we de-evolve. That is just the logical conclusion. Correct me if I have this wrong.
You don't have it wrong, per se, you just haven't thought it through. Many think the same as you however, and see the implementation of safety devices as excessive governmental infringement into their personal affairs. I see that, but in many, probably most cases actually, those safety devices were not just to protect you, but others as well.
When I was 10 years old, my mother's best friend from her school days had an 8 year old daughter who bas backed over by her Grandfather while he was mowing the yard. She survived, but lost one leg. He was absolutely devastated. If you had asked him way back then, what he thought of the future (decades later) implementation of the RIO system I have spoken of before, (Reverse Implement Operation), I'm sure he would have felt the same as you. But that safety switch wasn't about him, it was about protecting others. The government mandate requiring an additional, separate action before mowing in reverse isn't about protecting the operator, it's about protecting the innocent. Like you, I could care less if some dufus cuts his own leg off. It's the innocent who need protection from the dufus.
What happens if a kid, or grandkid, or spouse, or neighbor, is using the machine and the unthinkable happens? Would the speech about natural selection bring solace? You could always tell yourself that "I did my best to train/tell/advise them, it's their own fault for not listening and being stupid!" But I think I would have trouble sleeping after that, no matter how hard I tried to convince myself that unhooking that government mandated seat switch was within my rights, founding fathers, amending the constitution, et cetera, et cetera.
Boys, I worked on the stuff for years. Not just my own, but hundreds of pieces owned by other people. And you can damn well better believe that when a machine came into my shop with the seat switch jumped out and rendered ineffective, that I made sure I got a signature on the dotted line right beneath where it said "I acknowledge that a safety device(s) is inoperable, and I have instructed that it not be repaired" Probably still wouldn't have protected me, but it made me feel better.
Sorry to be so direct.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
