So you believe a front seat passenger that experiences a failed seatback and delayed airbag deployment during a tragic head-on collision sustains no hardships? Did someone convince you that I'm superman?
You said it, not me. Sounds like a perfect reason to attempt to get money out of MB as far as im concerned. So are you agreeing with me in that your ultimate goal is to milk this international corporation for cash in order to ease your hardships? If it makes you feel better, im perfectly willing to believe that you BELIEVE everything you say is true. However, you have come nowhere near close to proving that, which is a shame. Also your continual posts about being screwed by your brother and business partner paint a very vivid picture as far as motive for you.
Do I believe that you have suffered hardships? certainly.
I don't need that evidence. My seatbelt was on. You mentioned the driver should be dead for not wearing his seatbelt. That's wrong. During the crash test the test figure in the driver's seat won't have a seatbelt, and the one in the passenger's seat will to record how both seatbacks will perform.
And this proves exactly what? How do you intend to make a case against both the seat back and airbags at the same time with one car and make that stick as representative evidence? I didn't say he should
be dead for not wearing his seatbelt, I said he IS dead for not wearing his seat belt. You seem to believe that he didn't need to wear a seat belt at all, that he should have lived without it regardless except for a fault with the airbag deployment, right? I think thats ridiculous, and the fact that hes dead and you are alive when you wore your seat belt support me. Im not sure how you intend to conclusively prove this by just throwing an unbelted dummy in the driver's seat.
If the dummy gets trashed as it probably will, all MB has to say is it wasn't wearing a seatbelt. I just don't understand how you think this will turn into magic evidence that creates an entire case for you for both the seatback and airbag claims.
Would you blame the ABS if it applied throttle instead of the brake? Was the airbag supposed to blow me BACKWARDS causing damage to the back/top of my head against the moonroof while WEARING a seatbelt? Was the seatback supposed to fail because I was WEARING a seatbelt? It's difficult to understand why you still insist on claiming I wasn't wearing a belt.
At no time have I EVER made the statement that you weren't wearing a belt. In fact, my entire argument to date has been around you surviving BECAUSE you were wearing a belt. Yeah, you got messed up, welcome to the reality of high speed collisions. Frankly, id be surprised if you HADN'T incurred additional damage based on the wreck pictures, which are very severe.
Im not sure how you arrived on my claiming you weren't wearing a belt, if you have that much trouble accurately reading what other's have written, how can we trust this miraculous retelling of events 5 years ago that you expect everyone to take at face value?
You've called me a liar, accused me of being in it for just the money, claimed I wasn't in my seatbelt, etc. And then accuse me for responding defensively....who's being "inconsistent" here? If we cannot achieve simple reasoning/logic we should cease this dialogue. So far you choose to disregard the fact I was belted, the fact that I reached the dash to sustain my injuries, and the fact that I have a rear head injury (as well as the driver). So unless you believe the rear seat passenger was able to damage the back/tops of both our heads, the outboard bottom side of my seatback, and impose all the critical frontal bodily injuries to both front seat occupants before his skull was fractured against the center of the dashboard, I'd love to hear your depiction of how the airbags and my seatbelt functioned properly. But I'm just the type of guy that believes an ABS system should at least be capable of applying the brakes, and not the complete opposite.[/QUOTE]
Again, what? Where have I ever said you weren't wearing a seat belt? If i were you, id welcome a little free wheeling debate about your "case" with a bunch of strangers for the purposes of practice. If talking to me makes you this upset, you are going to snap like a twig in front of a lawyer cross examining you!
How does calling you a liar, claiming you are in it for the money, and calling you defensive sound inconsistent to you? All three dovetail nicely in my opinion. Honestly, I don't think you are lying, I simply think that your interpretation of events and conclusions about how things happened does not agree with the facts you have posted on this thread. Its as simple as that.
I don't buy the whole 3 separate issues with the same vehicle line. I don't buy that there wasn't driver error, and i ESPECIALLY don't buy that you consistently create circumstantial evidence out of two passengers in the front, one belted, one unbelted, and believe that their injuries should represent some kind of trend towards an airbag fault when how their bodies reacted in the accident is completely different! down to the size and shape of the airbag, the proximity of the dash, the position of the seats, and especially the lack of a belt on the driver!
I do like how you have somehow decided that I "claimed" you weren't belted in!
You need to read through the thread again and refresh yourself instead of getting confused.