It's easy to convince EDC people to buy EDC things. But how do you convince non-EDC folks to buy your product? Simple: Fear. The global "car escape tool market," according to market research firm Data Insights Market, is valued at $500 this year, projected to grow 7% a year and
Better than nothing but, according to the research, as useful as nothing. If you know in advance it will work on a particular car’s glass then that’s a different story. But if you give it as a gift or buy one without knowing and it turns out to be useless it grants a false sense of security. Someone may repeatedly try using it in an emergency instead of trying a different strategy.
I don’t know yet. But now that we know alternatives to these tools are needed we can let some experts in the field figure that out. Because we now know that these are useless on laminated glass and, per the article, a third of the tools sampled didn’t even work on non-laminated glass.
The article also points out how useless the seatbelt cutter is. And after hanging upside-down in my truck last December I can attest from first hand experience that the cutter would have definitely done more harm than good in my particular case.
I’m still confused as to why people are defending a tool that doesn’t work. Why they want people to depend on something that doesn’t do what it says it does and how that’s a good thing. You acknowledge it’s a rare situation (one in a million) but then think a tool with a one in a million chance of doing what it advertises is going to be helpful. That’s a one in a trillion chance of it actually being helpful.
I would never recommend a tool that doesn’t do its job to someone and feel like I made the ethical move. Especially for a life situation. A false set of security is not security.
Removed by mod
Except now you have spent money on something that doesn’t work. It’s not “no different”, it’s a waste of resources.
Removed by mod
Better than nothing but, according to the research, as useful as nothing. If you know in advance it will work on a particular car’s glass then that’s a different story. But if you give it as a gift or buy one without knowing and it turns out to be useless it grants a false sense of security. Someone may repeatedly try using it in an emergency instead of trying a different strategy.
Removed by mod
I don’t know yet. But now that we know alternatives to these tools are needed we can let some experts in the field figure that out. Because we now know that these are useless on laminated glass and, per the article, a third of the tools sampled didn’t even work on non-laminated glass.
The article also points out how useless the seatbelt cutter is. And after hanging upside-down in my truck last December I can attest from first hand experience that the cutter would have definitely done more harm than good in my particular case.
Removed by mod
I’m still confused as to why people are defending a tool that doesn’t work. Why they want people to depend on something that doesn’t do what it says it does and how that’s a good thing. You acknowledge it’s a rare situation (one in a million) but then think a tool with a one in a million chance of doing what it advertises is going to be helpful. That’s a one in a trillion chance of it actually being helpful.
I would never recommend a tool that doesn’t do its job to someone and feel like I made the ethical move. Especially for a life situation. A false set of security is not security.
Removed by mod
You say that like it’s settled fact. Was the “research” peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal? Has it been replicated?
Did you read the article? It’s the entire reason this post exists. There are two citations that will answer your questions.
Yes I read the blog post and the linked “research”. There is no indication that it has been replicated or even academically reviewed.
The linked PDF is even missing sections 8 & 9 listed in its TOC.
There, you answered your own questions. Now we know that you are just one replication study away from either feeling justified or changing your mind.