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.
What different strategy do you suggest to gaining egress or ingress to a car whose doors can’t be opened, other than trying to smash one of the windows or windscreens ?
And like I said, the seat belt cutter fine works exactly as intended, even if it’s unlikely you’ll need it, when you do, it’s gonna work. It’s literally just a knife, that has to be used once, so it’s not like it’ll blunt over time.
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.
You don’t know, because there isn’t one. If the doors are too deformed to be opened normally, there are only three possible axes of ingress or egress to the car. You either break a window or screen, you violently force the door open, or cut the columns and remove the roof. And since I doubt you’re suggesting everyone start carrying hydraulic shears and heavy duty circular saws, in their car, window it is.
And if I’m in a situation where I have to break a car window, even if it’s only a 1 in a million chance I’ll ever be in that situation, I’d rather have one of those hammers than nothing.
Same thing for a seatbelt cutter. I bet if your truck had caught on fire, and the fire was about to breach the fuel tank, you would’ve loved a seatbelt cutter to quickly free yourself and get out.
Waiting for trained paramedics to extract crash victims is obviously ALWAYS the best options, but if there’s an acute threat to the vehicle, like fire, unstable ground or sinking, you CAN’T wait. You HAVE to extract yourself or die. And like I said, in that situation I’d much rather have a hammer and seatbelt cutter than have nothing. In a situation like that, there is no “doing more bad than good”. You are dead if you don’t extract yourself immediately. Nothing the tools do or don’t do at that point could possibly make the situation worse.
This is like arguing that people should be told to not perform chest compressions on people having heart attacks, because it’s incredibly unlikely to ever be needed, and the average person won’t do the compressions hard or fast enough to be effective anyway.
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.
Because the tool does work, that’s the whole fucking point genius.
It just only works in highly specific and unlikely scenario.
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.
Your stance is literally: “if it isn’t guaranteed to work in every single situation possible, then I’d rather have nothing”.
I’m curious what your stance is on Aircraft carrying life vests. Those are arguably even LESS likely to safe your life than one of these tools. Should Aircraft all stop carrying life vests because of that ?
Let me give you a hypothetical: You’re stuck in a car after a Passenger side T-Bone. All doors are crushed and can’t be opened. The passenger seat has been crushed against, and mangled the seatbelt receptacle, so you’re unable to unbuckle. There’s a fire, spreading towards the fuel tank.
Question 1: Is it possible, however unlikely, for a person to be in this situation ?
Question 2: do you think a person in that situation has better, worse, or equal odds if survival if they, or a bystander, has a window hammer and seatbelt cutter on them ?
The article is about how they don’t work. It’s why we are talking about it. Anyway, you decided insults were the way to go so I’m out after the first sentence.
No it isn’t. The article is about how they RARELY work, and you’d be rarely in a situation where you can effectively use them.
Sarcastically calling someone genius after they’ve repeated the same, wrong, point for the 3rd time in a row isn’t an insult dude, that’s ridicolous.
Please quote the exact part of the article which states these tools will literally NEVER work, in any possible situation. Because that’s what you’ve repeatedly claimed, and I’ve repeatedly repudiated. So since I apparently missed that part of the article, do please quote it to me so I can verify.
Anyway, you decided insults were the way to go so I’m out after the first sentence.
You could just admit that you’re unable to answer my hypothetical without destroying your own point. Or do this. Also fine.
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.
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.
What different strategy do you suggest to gaining egress or ingress to a car whose doors can’t be opened, other than trying to smash one of the windows or windscreens ?
And like I said, the seat belt cutter fine works exactly as intended, even if it’s unlikely you’ll need it, when you do, it’s gonna work. It’s literally just a knife, that has to be used once, so it’s not like it’ll blunt over time.
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.
You don’t know, because there isn’t one. If the doors are too deformed to be opened normally, there are only three possible axes of ingress or egress to the car. You either break a window or screen, you violently force the door open, or cut the columns and remove the roof. And since I doubt you’re suggesting everyone start carrying hydraulic shears and heavy duty circular saws, in their car, window it is.
And if I’m in a situation where I have to break a car window, even if it’s only a 1 in a million chance I’ll ever be in that situation, I’d rather have one of those hammers than nothing.
Same thing for a seatbelt cutter. I bet if your truck had caught on fire, and the fire was about to breach the fuel tank, you would’ve loved a seatbelt cutter to quickly free yourself and get out.
Waiting for trained paramedics to extract crash victims is obviously ALWAYS the best options, but if there’s an acute threat to the vehicle, like fire, unstable ground or sinking, you CAN’T wait. You HAVE to extract yourself or die. And like I said, in that situation I’d much rather have a hammer and seatbelt cutter than have nothing. In a situation like that, there is no “doing more bad than good”. You are dead if you don’t extract yourself immediately. Nothing the tools do or don’t do at that point could possibly make the situation worse.
This is like arguing that people should be told to not perform chest compressions on people having heart attacks, because it’s incredibly unlikely to ever be needed, and the average person won’t do the compressions hard or fast enough to be effective anyway.
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.
Because the tool does work, that’s the whole fucking point genius.
It just only works in highly specific and unlikely scenario.
Your stance is literally: “if it isn’t guaranteed to work in every single situation possible, then I’d rather have nothing”.
I’m curious what your stance is on Aircraft carrying life vests. Those are arguably even LESS likely to safe your life than one of these tools. Should Aircraft all stop carrying life vests because of that ?
Let me give you a hypothetical: You’re stuck in a car after a Passenger side T-Bone. All doors are crushed and can’t be opened. The passenger seat has been crushed against, and mangled the seatbelt receptacle, so you’re unable to unbuckle. There’s a fire, spreading towards the fuel tank.
Question 1: Is it possible, however unlikely, for a person to be in this situation ?
Question 2: do you think a person in that situation has better, worse, or equal odds if survival if they, or a bystander, has a window hammer and seatbelt cutter on them ?
The article is about how they don’t work. It’s why we are talking about it. Anyway, you decided insults were the way to go so I’m out after the first sentence.
No it isn’t. The article is about how they RARELY work, and you’d be rarely in a situation where you can effectively use them. Sarcastically calling someone genius after they’ve repeated the same, wrong, point for the 3rd time in a row isn’t an insult dude, that’s ridicolous.
Please quote the exact part of the article which states these tools will literally NEVER work, in any possible situation. Because that’s what you’ve repeatedly claimed, and I’ve repeatedly repudiated. So since I apparently missed that part of the article, do please quote it to me so I can verify.
You could just admit that you’re unable to answer my hypothetical without destroying your own point. Or do this. Also fine.