“Because common sense is not so common” is one of my favourite sayings. I think it often.

And it is the inspiration for this blog. And more particularly, it is the inspiration for a new semi-regular category of entries on this blog. Hence the use of “Part 1″ reference. So, without further ado, I give you installment one:

“Death Nap: the dangers of tilting back the front seat – don’t do it” by Emily Bazelon in Slate.com. posted on 7th September 2007.

And its attendant comments in the discussion forum, the Fray. The comments section is very interesting.

In this article, the author discusses her recent car accident in which she incurred severe injuries but luckily survived. Her injuries were caused by the fact that, notwithstanding she had her lap-sash seat-belt fastened, she had her front passenger seat substantially reclined and not in the (proper and safe) upright position. Mz. Bazelon then proceeds to argue that the government and car companies have been hiding the truth about the dangers of travelling in a car with the seat fully reclined that it warrants an expose and a call for regulated warnings.

Emily Bazelon is an intelligent woman. She writes for Slate.com for goodness sakes! But this story fails the common sense test on many levels. Let me count the ways.

1. Mz. Bazelon fails to mention that, not withstanding the severe injuries she incurred, they would have been more serious, perhaps fatal, if she had not been wearing a seat-belt at all. Further, it should be obvious to the casual reader that if she had been wearing seat-belts and had the seat in the upright position then her injuries would have been much less severe.

I still remember that high school science class where it was shown that unrestrained dummies sitting in the front seats tend to either have a very unfriendly and forceful communication with the dashboard or instead tend to want to unorthodoxically exit the vehicle by crashing through the windshield.

2. Most cars and car ads show the seats in an upright position. And most of those car crash tests show the seats in the upright position too. The common sense deduction would be that seat belts are designed to be used in conjunction with seats that are upright.

3. It is also common sense, if one were to take some time to reflect, that seat-belts are designed and do work because in the event of a crash, the seat-belts hold you in position relative to the seat. That is, they hold you against the seat, making you one with it (and the car) and not like an unrestrained water melon that flies through the cabin from the rear parcel shelf onto the windscreen.

Many of us would have had near accidents whilst wearing seat-belts. We had prior experience with why and how the seat belts worked.

4. Personal responsibility is not the sole responsibility of the regulators. Regulation should be for situations that are unforseeable to the reasonable person. It should not be there as a reason to abrogate common sense. There should be no need for warnings on irons that read “Do not iron garment while wearing garment”.

Common sense is not so common, not because it is hard to figure out, but more likely because a person is too lazy to do it on his or her own or relies on others to bear the consequences.

I invite comments from readers for I have much to learn.