• FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Counting on a tool that isn’t going to work is a major downside. Especially in the life and death situations that cause you to need one.

      • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Except now you have spent money on something that doesn’t work. It’s not “no different”, it’s a waste of resources.

          • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            • Arcka@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              according to the research

              You say that like it’s settled fact. Was the “research” peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal? Has it been replicated?

              • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Did you read the article? It’s the entire reason this post exists. There are two citations that will answer your questions.

                • Arcka@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  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.

                  • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    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.

              • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                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.

                  • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    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.