On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 04:58:08 -0800 (PST), nick markowitz
wrote:

On Jan 16, 7:47*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article
,
*Smitty Two wrote:

* * It was known, FYI,

Looks like your transmission was cut off at the end, but thanks for the
history.

* Yeah and by now I have forgotten what tremendously salient point I was
trying to make (g). I have always thought it sort of an interesting
example of the law of unintended consequences that airbags were
originally thought as a replacement for seat belts, until they started
killing people. Bureaucratic oopsy.
* *ALthough to be fair, the regs for airbags called for inflation forces
that were above what most of the airbags at the time were doing. (Which
triggered another round of rulemaking, BTW). I have often wondered if
the less aggressive airbags might have actually done their job.

Less aggressive air bags certainly would be better, assuming seat belts are
properly worn. OTOH, if everyone wore seat belts, airbags would likely have
never made the scene.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
*---PJ O'Rourke

Just look at anti lock brakes how they where suppose to save lives and
instead end up taking lives when people push down here the strange
noise there suppose to make and then let off and try to pump there
brakes instead.
again lack of education and people die.

Seat belts are hardly an issue of lack of education.