Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

last part. The data on airbags
has clearly shown that they have taken the lives of a great many
innocent people, not just "small stature" people, but also average
people killed in accidents directly caused by airbags deploying
improperly such as when the car hits a pothole. The data also shows that
many of the people "saved" by airbags would have been better off dead
since the airbag did not protect most of their wrecked bodies (this I've
heard directly from ER doctors).

Especially since the early legislative history of the airbag clearly
shows it was originally the intention of Congress to use them as passive
restraint systems, to save those who would not buckle up. Ooops.

I

explains in excruciating detail how they calculate the benefits of seat
belts and air bags and even factor in the unfortunate and rare occurrences
when belts or laps do more harm than good. As our resident medical
statistician, Kurt, you can't possibly agree that all but a small subclass
of passengers would be better off without airbags. Air bags and seat belts
have been studied from here to Andromeda and back.
I was merely mentioning that when originally legislated, they were
touted as a REPLACEMENT for seat belts. The research shows that a much
larger class of people were killed by airbags only.

Nobody has ever been killed in an accident caused by a seat belt, the
same is very much not true for airbags.