Pete, Kurt and 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.

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. Airbags 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.

I see. And agree although I would have worded it differently. Can you have
a "larger class of people?" (-: How about:

"Airbags alone don't save many lives. They need to be used along
with lap/shoulder belts for maximum protection." (I feel like a
Congressman fine tuning a bill!) g

Airbags are clearly less effective at saving lives than seatbelts but they
don't require a deliberate act of the driver or passenger to engage.
People protected by both seatbelt/shoulder belts AND airbags have the best
of all possible protection because the airbags can prevent facial injuries
from flying glass, etc. and the belt keeps the head far enough away from the
deploying airbag to avoid concussions. At least that's what the NHTSA tests
I posted previously claim.

I have a hard time believing the statement that people would be "better off
dead" than if they had used airbags but anything's possible. Maybe if Pete
added "airbags alone" because very bad things can happen if you get too
close to the deploying airbag too early in the process. That's an easy
thing to do if you're not belted in. This is new technology, relatively,
and we're still learning how to do it right. There have been many
enhancements since they first appeared.

However, I've yet to see the study that proves the contention that airbag
only users would be "better off dead" no matter how much anecdotal evidence
from ER doctors to the contrary. The stats show a marginal increase in
live-saving ability. I'll admit that it could be possible that airbag-only
use leads to more serious non-fatal injuries than belt use, but I couldn't
torture that conclusion out of the NHTSA data. Maybe after another few
sessions with my trusty Amazon Home Waterboarding Kit . . . (-:

Injuries caused by airbags have been declining based on the feedback
obtained from accidents where their deployment caused serious injuries.
IIRC, the deaths occurred mostly to small children whose necks can be broken
by the rapidly deploying bag. They also occurred in cases where occupants
were unbelted allowing their heads to get too close to the deploying bag.

I recall one study I read saying the death rates for such accidents in the
past were less than 100 a year and are much less now, but I am too lazy to
go find it again. Now, cars come with ways to disable the airbag for the
passenger side if a young child is riding in the seat. People are also very
much more aware of the issue than when airbags first appeared.

But the bottom line is something I don't think a lot of people know: If you
have an active airbag and don't use your lap/shoulder belts, then you're
just looking for serious trouble.

Pete may be right in that the general public doesn't know that airbags alone
do not make a good restraint system, if that's what he's trying to say. (-:
I didn't know how bad the numbers (14%) were until researching this post.

I think you pointed this out earlier, Kurt, that passive systems like air
bags and motorized belts are in some ways perverse because they lead people
not to buckle up their lapbelts. That combination has been proven to have
some serious bad outcomes.

Are airbags less cost-effective than seat/shoulder belts? I'd say
"certainly" but even that comes with a "yabbut." If the safety goal is to
protect people even though they are unwilling to protect themselves by
buckling up, then airbags are mildly successful. But is that a laudable
societal goal for the Feds to enforce at the manufacturing level? I'd say:
"Probably not." Airbags, in their current state, promise way more than they
deliver. I think if you don't care enough about your own personal safety to
buckle up, then you should be prepared to accept the consequences of
depending on airbags alone. But people need to know those consequences and
Pete is right to point out that airbags alone do not make for good crash
protection.

IIRC, the NHTSA study showed that use of airbags *alone* only increased an
occupant's chance of survival by 14%. That's not much, IMHO, but it's
certainly better than nothing and I believe that the report also stated that
those who used both devices were far away the best protected. Is that extra
percentage worth the additional cost of airbags? Hard to say. If a genie
appeared to me as I was having a head-on collision and said "think an airbag
is worth it now?" I am sure I would agree. (-:

IMHO they're going to have to get *much* cheaper, much more reliable and
much more protective (more than 14%) to justify their continued "mandatory"
existence. Like so many other options, airbags should be left up to the
purchaser and not the Feds.

--
Bobby G.