On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 06:02:15 GMT, wrote:

I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Based on...what, exactly?

Between their introduction in the 1980s and 1997, the NHTSB reported
about 2600 lives saved by air bags. Almost all of those people were
otherwise unsecured, which means almost all of them would have also
been saved by seat belts.

This is a far cry from your 'thousands' saved every year. Meanwhile,
87 people were killed by air bags in that same period. Studies clearly
show that air bags increase the possibility and severity of injury
see:
http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/pdf/airbags.pdf

Any particular part of that report, or would you like me to read the
whole 4-point type article to guess what you mean?

Note that below 52 Km/H a woman is more likely to be injured than
protected by an air bag.

Remember, just because you keep repeating a falsehood, that doesn't make
it true.

Just because you have a preconception doesn't make it true. Seat belts
reduce fatalities among drivers and front-seat passengers by about 45
percent. Air bags add, at most about an additional 9 percent
protection.

Well then.

In my book that's 'very little' additional protection.

You're saying that because only 9% additional _deaths_ were prevented,
that that's only "very little" additional protection? Not everyone
injured in a crash is killed, I probably go to 50 injury accidents for
each fatality I go to. But, by your logic, those injuries don't count
because a death didn't happen? My argument would be that not only
are those 9% of people not dead, but _more_ additional protection
was provided to people who were injured less severely _and_ didn't die.

As
far as injury reduction is concerned, air bags added 7 percent
protection to seat belts, an amount the NHTSA declared not
statistically significant.

Right, 7% (on top of 9% reduction in fatalities) matters to hardly
anyone. Except, I suppose, for people in those 7 and 9 percent.

The engineers of European cars had airbags in place _long_ before
the US required them, and they certainly didn't do it for cost reduction
reasons.

And your source for this statement? I can't find any. The earliest
mention I can find for air bags in Europe is in 1992, years after the
airbags first appeared on American cars.

Engineers _OF_ European cars. Didn't say those cars were _in_ europe,
but that they are _from_ europe.

As to why the Europeans did it -- Most of them did it because they
wanted to be able to sell their cars in the United States, at least
orignally.

Maybe safety was their motivation. Things other than greed do get
factored into designs sometimes, y'know.

Of myself, I know very little. But unlike, say, you. I'm willing to go
out and to the research to discover if what I do know is accurate.

Yeah, according to you, 9% + 7% is "very little improvement".

The people who know automotive safety systems are unanamious that seat
belts work better than air bags. You'll notice none of them recommend
using air bags alone and all the literature refers to air bags as
'supplemental devices'.

I've made that point. In this thread.

I'm one of those people who prefer to have the choice.

OK, so you'd rather go face-first into a dashboard than an airbag? You
prefer hitting a steering wheel with your chest, rather than an air-filled
pillow?

That only happens if you're not wearing a properly adjusted seatbelt.
Or did you miss that part of my comment?

My personal experience as an EMT/Firefighter for a dozen years is at odds
with that statement. Mister "ford-shaped bruise" was most decidedly
wearing his seat belt in that frontal crash. Sometimes the wheel
comes _to you_, y'see, so all the restraint in the world isn't gonna
stop it from coming up to meet you when the dash rolls in on you.

Have you ever _been to_ a severe car crash?

I don't know if you're deliberately attempting to set up a straw man
here or if you just don't read very carefully.

I see blatantly wrong statements like your "only happens if" above, and
point out the obvious problems. There are quite likely more subtle
problems with your point of view that I am missing, but they are
masked by things like "7+9=insignificant", y'see.

You can still get _serious_ chest trauma wearing a seatbelt,
by hitting the steering wheel. Been there, done that, read the bruise
on the guy's chest that had "droF" pressed into it.

And air bags increase the risk of injury to drivers and occupants in
most categories on the injury scale. See above.

Did you get your 7% better, and 9% better, backwards then?

Besides, if your seat belt is properly adjusted you won't hit the
steering wheel.

Wrong. Absolutely and unquestionably wrong.

Some choices are poor ones.

In this case the choice is not at all poor. Why should I trade a
significant risk of medium-level injury for a relatively small degree
of protection in the event of a major crash? Especially when I know
that if I am a member of certain classes the risk of injury is much
higher than for most people?

Because you're making your decision on a flawed assumption.

A basic understanding of the statistics involved would show that to any rational person.

Sorry, you're wrong. The statistics don't support your claims.

Those 9% and 7% of people alive and/or less badly injured would
probably disagree with your statement.

I'm sure my
five-foot-nothing mother-in-law woud love to be able to switch off the
airbags in her car. The last time she was in an accident the air bag
skinned her face.

Waaah. A bit of bag rash on the face.

That 'bag rash' damn near required skin grafts over most of her face.
It has caused corneal tears (severe eye damage) in others.

Just think of how bad it would have been without the pillow of air
and fabric, had she hit the wheel.

Beats eating the dashboard.

Since she was wearing a seat belt that wouldn't have happened. Reading
comprehension again.

And again, you haven't been to many crashes, have you. Google for
extrication photos and get back to me on what doesn't move to where.

Right, because obviously the airbag is going to hit her harder than she'll
hit the harder parts of the car...sheesh.

Straw man/reading comprehension again. If you're wearing a seat belt
and it is properly adjusted you don't hit the harder parts of the car.

Keep on repeating it, maybe someone will believe you. Why don't you go
off to a firefighting group and tell 'em that you'll never get hit
by the wheel or dash if you're wearing a seatbelt, and tell us how that
goes for you.