On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:08:37 GMT, wrote:
On 21 Dec 2004 17:21:54 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

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

Good grief! You're not even willing to do the research when someone
spoon feeds you the references. I guess this is all pretty useless.

Yeah, because a vague statement like you made could or could not be
based on anywhere in that report. I was hoping you could, you know,
indicate what page or something.

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.

No response?

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?

Compared to the 45 percent offered by seat belts, yes that's very
little additional protection.

Seems to me it takes 45% up to 54%.

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?

Not hardly. However the statistics show that you are more likely to
suffer lesser degrees of injury if air bags deploy than if they do not
deploy.

You're saying what I've been saying and not what you've been saying.
You're right this time, if the airbags deploy, you'll get hurt less.

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.

Untrue, according to the numbers. If you are involved in a crash you
are more likely to suffer injury if you have an air bag and it deploys
in all but crashes that produce the most severe (Level 6 -- almost
certainly non-survivable) injuries.

So, it can save your life in really really bad crashes, it can decrease your
serious injuries in merely "really bad" crashes, but it might give you a
scrape in a minor injury? The balance seems obviously tilted towards
"use 'em".

Right, 7% (on top of 9% reduction in fatalities) matters to hardly
anyone.

Well, no. The term 'statisticaly insignifcant' means that it is simply
too close to call. Within the margin of error for the sample. It could
well be statistical noise. You can't draw any conclusions from it.

It's all the data that's available. We're not doing a presidential poll
here where the data gathered is a subset of the whole population, we're
comparing raw numbers of the actual results. 16% having a dramatically
better outcome is significant, I'm sorry if you disagree.

However if you break it down the picture becomes even worse.

Oh, well, _that_ clears it all up.

Except, I suppose, for people in those 7 and 9 percent.

The 7 percent may not exist at all. That's the point of 'statistically
insignificant.' Note also that the 9 percent includes the people in
higher risk categories, such as very short people and children. Since
I don't fall into those categories, I am at even lower risk.

You said before short people and children were _harmed_ more than helped.
Now you cite (twice) that it's actually a 9% net positive for them.
You're contradicting yourself.

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.

Their primary motivation was more likely the same as the GM's -- They
knew air bags were probably coming and they needed to get experience
with them. The usual way to do this is to phase it in on high-end cars
as an option.

Companies like Mercedes and Saab (and, to a lesser extent Volvo) actually
give a **** about safety, and make changes to their cars that aren't
mandatory. The first two at least, have allowed anyone to use their
safety patents, rather than greedily keeping them to themselves.

Or are you seriously going to suggest that big auto manufacturers are
more alturistic if their headquarters are in other countries? I
haven't noticed an upsurge in corporate citizenship since Dailmer
bought Chrysler.

Yes, I'm seriously suggesting that, for instance, Saab has designed
around safety features since their inception. I'm seriously suggesting
that Mercedes invented the concept of "crumple zones", and allows everyone
to use their technology. I could go on and on with details (more for
Saab than Mercedes as that's where my direct knowledge is), but you'd
probably choose to disregard each example in turn.

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".

Nope. 9 percent for all drivers in fatalities -- traded off for a
greater risk of lesser injuries.

If they live, the scrapes can heal. You're not really suggesting that
a bit of pain is comparable to a death, are you?

And a statistically insignificant
'improvement' -- which may or may not be a statistical artifact in
injuries in all categories.

If this was a subset, I could see this being sampling error. I don't see
anything to suggest this is anythign other than the raw statistics.

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.

Yet you seem to be ignoring it. In this thread.

I have never said airbags should be used by themselves.

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.

In fact it was my EMT instructor (IIRC) who first pointed this
phenomenon out to me. He stressed the fact that even though belted
drivers didn't hit the wheel or the dash, it was important to handle
them as if they had suffered internal injuries because a lot of them
had.

Close. It's more like "even if you don't _know if_ they hit the wheel
or dash, since you don't want to be sued for someone becoming paralyzed,
you handle the c-spine as if it was damaged". In other words, everyone
gets a collar, everyone gets boarded. Some states allow EMTs to clear
spinal concerns in the field, and happily I am not in one of those
states. You apparently misinterpreted the intention of what the EMT
instructor told you.

However I don't propose to match my long-expired Level 1 EMT
certificate against your experience. My instructor's point was
confirmed by a search of the literature.

Yes, of course, because why actually talk about real accident scenes
when you can post another link. Or not.

While there is a lot on seat belt injuries, I was unable to find a
single reference to steering wheel or dashboard injuries to drivers
wearing the now-standard 3-point harness.

Well, I can talk to ford-guy. He's the dad of a friend of mine. Maybe
he's got pictures.

Mister "ford-shaped bruise" was most decidedly
wearing his seat belt in that frontal crash.

I don't doubt your story, but again the research indicates that this
is extremely rare.

You said "never". Now you're improving to "extremely rare".

And again, you're more likely to suffer Level 5 or below trauma if
your air bag deploys than if you're simply using a seat belt.

If you say so. I'll trade the chance of minor trauma for a chance
at not dying, thanks all the same.

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.

Okay, so you're not talking about a crash where the driver is thrown
forward into the steering wheel. You're talking about an accident
where the entire structure of the car is deformed and the passenger
compartment collapses.

Yes, for instance.

That wasn't clear from your original statement.

Didn't need to be. You said, unequivically, that a patient who is belted
will not hit the steering wheel or dashboard, ever.

However judging from the literature this is a tiny percentage of
accidents. Again, there's nothing I could find on seat belt injuries
from contact with the dash or steering wheel.

"seat belt injuries from contact with the dash or steering wheel" is a
nonsensical phrase. If you mean "belted passengers injured by
car structure impingement" or something, well, maybe it's your google
technique.

It also seems to me that an air bag isn't going to do a lot for you in
that case. It may prevent the initial violent impact, but you're still
going to get crushed as the structure (and the air bag) collapses.

Depends on how close it gets, dunnit? Your body _does_ come off the
seat when you're stopping very fast, even with belts which do
stretch.

But unlike the hard data, that's just my opinion.

Have you ever _been to_ a severe car crash?

Dozens of them. I was a police reporter. As a court reporter I also
sat through the lawsuits that followed, including reconstructions of
crashes and crah injuries.

And you haven't seen dashboards roll?

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.

Again, your position isn't supported by the evidence.

You keep saying that, and yet...

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.

If someone can point these problems out to me I'd be very interested.
Since you can't even be bothered to read the references and your grasp
the concept of 'statistical insignificance' is non-existant, any such
problems that might exist are pretty obviously beyond you.

Look. I'm trying to see if your point of view has _any_ merit, and so
far all I get is "it's in the article somewhere", "an EMT instructor
friend of mine (I think) said", and "you don't understand stats".

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?

Nope. The 7 percent may well be a statistical artifact. But when you
break injuries down by category, you find a higher percentage of
injuries for airbag versus belted drives at every category but level
6.

....where people get really, really hurt, or not. Yes, I understand.
In other words, they do the most good at the most severe crashes.
Go figure.

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

Wrong. Absolutely and unquestionably wrong.

Not according to the evidence. If this happens there's no refererence
to it in the literature.

You're backpedaling from your backpedal above.

Also, if I understand you, in the cases you're talking about the
driver didn't hit the steering wheel, the steering wheel hit the
driver.

Yeah, 'cuz that makes _all_ the difference in the world, injury-wise.
Sheesh.

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.

And the people injured by air bags might differ from your opinion.

I'll take minor injury over "dead" any day.

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.

Since she was belted in, she would not have hit the wheel. That's the
point of 3-point restraints and they're very effective.

Good thing it wasn't a more severe crash then, eh?

And again, you haven't been to many crashes, have you.

Wrong.

I'll amend that to "you haven't paid attention to the dynamics at many
crashes, have you".

Google for extrication photos and get back to me on what doesn't move to where.

Google for 'seat belt injuries' 'steering wheel' and 'dashboard' and
see what you find.

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.

I keep repeating it because it is true.

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.

Again, you're talking about the dash or wheel hitting the occupants,
not vice-versa.

And since it's such an obvious proposition, how about some references
to how air bags prevent injuries in such cases? If you're correct,
that should be a no-brainer. Except I can't find anything like that.
And I have looked.

Maybe in your world seat belts don't stretch at impact. If I thought
I could change your mind, I'd bother to google for seat belt dynamics
in a crash.