Miata Mailing List: May 1998, Message #126

sponsored by

In a message dated 98-05-02 10:20:43 EDT, you write:

<< Akira,
 Thanks for your considered response to Zandr's response to... >

Do itashimashite.  (Don't mention it.)  I'm glad to see the subject re-opened
for discussion without a hail of stones being tossed my way!  :-)
 
 > As you know, I'm in the anti-airbag camp.  (Without getting into too 
 much detail). >

I suppose that I've been cast as "pro-airbag."  Not that we have to draw lines
between "camps," though.  I still see us as part of the community, people who
likely have more in common than not, who happen to differ on their opinions on
this particular subject.  And we're still communicating about it---gotta love
the List! 
 
> Here's the big problem with (pre-98) airbags in my eyes - they 
 weren't designed to supplement belts, they were mandated for unbelted 
 occupants. >

>From the start I believe airbags were >designed< primarily as a supplemental
restraint---the catch-all addition to protect the average unbelted male was
more of an afterthought.  Remember, even though they weren't designed to
function that way primarily, the NHTSA Third Report to Congress that we've
been discussing indicates that they DO protect unbelted drivers better than no
restraints at all.  But your point: 

> As a result, they are overpowered and oversized.  For 
 belted drivers and passengers, they could inflate slower and be 
 smaller - they would provide EQUAL margins of safety in the specific 
 types of crashes for which they are effective (frontal), while 
 seriously reducing the incidental injury factor. >

Well stated.  Would it surprise you to know that I agree with you 100%?   I've
made a similar argument in the past, either on the list or on the NG.  You're
an engineer---don't you hate it when someone tries to force a design parameter
on you when you know it won't work?  :-)

   > I don't find the 
 incidental injury factor, as you have detailed above, to be 
 worthwhile for myself and my family, who always wear our seatbelts. >

I respect your choice, and your right to choose.
 
 > It is only now, after 10 years of denying the problem, that the 
 government sponsoring agencies have relented and allowed the de-po  
 wered airbags that the Europeans have been using all along.  This is 
 frustrating, especially since (way back when the airbags were first 
 legislated) automakers warned that they were too powerful, and would 
 cause injuries, and then were accused of stalling and making up 
 misleading false consequences to delay the cost of implementing bags. >

Yes, I remember that.  No wonder the people, who generally mistrust government
AND corporations, couldn't get a handle on the issue.  Who did you
believe---the automaker or the government?  Neither?  Both?  Plus, I submit
(and I might be going out on a limb here) that the real-world effects couldn't
be measured and reliably predicted until sufficient numbers of this new
technology (which is what it was at the time) were out and operable in the
real world.  (Please, anyone, don't misconstrue my comments by saying I'm
condoning the use of the general public as guinea pigs---even after all the
talk about the dangers of airbags, they have seriously injured or killed a
relatively small number of people considering the number of deployments that
have occured.)            
 
> What are those of us stuck with the jumbo-powered bags supposed to 
 do?  If an automaker had brought out such a device on its own, and 
 then 10 years later your quoted statistics were published, there 
 would be a massive recall ordered by the government to replace the 
 potentially dangerous devices with the newer safer version.  Since it 
 was the government who ordered them, do you think they will pay to 
 replace them with the depowered bags? >

Gordon, I have to admit that I do not have the answer to that one.  I suppose
that the same thing could be said about seatbelts---the government forces us
to put them in cars and coerces us to use them.  In rare instances, they can
cause injuries or deaths, but the overall benefit is so great that most of us
accept them as benign and effective. ( I searched the NHTSA and IIHS websites
for info on seatbelt fatalities and came up empty, but IIRC there have been
reports of such in the media.  Anyone?)  

Let's say we reduce the number of airbag-related deaths and serious
injuries---what is an "acceptable" level?  Zero?  Ten?  Ninety?  Do we demand
the same standard from seatbelts?  Side impact protection?  How about the
issue of side-saddle fuel tanks on pickups--who pays for THAT one, since they
met regs when manufactured?     

> We're screwed, plain and 
 simple, by the bureaucratic bungling of the airbag advocates of 10 
 years ago who pushed these devices into use despite the warnings and 
 without adequate research and based on  false engineering premises 
 and assumptions. >

Maybe I look at it a slightly different way---the wheels of government do
grind slowly, yet they do grind.  It took a while to build an undisputable
case, but once the real-world evidence came in that there was a danger to some
people, you've seen the move to depowered and "smart" airbag systems and the
advent of the cutoff switch.  I believe that these measures will go a long way
in reducing the already-small risks associated with airbags in causing serious
injury and death.
 
 > If I were to purchase a new vehicle that had the depowered airbags, I 
 would likely leave them in place.  However, I don't have one of those 
 vehicles now.  In both of my vehicles that have dual overpowered 
 airbags, I have disconnected them.  They are overkill (or 
 overinjury), since we wear our seatbelts at all times.  I'm an 
 engineer, and it simply burns my butt that we have been forced to 
 accept a bureaucrat's safety system (protecting unbelted occupants) 
 and its inherent compromises when better engineered and safer 
 versions were equally possible then and are only now being PERMITTED.
 
 Regards,
 Gordon Choate
 Calgary, Alberta
 96 BRG/tan >>

Just a side note, Gordon, since you post from Canada---don't the Canadian cars
differ from the US models in restraint systems?  How does that government
apply regulations concerning airbags?
--
    "Akira"
'96 Chaste A/T      http://www.eunos.com/keith/stripes/akira.html

"Open the door.  Open the top.  Open the mind."
    ---from '99 Roadster sales brochure (Japan)