Miata Mailing List: September 1998, Message #245

sponsored by

Previously on Airbags, Matt Trostel <Matthew.A.Trostel@MCI.com> said...

> There's really no use discussing this topic if we don't look at both
sides:
> the number of people saved by the devices compared to the number of
people
> killed by them.

That's not a valid argument.  Seatbelts don't actively kill people,
airbags do.  You don't need airbags if you wear a seatbelt, but there they
are anyway.  Killing some people in order to save others is an
unacceptable solution.  The problem is that other people want to make sure
that *I* am safe in my car.  Apart from my personal belief that it's none
of their damn business, I resent them putting an explosive device in front
of my face without giving me a choice.      

The truth is that airbags are a danger to unbelted drivers, the same
people they allegedly are there to protect.  They are a further danger to
people of smaller size who must, or do, sit closer to the airbag while
driving and riding whether they are belted or not.

The original song from the NHTSA crowd was that airbags were a "Passive
Restraint System".  You will note that the center of the 1996 Miata
steering wheel does not say PRS, it says SRS.  They changed the tune to
"Supplemental Restraint System" when people started dying.  Now they say
that airbags are there to back up the seatbelts.  Problem is that if folks
wore seatbelts in the first place they wouldn't need airbags, and if
airbags had been designed as a supplement to seatbelts rather than a
device capable of stopping a full-grown, unbelted, male human from hitting
the steering wheel, they would deploy with less force and wouldn't be
killing people.

The argument that people fight airbags for the same reasons they fight
seatbelts is false.  People don't wear seatbelts because it's too much
trouble, or they are uncomfortable, not because they are afraid for their
safety.  Conversely, there is nothing more effortless and comfortable than
a stowed airbag, but the thing is dangerous.  This is a very different
argument, especially considering the fact that you are forced to buy the
car with them, and they are not necessary if you wear seatbelts.

My dad is one who won't use either system.  He actually has the best
excuse I've heard to date against seatbelts, although I dismiss it due to
the freakish nature of the event.  He rear-ended a flatbed truck back in
the late 40s or early 50s.  He had been distracted and looked up in time
to see the rear of the truck crossing the hood, and dove for the floor. 
The back of the truck came through the windshield and stopped in the back
seat.  He got out, dusted off the glass and lived to tell about it.  Could
it happen again?  Probably, but what are the chances?  Yes, there are
times when seatbelts can be a negative factor in an accident, but they are
so few that they are outweighted by the benefits, and while the seatbelt
may be a factor, it isn't the active cause of injury.  This cannot be said
for airbags since the airbag is of no significant benefit to the belted
driver and it /is/ the active cause of many injuries and some deaths. 
That's unacceptable in a redundant system.

	-John

------------------------------------------------
John Freas (jfreas@earthlink.net)
Red '90 Base-ish #7690
Birmingham, AL
Team LS1, SP, the Gap...
Team dlralt, PBC, Roebuck, Voodoo...
"I have no idea what those dimple things on the windshield frame are for."
------------------------------------------------