laura@utcsstat.UUCP (06/29/83)
Now correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that airbags are less effective than seatbelts in stopping me from being killed if I am in a car crash. And airbags are expensive, and cost money to be deflated if they ever do go off, either *in* an accident or *by* accident. Yet you poor folks are going to have to get airbags and the seatbelts are being removed? And if I rent a car in the States there will be airbags and no seatbelts? Terrific. Now, again, the people with the brains have to suffer because of the ones who dont. There are times when I think that it would be quicker to build a great big ark (and call it the B ark :-) ) and ship them all off planet. How many people here think that the prime role of government should be providing information? How many think that it should be weilding a great big stick to threaten those who may have done wrong? How many think that the primary role should be protecting stupid people from the consequences of their own stupidity? How many think that the primary role should be penalising the intelligent because their brethren are stupid or for some reason *want* to kill themselves? Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
emma@uw-june.UUCP (06/30/83)
Air bags are more effective than seat belts in a single forward impact. In a secondary impact, side impact, rollover, or rear impact seat belts are more effective. Seat belt-shoulder harness combinations are more effective in all situations. Automatic seat belts, which include a shoulder harness in all cases I have ever heard of, are more effective than air bags but less than shoulder harnesses. My understanding is that in autos equipped with air bags the shoulder harness will be missing but the seat belt will remain (with no gongs or other reminders to buckle it). This is a classic example of the federal covernment compromising my safety for the benefit of some moron incapable of fitting tab 'A' in slot 'B', and charging me (estimates are in the range of $900.00) for the privilege. And frankly I resent it. -Joe P.
bottom@katadn.DEC (09/12/85)
My insurance company (USAA) recently sent the results of a study they conducted on airbags out to all of us insured parties. They claim that they had no accidental inflations of air bags due to bumps etc. In fact, they bent the frame of one of the test cars on a bump hit at high speed and the airbag still did not inflate. The airbags did inflate when required by impact without fail. The photos include were impressive showing that face to steering wheel impacts that occurr even when wearing seatbelts could be avoided entirely. They went on to give statistics on the airbags that have been used and may "fatal" accidents were avoided thruogh the use of airbags. For those of you who believe that we can get airbags if we want they said that airbags are options on two cars worldwide the Mercedes and the BMW. Airbags were offered but not marketed on GM producst for a few years in the mid 70's and the entire US auto industry has based it's claim that the american public does not want them on the relatively low sales that resulted from their non-sales approach of these devices. You cannot at this time buy an airbag system to be retrofitted into your car. They were able to retorfit their company fleet but only as they are a volume buyer and this offer is anot available to the general public. The cost of airbags is a hot item and rightfully so. The cost of the mercedes system is $800. However they have a source (they retoriftted right?) that can install them for $300 each. A small price to pay for your life eh? I don't favor making airbags mandatory but I would like to be able to buy one for myself, you can go and drive off a cliff for all I care. If you don't have airbags I believe that should be your choice as well as mine. Dave Bottom DEC AUgusta Maine !dec-rhea!dec-katadn!bottom
biagioni@unc.UUCP (Edoardo Biagioni) (12/20/85)
[article about seat belt laws and the priviledges the highway patrol derives from them deleted] > > Not quite. It seems that Empress Dole (Sec. of Transportation) has decreed > that airbags will be mandatory (gag) unless n% (n > 50, i think) of the states > pass mandatory seat belt laws. I, for one, would rather have seatbelts than > airbags. > <supressing long, rambling tirade against airbags and regulatory agencies> Well, then let's hope *less* than 50% of the states pass seat belt laws! Why would you rather have seat belts than airbags? Just offhand, airbags have the following advantages: - They work even when you don't think about them (i.e., when you are distracted or tired, which is when you might need them most...). - They are more comfortable than seat belts, and comfort when driving is important. - They work even for kids or people who aren't "normal size". - It is easier to enforce airbag installation than seat belt wearing. This means that more people will be protected. - Once you have an airbag, you will always use it when needed. - You have no incentive to deactivate the airbag. I have seen lots of cars where the seat belts have been taken down. The only disadvantage I can see in airbags is their cost, which last I heard was estimated at about $300 (U.S.). Since that is about 5% of a CHEAP car, it seems like it might be worth the investment. Other than this extra cost, I can't think why anyone would prefer seat belts to airbags, unless it is to encourage "natural" selection, of course :-). (Smiley because I can't believe anyone REALLY wants only seat-belters to survive and reproduce). I share your dislike of regulatory agencies, but I would prefer to have them regulate airbags than what percentage of the states must have seat belt laws. > >-- >John Allred >General Computer Company >uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john Ed Biagioni decvax!mcnc!unc!biagioni seismo!mcnc!unc!biagioni
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (12/31/85)
> Why would you rather have seat belts than airbags? Just offhand, > airbags have the following advantages: > - They work even when you don't think about them (i.e., when you are > distracted or tired, which is when you might need them most...). They also protect you only in frontal collisions. > - They are more comfortable than seat belts, and comfort when > driving is important. And I feel one helluva lot better strapped into the car so that if something happens and I get thrown to one side, I won't yank the wheel over and compound the accident. By the way, a study showed that people who wear seat belts use LESS energy just riding in the car than those who don't. Where's the comfort? > - They work even for kids or people who aren't "normal size". A real problem with the current crop of belts, but I blame car designers and people who don't wear seat belts correctly ... forcing designers to create belts that can only be put on in one way ... and an inconvenient one at that. > - It is easier to enforce airbag installation than seat belt wearing. And harder to test the damned thing without destroying it. What about the person whose eyglasses can't be made of safety glass? When the bag fires and shatters the lens, it blinds him. The seat belt won't do that. > This means that more people will be protected. Dee below. > - Once you have an airbag, you will always use it when needed. Once. In a multicollision accident, you are totally vulnerable on the second impact. In a roll-over, you bounce around the car. > - You have no incentive to deactivate the airbag. I have seen lots > of cars where the seat belts have been taken down. I do. I want my three-point harness. I don't want a system that will knock me away from the controls when I may need the most control effort - and skill. > The only disadvantage I can see in airbags is their cost, which last > I heard was estimated at about $300 (U.S.). Since that is about 5% > of a CHEAP car, it seems like it might be worth the investment. > Other than this extra cost, I can't think why anyone would prefer seat > belts to airbags, unless it is to encourage "natural" selection, > of course :-) . . . Seat belt laws mean the not wearing a seat belt will make it impossible for someone to collect insurance money for harm that he could have mitagated or prevented. Why the hell should he collect MY insurance money for HIS aforethough negligence? It may also mean that more drivers will be able to control their cars in panic stops when the rear wheels break loose. I can, but without the belt, there's just no way I could keep all my weight from going to the brake pedal, and no way I could steer. I don't think most drivers are much better. Dammit, I want my harness. Seat belts are NOT just emergency (read collision) protection, they are basic equipment necessary for the safe operation of an automobile. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) (01/03/86)
In article <1163@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >> [somebody else] >> Why would you rather have seat belts than airbags? Just offhand, >> airbags have the following advantages: >> - They work even when you don't think about them (i.e., when you are >> distracted or tired, which is when you might need them most...). >They also protect you only in frontal collisions. > And only marginally so, even then. Airbags are not considered completely effective without the use of seatbelts anyway. >And I feel one helluva lot better strapped into the car so that if >something happens and I get thrown to one side, I won't yank the >wheel over and compound the accident. Interesting. I've noticed that most of my passengers feel MUCH better when they've snapped their belts on than when they haven't :-) >> - You have no incentive to deactivate the airbag. I have seen lots >> of cars where the seat belts have been taken down. >I do. I want my three-point harness. I don't want a system that will knock >me away from the controls when I may need the most control effort - and skill. Ah, here we disagree. I really can't think of any skills I'd need in the middle of a collision other than the need to make sure I haven't reflexively locked my limbs, waiting for quadruple compound impact fractures. It would be nice to know that something collapsible besides my arms is waiting to cushion me. >It may also mean that more drivers will be able to control their cars in >panic stops when the rear wheels break loose. I can, but without the belt, >there's just no way I could keep all my weight from going to the brake pedal, >and no way I could steer. I don't think most drivers are much better. > >Dammit, I want my harness. Seat belts are NOT just emergency (read collision) >protection, they are basic equipment necessary for the safe operation of an >automobile. > > from Mole End Mark Terribile Amen. -dave -- David Hsu Communication & Signal Processing Lab, EE Department <disclaimer> University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 hsu@eneevax.umd.edu {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu CF522@UMDD.BITNET And then there were none.
john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (01/03/86)
In article <472@eneevax.UUCP> hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) writes: >In article <1163@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > >>> - You have no incentive to deactivate the airbag. I have seen lots >>> of cars where the seat belts have been taken down. >>I do. I want my three-point harness. I don't want a system that will knock >>me away from the controls when I may need the most control effort - and skill >Ah, here we disagree. I really can't think of any skills I'd need in >the middle of a collision other than the need to make sure I haven't >reflexively locked my limbs, waiting for quadruple compound impact fractures. >It would be nice to know that something collapsible besides my arms is waiting >to cushion me. I must disagree with you. The last thing I need in the middle of an accident, while trying to maneuver to avoid other cars/guardrails/etc, is this silly bag obscuring my vision and distracting me. As for something to keep my head from going into the windshield, that's what a 3-point harness is for. If Empress Dole gets her way and mandates airbags, and I buy an airbag equiped vehicle, I will *immediately* disable the bag. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (01/03/86)
>/* mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) / 5:54 pm Dec 30, 1985 */ >By the way, a study showed that people who wear seat belts use LESS energy >just riding in the car than those who don't. Where's the comfort? And people who are crucified use less energy than those having sex. Less energy use does not necessarily mean more comfort. >And harder to test the damned thing without destroying it. What about the >person whose eyglasses can't be made of safety glass? When the bag fires >and shatters the lens, it blinds him. The seat belt won't do that. Then THOSE people shouldn't use airbags. >Seat belt laws mean the not wearing a seat belt will make it impossible for >someone to collect insurance money for harm that he could have mitagated or >prevented. Why the hell should he collect MY insurance money for HIS >aforethough negligence? When you contract with an auto insurance company, you generally agree to pay a premium and the insurance company generally agrees to compensate you in the event of an accident. I believe, generally speaking, insurance contracts contain no provisions stating that insurance companies cannot use the money obtained from your premium for what they deem appropriate. >Dammit, I want my harness. Seat belts are NOT just emergency (read collision) >protection, they are basic equipment necessary for the safe operation of an >automobile. Spare us the tantrum. If seatbelts are basic equipment for the safe operation of an automobile, why is it that the vast majority of drivers who don't use seatbelts are not involved in accidents. > from Mole End Mark Terribile Mike Sykora
hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) (01/04/86)
In article <419@gcc-milo.ARPA> john@gcc-milo.UUCP (John Allred) writes: >In article <472@eneevax.UUCP> hsu@eneevax.UUCP I write: >>Ah, here we disagree. I really can't think of any skills I'd need in >>the middle of a collision other than the need to make sure I haven't >>reflexively locked my limbs, waiting for quadruple compound impact fractures. >>It would be nice to know that something collapsible besides my arms is waiting >>to cushion me. > >I must disagree with you. The last thing I need in the middle of an accident, >while trying to maneuver to avoid other cars/guardrails/etc, is this silly bag >obscuring my vision and distracting me. As for something to keep my head >from going into the windshield, that's what a 3-point harness is for. >-- >John Allred I suppose I shouldn't prolong this discussion, but anyhow: The point of airbags is that even with a three-point harness, in a severe impact you WILL be thrown forwards, probably not into your windshield, but possibly into your steering wheel, or whatever happens to be flying around your passenger compartment at the time (coins, keys, Escort, etc.) If you've been hit hard enough to throw you against the front of your dash, I don't care if you're Steve Austin...you're not going to be maneuvering anywhere until you've recovered. And by that time, the bag has long since deflated. Airbags aren't telepathic, they won't inflate because you think an collision may occur, they inflate WHEN you collide. And no, even if they mandate airbags you'd better believe I'm still going to rely on my harness, but I'm not disabling the bags. On the flip side, we should hope that if a mandatory airbag law comes into effect, it shouldn't require the airbag to detonate for some ridiculously small impact, where a belted person wouldn't lose control (even if it would help some unbelted driver towards his early extinction). In this case, you may have a point say, if you are clipped by another car. But by then, you've been hit, haven't you? apologies for the long posting, -dave -- David Hsu Communication & Signal Processing Lab, EE Department <disclaimer> University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 hsu@eneevax.umd.edu {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu CF522@UMDD.BITNET And then there were none.
ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (01/06/86)
>Dammit, I want my harness. Seat belts are NOT just emergency (read collision) >protection, they are basic equipment necessary for the safe operation of an >automobile. ***** I totally agree. In your article you outlined nearly all the things that scare me about bags. I'd also like to share with you a recurring nightmare of mine: An emergency situation occurs while I am driving. I've trained for this moment, my car is in good mechanical shape, I'm on good rubber, my reflexes are good, I'm wearing a three point harness and I'm paying attention. The emergency occurs and... something blinds me and pushes me away from the controls. The irony that this something has been installed by Uncle Sam for my safety does nothing to help me regain control of my careening car. The nightmare usually ends with me and the auto falling from a great height. No THANK you. Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calf.) ihnp4!{pesnta,qubix}!wjvax!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
jj@alice.UUCP (01/06/86)
I intended to gore Sykora for his dishonest debating tactics (i.e. "then why don't people who don't wear seatbelts all have accidents" or something similar) but I sort of decided that it wasn't worth the effort. The seatbelt issue (and I'm tempted to use quotes of contempt around issue) is a wonderful demonstration of just what's going wrong with government regulation. To be specific, the government is going to MAKE US PROTECT ourselves. It wouldn't consider making those who DON'T protect themselves through the use of seatbelts liable for their own suicidal actions, of course, but it will make us all accept something unsafe and unsatisfactory instead. Sykora's sarcastic support (Oh! Spare us! and the like) of the governments policy fails to explain only one thing, namely why he supports air bags, rather than personal RESPONSIBILITY. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE SHY, SAVE A POWDERMILK BISCUIT FOR YOURS! "There are bridges, bridges in the sky, and bridges in the air..." (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (01/07/86)
>/* jj@alice.UUCP / 12:04 pm Jan 6, 1986 */ >I intended to gore Sykora for his dishonest debating tactics >(i.e. "then why don't people who don't wear seatbelts all >have accidents" or something similar) but I sort of decided >that it wasn't worth the effort. But you thought it was worth expending some omniscience to arrogantly accuse me of dishonesty without backing it up. Of course, it's almost impossible to prove someone dishonest. You should have said I was either dishonest or stupid, atleast. If you wish to discuss it, I stand by my contention. What you describe above is not similar to what I said -- go back and read what I said. >Sykora's sarcastic support (Oh! Spare us! and the like) of >the governments policy fails to explain only one thing, >namely why he supports air bags, rather than personal >RESPONSIBILITY. Amazing! Where did I say that I support (which?) government policy? Where did I say that I support (whatever that means) air bags? Mike Sykora
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (01/07/86)
In article <3630038@csd2.UUCP> sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes: >>Dammit,I want my harness. Seat belts are NOT just emergency (read collision) >>protection, they are basic equipment necessary for the safe operation of an >>automobile. > >Spare us the tantrum. If seatbelts are basic equipment for the safe operation >of an automobile, why is it that the vast majority of drivers who don't use >seatbelts are not involved in accidents. Um. Where did you get this fact, Mike? -- -Charles
bill@sigma.UUCP (Bill Swan) (01/08/86)
In article <472@eneevax.UUCP> hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) writes: >In article <1163@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >>I do. I want my three-point harness. I don't want a system that will knock >>me away from the controls when I may need the most control effort - and skill. >Ah, here we disagree. I really can't think of any skills I'd need in >the middle of a collision other than the need to make sure I haven't >reflexively locked my limbs, waiting for quadruple compound impact fractures. >It would be nice to know that something collapsible besides my arms is waiting >to cushion me. Dave, I was involved in a wreck a few years ago in which I was wearing my seatbelt. I was rear-ended and pushed into oncoming traffic. I had just enough enough time after impact to haul myself back upright (my seat had collapsed from the acceleration from 0 to about 40 MPH in 1/2 second or so) to grab the remains of my steering wheel and steer the car safely back to my side of the road to avoid further collisions. Without a belt, I would have gone out the rear window. With a bag, I could not have regained control quickly enough to avoid a head-on collision. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill
ibyf@ihlpa.UUCP (Scott) (01/09/86)
> In article <472@eneevax.UUCP> hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) writes: > >In article <1163@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > >>I do. I want my three-point harness. I don't want a system that will knock > >>me away from the controls when I may need the most control effort - and skill > >Ah, here we disagree. I really can't think of any skills I'd need in > >the middle of a collision other than the need to make sure I haven't > I must disagree with you. The last thing I need in the middle of an accident, > while trying to maneuver to avoid other cars/guardrails/etc, is this silly bag Wait a minute, the air bag doesn't come out until you hit something, and if you don't want you "skills" and "reactions" obscurred by the bag, where were your "skills" and "reactions" to keep you out of the accident in the first place. Sorry guys, No validity in that argument. Try again! Addison ihnp4!ihlpa!ibyf My brother? I always thought of him as mom and dad's science project.
john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (01/10/86)
In article <1006@ihlpa.UUCP> ibyf@ihlpa.UUCP (Scott) writes: > >Wait a minute, the air bag doesn't come out until you hit something, and if >you don't want you "skills" and "reactions" obscurred by the bag, where >were your "skills" and "reactions" to keep you out of the accident in the >first place. Sorry guys, No validity in that argument. Try again! Come now, Sir Addison. Although my skills and reactions are good, they will not keep me out of every possible accident. The other guy's action has much to do with whether I can avoid him or not. The situation that I was thinking of, where I didn't want a bag in my face, was this: after violently maneuvering to avoid an accident, I am faced with a situation where I must hit something. So, I choose to hit the lesser of the evils with a glancing blow. Presumably, I will still keep some forward motion, and I will have to control the vehicle after the accident. The bag in my face will significantly reduce my ability to control my vehicle. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john "Oh, you'll probably get away with crucifixion." "CRUCIFIXION??" "Yeah, first offense."
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (01/11/86)
> I totally agree. In your article you outlined nearly all the things > that scare me about bags. > I'd also like to share with you a recurring nightmare of mine: An > emergency situation occurs while I am driving. I've trained for this > moment, my car is in good mechanical shape, I'm on good rubber, my > reflexes are good, I'm wearing a three point harness and I'm paying > attention. The emergency occurs and... something blinds me and pushes > me away from the controls. The irony that this something has been > installed by Uncle Sam for my safety does nothing to help me regain > control of my careening car. The nightmare usually ends with me and > the auto falling from a great height. > > No THANK you. > Ron Nightmares aside, why should an airbag activate before a collision?
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (01/11/86)
In article <3630038@csd2.UUCP> sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes: >> What about the >>person whose eyglasses can't be made of safety glass? When the bag fires >>and shatters the lens, it blinds him. The seat belt won't do that. > >Then THOSE people shouldn't use airbags. Perhaps you could explain how one is supposed to avoid them when riding in someone else's car, or a rental, etc. Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
schley@mmm.UUCP (Steve Schley) (01/13/86)
In article <581@sigma.UUCP> bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) writes: >In article <472@eneevax.UUCP> hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) writes: >>In article <1163@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >>>I do. I want my three-point harness. I don't want a system that will knock >>>me away from the controls > >I was involved in a wreck a few years ago in which I was wearing my seatbelt. >I was rear-ended and pushed into oncoming traffic. I had just enough enough >time after impact to haul myself back upright (my seat had collapsed from the > >Without a belt, I would have gone out the rear window. With a bag, I could not >have regained control quickly enough to avoid a head-on collision. > First off, Bill, in a rear-end collision, I don't think an air bag would have been triggered. So the situation would have been no different, bag or no bag. Even if it had gone off, your only knowledge of the fact would have been a loose, deflated bag laying in your lap, and maybe the memory of a muffled "bang". These things inflate AND DEFLATE in a small fraction of a second! Tests have been run where volunteer drivers have had their bags remotely triggered while they were driving, and no one lost control, died of fright, were blinded (even momentarily), or had any interference with their driving. They reported that they heard a noise, and the next instant a deflated air bag was on their lap. They didn't even see it inflated, it happened so fast! So, if it had been inflated, you would not have been "knocked away from the controls" or affected at all. All of you people who are "bag-ophobic" should treat yourselves to a little reality-expanding trip to the library, where you can learn the truth about some of life's little complexities. Like air bags. And of course, keep wearing those three-point restraints (quaintly called "seat belts"). I, too, am looking forward to another layer of protection, and I think air bags provide this additional protection. -- Steve Schley ihnp4!mmm!schley
john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (01/14/86)
In article <398@mmm.UUCP> schley@mmm.UUCP (Steve Schley) writes: > >And of course, keep wearing those three-point restraints (quaintly >called "seat belts"). I, too, am looking forward to another layer of >protection, and I think air bags provide this additional protection. After watching several of those high speed films of dummies in simulated accidents, I conclude that airbags buy me nothing over a properly used 3 point harness (that is, seat belt/shoulder belt, as opposed to seatbelts only,or a 2 point). What additional protection do you think that airbags give you? -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john "Oh, you'll probably get away with crucifixion." "CRUCIFIXION??" "Yeah, first offense."
bottom_david@mtblue.DEC (DAVE BOTTOM ASO/4AC 271-6935) (01/15/86)
It has been interesting to watch this debate go on. Most postings have been emotional and not factual. I favor airbags as an *OPTION* not manditory equipment. At this tinme only two cars world wide offer airbags as an option, niether of which are in my proce range, or the price range of most people. They are Mercedes Benz and BMW. Some amusing points that have been made against airbags: 1. They will inflate when they want to blinding me causing an accident. Not true. 2. They will inflate and shatter my glasses blinding me for life (if I live through the accident) I still haven't stopped laughing about this one. Give me a break. 3. They will stay inflated and cause the accident to be worse since I won't be able to control my car. If the airbag has inflated due to an accident you cannot react faster than the airbag will defalte, you most probably wouldn't even notice the airbag inflating or deflating, you would just find that it had, and that it had saved you form injury. All testing to date on airbags conducted by companies independant from the auto manufacturers has concluded that airbags significatly reduce the risk of injury in serious accidents when used correctly with a seatbelt system. Even when seatbelts are not used airbags proved effective in reducing injuries for the driver of the vehicle. But as usual, in order to get airbags offered as an option, we will probably have to make them manditory since Detroit is not interested in passenger safety, just profits. Dave Bottom DEC Augusta Maine !dec-rhea!dec-mtblue!bottom_david *this is my opinion not DEC's*
dave@quest.UUCP (David Messer) (01/20/86)
> > I totally agree. In your article you outlined nearly all the things > > that scare me about bags. > > I'd also like to share with you a recurring nightmare of mine: An > > emergency situation occurs while I am driving. I've trained for this > > moment, my car is in good mechanical shape, I'm on good rubber, my > > reflexes are good, I'm wearing a three point harness and I'm paying > > attention. The emergency occurs and... something blinds me and pushes > > me away from the controls. The irony that this something has been > > installed by Uncle Sam for my safety does nothing to help me regain > > control of my careening car. The nightmare usually ends with me and > > the auto falling from a great height. > > > > No THANK you. > > Ron > Nightmares aside, why should an airbag activate before a collision? Why should any mechanical system fail? I have the same objection to airbags. The other interesting thing is that after it blinds you and pushes you away from the controls, it deflates just before you hit the tree. -- David Messer UUCP: ...ihnp4!quest!dave ...ihnp4!encore!vaxine!spark!14!415!sysop FIDO: 14/415 (SYSOP)