wgg@floyd.UUCP (07/01/83)
Back in the bad old days when you could to 65 on an interstate, (I81 south of Binghamton, NY), I had an incident that made up my mind about air bags. The road is divided there, with the southbound lanes some distance from the northbound lanes, which I was traveling. I was doing 65 in the right lane, and was being passed by a car going maybe 1-2 mph faster, when a deer jumped out in front of him from the center divider, and he hit it. His hood flew up and parted company from the car. I didn't see where the deer landed. Everybody stood on the brakes, and he stayed on the road. What's the point? If he had had an air bag, it would have almost certainly deployed, with him still going over the present 55 mph limit. So he would have been stunned, blinded (those bags aren't transparent), and in bad trouble. About the time he went off the road, the bag would be deflating, just about when it would have been really needed. The upshot? I'll take it if big brother says I have to, but I will insist on lap AND shoulder belts as well. I've used them since 19 ought 59, when you had to install them yourself. Incidentally, the man who hit the deer WAS wearing a belt. Laura Creighton brings up a nasty side effect... Will rental cars still have belts? They will or I don't rent! Bill Graves floyd!wgg
wkb@inmet.UUCP (07/14/83)
#R:floyd:-171100:inmet:2700006:000:1223 inmet!wkb Jul 12 10:30:00 1983 Remember back when the seat belts debates raged on? Remember how a few anti "forcing wearing of seat belts" used to relate obscure accidents where a driver was thrown clear of a car because he wasn't wearing his seat belt and he would have died if he had been wearing his seat belt being trapped in the car? We all laughed and didn't give these arguments much thought since who's going to bet on a million to one chance that an accident that happens to you is the extremely rare case where not wearing a seat belt is safer. But now during the air bag debate, we get to hear a wonderful story about how air bags would not be safe if the guy in the car next to you hits a deer on an interstate highway. Come on, lets stop relating strange accidents to support our arguments and not give any more credence to the one in a million accidents than they deserve. I don't understand how one bizarre accident can make up your mind about air bags forever. I'm much more influenced by articles in reputable magazines (Consumer Reports, etc.) than by scary stories. When hearing about accidents like this one, it seems important to keep in mind the statistical odds (the average from both sides of the issue) of them happening.
jj@rabbit.UUCP (07/14/83)
Reading wkb's response to the above article. (The response concerned myths about seatbelts compared to myths about airbags, claiming that the arguments about airbags were comparable to the fairy tales told about seatbelts when they were first installed in cars.) The author missed two points, one ethical and one practical. The practical point is that the probability of a seatbelt being injurious (beyond the bruises it leaves in a head-on crash) are very small, reportedly (AAA statistics, but somewhat old) 1:1600. The probability of air bags not being effective are roughly comparable to the probability of a sideswipe accident (I seem to remember 5%, but might be bigger) or an off-the-road trip (rolling or not) where there are several impacts, another 25-50% of fatal accidents (depends on who you believe), thus airbags don't help half of the time, or so, and the limited remaining seatbelt protection is all you have to save you (no shoulder belt, you're blinded by the bag, deafened by the concussion <even if you haven't been hurt by the accident>, and unable to steer if the capability remains in the automobile). The two ideas (about seatbelts and airbags) are simply not compatable, and the argument is just another guilt by association trip put on by one of the net sophists. <See net.politics for more experienced sophists.> The ethical point is that you don't have to wear seatbelts, you can indeed take them OUT if you insist. <Damned if I know why you'd want to, but it's your choice.> With airbags, half of the seatbelt is automatically taken out, i.e. you don't have the choice of having it at all, and the airbags (mostly unremovable without great trouble and expense, even then leaving the dash/steering wheel a mess) are unavoidable, whether or not you want them. I realize that some of you don't see the hazard involved in letting the govenment compell you to take THEIR form of protection, but I can't educate all of you in good sense. rabbit!(vacation the next two weeks)jj
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (07/15/83)
> But now during the air bag debate, we get to hear a > wonderful story about how air bags would not be safe if > the guy in the car next to you hits a deer on an > interstate highway. Come on, lets stop relating > STRANGE accidents to support our arguments and not give > any more credence to the one in a million accidents > than they deserve. I don't understand how one BIZARRE > accident can make up your mind about air bags forever. > I'm much more influenced by articles in reputable > magazines (Consumer Reports, etc.) than by SCARY > stories. [[ capitalization is mine ]] So since when is hitting an animal strange and bizarre? I see dead animals on the road almost every day. Unfortunate? Yes. Sad? Yes. Strange and bizzare? No. Also, why does everyone quote Consumer Reports as if it were the Gospel? Yes, I suppose they are "reputable", and they try very hard. I ocassionally read what they have to say about small appliances such as toasters, window fans, and answering machines. But their point of view is so far into 'never mind performance, buy the cheapest product that doesn't disintegrate when you look at it cross-eyed' that I have to take most of what they say with a good deal of salt. For any product that has enough interest to have its own magazine, I look at the specialist magazine instead of CR. Dave Seifert Windy City BMW Club ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert