Airbags, are they worth it?


From: David N. Parry <dparry@unf6.cis.unf.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 15:40:59 -0400

I know the editors of many magazines worship at the altar of the AIRBAG. Am I the only person in this country who thinks mandatory passive restraints are a waste of money and space. I generally disagree with the passive restraint law.

The Libertarian in me despises a government that is going to tell me and my peers that I MUST do something for my own good makes me sick. I habitually wear a seatbelt, but I believe it is my right to be stupid and die in a car wreck if I want to. Darwinism dictates that those with the traits necessary to survive (in this case, the brains to wear a seatbelt), will outlive their less intelligent counterparts. It is selection at its best. But, no, the feds decided that all cars must have some sort of idiot device in them to restrain those people who shouldn't be breeding in the first place. The auto industry comes up with two solutions: those annoying and uncomfortable passive shoulderbelts and airbags. The market has soundly rejected the motorised belts leaving us with the wonderful SRS airbags. Now everyone's safer, right? Wrong! That's the biggest crock of evacuated bovine fecal matter that I've ever heard.

Airbags are only good in two types of accidents: rear-end and head-on collisions. Low speed rear-end accidents are the most common, but least fatal. Head-on (direct and off-center) are extremely deadly, but account for somthing like 10% of all collisions. Front-mounted airbags are absolutely useless in broadside and t-bone crashes, which account for a larger portion of fatal crashes than those accidents where an airbag makes a difference. In most of the cases where an airbag is deployed, properly using the seatbelt and headrest will reduce the risk of death or injury to the point where the airbag is a superfuous redundancy. So the carmaker gets to increase the unitl cost of the vehicle by a couple hundred dollars and we are stuck replacing the airbag at $300-800 a pop everytime some punk kid bangs into our back bumper at 8 mph.

If government (or the auto industry) really wants to save lives, try putting five point seatbelts in cars. Or making ABS and TCS standard. Or use aluminium space frames. Or reinforce the body with impact bars and crumple zones. Car safety is an important item on most new car buyers' check lists and we have the technology; let's use it. It seems to me that money would be better spent by trying to avoid accidents rather than trying to survive them.


From: Carl R. T. Chaboyer <crtchabo@ice.lakeheadu.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 01:16:40 GMT

Get smart North America, airbags are expensive and unnecessary. The reason for their popularity is due to the fact that they are fully automatic; driving a car should be anything but automatic. If you don't like driving, take the bus. The price of an airbag could much better be spent on rear disc brakes, more effective suspensions and higher performance tires--it's clearly a marketing game.

Don't try and tell me that accident rates wouldn't plummet if purpose oriented tires (read performance or summer tires) weren't factory installed on all new cars; along with a complete set of four snow tires installed on separate rims. (for those living in snowbelt areas) A car that comes standard with airbags should not have four sub-standard, off-brand, "all-season" tires, yet "America's best selling car" comes with tires that retail for about $57.95.

Clearly, avoiding an accident is preferred by most to surviving one.

WARNING: In the very unlikely event that you are involved in the perfect head-on collision for which airbags were designed, you can look forward to powder burns and temporary or, possibly even, permanent hearing damage. I was in attendance at the deployment(detonation) of an airbag in Southern Ontario in 1993 and I experienced decreased hearing sensitivity in one ear and ringing in both for a number of days afterward; and I was standing about 25 feet from the airbag. The company representative running the demonstration noted that this was normal.

High technology cures like those listed in the above article are a good idea, but let's take care of the basics first. If you aren't totally isolated from the road--the way most cars are--you can sense trouble. If you aren't riding on the most comfortable suspension '50's technology can provide, you may be able to move the vehicle out of harm's way. I would rather drive a million highway miles in a Volkswagen GTi, than a Lincoln Town Car. I know that if bad roads or inattentive drivers rear their ugly heads, I can sense (and see) trouble and, more importantly, respond to it knowing that the car will do what I tell it, when I tell it to.


Contractive Attacks

From: randallg@wimsey.com
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 17:04:05 -0400

I know the editors of many magazines worship at the altar of the AIRBAG. Am I the only person in this country who thinks mandatory passive restraints are a waste of money and space. I generally disagree with the passive restraint law. The Libertarian in me despises a government that is going to tell me and my peers that I MUST do something for my own good makes me sick. I habitually wear a seatbelt, but I believe it is my right to be stupid and die in a car wreck if I want to. Darwinism dictates that those with the traits necessary to survive (in this case, the brains to wear a seatbelt), will outlive their less intelligent counterparts. It is selection at its best.
Up to here I completely agree.
But, no, the feds decided that all cars must have some sort of idiot device in them to restrain those people who shouldn't be breeding in the first place. The auto industry comes up with two solutions: those annoying and uncomfortable passive shoulderbelts and airbags. The market has soundly rejected the motorised belts leaving us with the wonderful SRS airbags.
Not everyone finds shoulderbelts noticeably uncomfortable.
Now everyone's safer, right? Wrong! That's the biggest crock of evacuated bovine fecal matter that I've ever heard. Airbags are only good in two types of accidents: rear-end and head-on collisions. Low speed rear-end accidents are the most common, but least fatal. Head-on (direct and off-center) are extremely deadly, but account for somthing like 10% of all collisions.
OK, so you maintain that for this class of accidents, while a minority, airbags are of benefit. I expect the benefit, in victim health terms, is considerable.
Front-mounted airbags are absolutely useless in broadside and t-bone crashes, which account for a larger portion of fatal crashes than those accidents where an airbag makes a difference. In most of the cases where an airbag is deployed, properly using the seatbelt and headrest will reduce the risk of death or injury to the point where the airbag is a superfuous redundancy.
If redundant, the bag is not required in this case. Neither are the bumpers, or other front-end safety features.
So the carmaker gets to increase the unitl cost of the vehicle by a couple hundred dollars and we are stuck replacing the airbag at $300-800 a pop everytime some punk kid bangs into our back bumper at 8 mph.
Would you propose removing the bumpers as well? That must add something to the cost of a car.
If government (or the auto industry) really wants to save lives, try putting five point seatbelts in cars. Or making ABS and TCS standard. Or use aluminium space frames. Or reinforce the body with impact bars and crumple zones.
So you've got all kinds of other expensive solutions. I expect that if they were required you would argue against them just as strenuously, on the grounds that they are only effective for SOME types of accidents.
Car safety is an important item on most new car buyers' check lists and we have the technology; let's use it. It seems to me that money would be better spent by trying to avoid accidents rather than trying to survive them.
What about the passengers in the car of a driver who refused to buy airbags? I guess they have a "right" to not be a passenger in that car, but that is not universally, or even often, practical.

Does the driver have a certain amount of responsibility to provide passengers with a certain level of safety? I think so.

The argument against airbag requirements cannot be made on the basis that airbags are NOT safer than no airbags.

I think your real problem is the expense to the car owner. You should be more clear about that point.


From: Taylor Gautier <tsgautier@ucdavis.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 21:12:02 -0400

(In reference to David N. Parry post)

This type of attitude probably prevailed as well in the 70's when car manufacturers were forced to put seatbelts in.

It seems wholly prudent to put the best crash protection into a car that one can, and to make reasonable laws that require a certain amount of protection.

Accidents will always happen, no matter how hard people try not to have them and no matter how much technology or research goes into preventing them. I agree that we should also concentrate efforts on _preventing_ accidents, but let's not get shortsighted here.

I can only cite as an example my friend Pat who recently was involved in an accident. He fell asleep at the wheel, something most people would criticize him for. He would probably be dead now, or seriously injured had it not been for the airbag in his rental car. Is that the price one should pay for accidentally falling asleep? I don't think so. Needless to say he has learned his lesson concerning driving while too tired.


Related Pages


Back Home | Start