Drving faster, in my experience does not make a significant change in mileage...

Generic wrote:

[airbags]
> It's the same anti-seatbelt argument. "I'd rather be thrown free of the car
> than be crushed under the roof." The odds of problems with seatbelts or
> airbags are lower than without.

The odds of problems with a seatbelt alone are even lower. Airbags are
still designed to handle an unbelted 50th percentile size male dummy.
The design does not benefit belted drivers or passengers in the least
because they still need to deploy with enough force to handle an
unbelted individual. That force is detrimental to belted individuals.

Brent P wrote:
[risk of injury due to airbag deployment]
>>Unless you're small.

> More often hurt when you are small. It's all about probabilities.

Considering the force they deploy with and how close small people need
to sit relative to the steering wheel doesn't bode well.

> Many cars have weight sensors (such as Toyota) that turn the air bag off
> with less than 60 lbs in the front seat.

I don't think mine does. Even so, it'll still cost at least $1000 to
repair damage from deployment alone.

>>Data shows a very poor cost to benefit ratio. It's all been posted here
>>before.

> I don't disagree, but they aren't all that expensive or that much of a risk.

They are more of a risk for belted drivers and passengers. I'd rather
drive a car equipped only with seatbelts.

In article > ,
"Generic" > wrote:

> I don't disagree, but they aren't all that expensive or that much of a risk.

See:
http://www.motorists.org/ma/airbags.html

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> The odds of problems with a seatbelt alone are even lower. Airbags are
> still designed to handle an unbelted 50th percentile size male dummy.
> The design does not benefit belted drivers or passengers in the least
> because they still need to deploy with enough force to handle an
> unbelted individual. That force is detrimental to belted individuals.
>

This is just not true. Airbags, even the early ones, have saved far, far
more lives than they have killed. They have also reduced head injuries in
frontal collisions much more. The newer airbags can deploy with less
force, too. The force has to be strong- it has to be strong enough to
restraint your head from hitting the steering wheel. If it were any
weaker, it wouldn't work.

I blame the media. They've took to beating on the airbag story in the
late 90's, so the perception is now that airbags are risky. Common sense
says you don't stick a rear-facing child seat in front of an airbag- after
all, it could deploy in an accident. But I guess common sense isn't so
common.
>
> Considering the force they deploy with and how close small people need
> to sit relative to the steering wheel doesn't bode well.

Many small people don't need to sit close to the wheel. Some do it
because of bad driving habits. (my mom sits closer to the wheel, but
fortunately it's a second generation airbag. I tell her, though, that
keeping her arms at 10 and 2 could lead to sprained or broken wrists in an
accident. If she sat back a little and held the wheel lower, she would be
farther away).

>
> I don't think mine does. Even so, it'll still cost at least $1000 to
> repair damage from deployment alone.

Moot point, because if the airbag deploys your car is probably totalled
or in very bad shape.

> They are more of a risk for belted drivers and passengers. I'd rather
> drive a car equipped only with seatbelts.

Your definition of risk is absurd. By your definition, you shouldn't be
driving a car at all- walking would be safer.

There's plenty of data out there to show airbags reduce fatalities. It's
even more striking a difference for side impact collisions. When you
consider nonfatal injuries, the reductions by all airbags are staggering.
Sure, nothing will save you from the Semi or Suburban rolling over your car,
but it does increase the odds that that drunk driver will not leave you a
vegetable.

"Magnulus" > wrote
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote
>> I don't think mine does. Even so, it'll still cost at least $1000 to
>> repair damage from deployment alone.
>
> Moot point, because if the airbag deploys your car is probably totalled
> or in very bad shape.

Not true. Airbags deploy at speeds down to 18mph IIRC. That's not
going to cause extensive enough damage to most cars to total them.

Floyd

Magnulus wrote:

> "Arif Khokar" > wrote:
>>The odds of problems with a seatbelt alone are even lower. Airbags are
>>still designed to handle an unbelted 50th percentile size male dummy.
>>The design does not benefit belted drivers or passengers in the least
>>because they still need to deploy with enough force to handle an
>>unbelted individual. That force is detrimental to belted individuals.

> This is just not true.

A system designed to save an average sized adult male who is not belted
in needs deploy with greater force and trigger lower speeds than is
necessary to provide additional protection for those who are not average
sized and are belted in.

This leads to greater risk of injury from deployment and deployment in
situations where it is not needed (sub 40 mph collisions).

> Airbags, even the early ones, have saved far, far
> more lives than they have killed.

If that were indeed the case, then their cost benefit ratio would be
much lower. You're either misinterpreting or misrepresenting airbag
statistics. Many statistics state that airbags *may* (i.e., not
definitely) saved lives in a given crash.

> Common sense
> says you don't stick a rear-facing child seat in front of an airbag- after
> all, it could deploy in an accident. But I guess common sense isn't so
> common.

One used to not have to worry about an airbag killing their properly
restained child in the front seat.

>>Considering the force they deploy with and how close small people need
>>to sit relative to the steering wheel doesn't bode well.

> Many small people don't need to sit close to the wheel.

I'm 5' 7" tall. I position my seat so that I can press the cluth pedal
all the way down while my knee is slightly bent. I position the seat
back so that I can drape my wrist on top of the steering wheel without
having to lean forward. My chest is roughly 11" away from the steering
wheel.

Now, you tell me how is someone who is, say, 4 inches or more shorter
than I am is able to properly position themselves without risking
substantial injury from the airbag?

> keeping her arms at 10 and 2 could lead to sprained or broken wrists in an
> accident.

You do realize that 10 and 2 (as well as 9 and 3) allow one to properly
control the vehicle. I don't see the reason why I should choose a
suboptimal way of holding the steering wheel due to some poorly
implemented, unnecessary supplemental restraint system.

In article > , Generic wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, magnulus wrote:
>>
>> > Now days front airbags are standard equipment. They really don't add
> much
>> > to the cost of a car.
>>
>> At least $500. I'd rather spend it elsewhere.

> ?!?!? Not hardly on new manufacture! They could never sell the $10,000
> Chevy Aveo or Hyundai otherwise. Replacement costs are easily $500+ when
> they deploy.

I was assuming (and this is clear from what I wrote) the cost to the end
buyer.

>> > I'd say that concern would be for something that is very, very rare.
>> > Probably on a newer airbag it will never happen.

>> Could say the same thing about having fireworks in the trunk.

> It's the same anti-seatbelt argument. "I'd rather be thrown free of the car
> than be crushed under the roof." The odds of problems with seatbelts or
> airbags are lower than without.

It's nothing like that. A safety device should not kill or injure.
Airbags have been shown to do so in collisions where they should not have
deployed and were survivable without them. In the rare case a seat belt
causes injury, the collision would not be survivable without them.

>> > With an airbag you are trading off risk- and the risk that you could be
>> > hurt by the airbag itself is very remote.

>> Unless you're small.
> More often hurt when you are small. It's all about probabilities.

It's a good reason not to have explosives in the dash.

>> > With airbags, there have only been a couple dozen serious injuries or
>> > deaths related to them- many of the accidents would have been fatal anyways

>> You mean the fender benders where a child was killed?

> Many cars have weight sensors (such as Toyota) that turn the air bag off
> with less than 60 lbs in the front seat.

Many != all. The problems still occured. The sensor could fail. My 1973
maverick has a sensor under the seat for the seatbelt buzzer. It could
cause the buzz at times with no passenger. I disconnected it.

>> > would have broken when her head hit the steering wheel). OTOH, there have
>> > been thousands of lives saved by an airbag, and thousands more people who
>> > walked away from an accident where they should have been hurt, with no
>> > serious injuries.

>> Data shows a very poor cost to benefit ratio. It's all been posted here
>> before.

> I don't disagree, but they aren't all that expensive or that much of a risk.

The data seems to indicate otherwise.

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> A system designed to save an average sized adult male who is not belted
> in needs deploy with greater force and trigger lower speeds

Newer airbags either deploy with less force, or they have sensors to
judge how much force to use. More research has found that a depowered
airbag protects an unbelted occupant about as well as a full strength
airbag, which is to say, not much. Basicly, it keeps the driver from being
totally ejected from the vehicle in a frontal crash. An unbelted driver
could actually face a greater risk from an airbag deployment because they
will be closer to the steering wheel when the airbag deploys.

> This leads to greater risk of injury from deployment and deployment in
> situations where it is not needed (sub 40 mph collisions).

I'm not sure you can categorically say a 40mph frontal collision
wouldn't require an airbag to deploy. After all, crash tests using dummies
have shown some very extreme forces when a vehicle crashes into a solid
barrier at around 35 mph.

>
> If that were indeed the case, then their cost benefit ratio would be
> much lower. You're either misinterpreting or misrepresenting airbag
> statistics. Many statistics state that airbags *may* (i.e., not
> definitely) saved lives in a given crash.

How about in a side impact collision? You have any statistics to refute
that? In a side impact collision, there is no crumple zone. OTOH, in a
frontal collision, there is alot of metal and engine to absorb the impact.
This would seem to be the case where an airbag would have the most dramatic
impact.

> One used to not have to worry about an airbag killing their properly
> restained child in the front seat.

But people should have used common sense. It's like the idiots who go
around eating, drinking, or smoking a pipe (or maybe sucking a lollypop?)
while while driving a car with an airbag- they are just asking for that
thing to get jammed in their throat.

> I'm 5' 7" tall. I position my seat so that I can press the cluth pedal
> all the way down while my knee is slightly bent.

You drive a manual? Why? Are you just a masochist? I can drive a
manual, but they are horrible in stop-and-go traffic, and now days, don't
save that much gas.

>
> > keeping her arms at 10 and 2 could lead to sprained or broken wrists in
an
> > accident.
>
> You do realize that 10 and 2 (as well as 9 and 3) allow one to properly
> control the vehicle. I don't see the reason why I should choose a
> suboptimal way of holding the steering wheel due to some poorly
> implemented, unnecessary supplemental restraint system.

That's the old way of holding the steering wheel. If you held the wheel
lower (9 and 3 is fine), you could sit back farther. I hold the wheel lower
(probably a little lower than 9 and 3) and I have no problem controlling the
car. Modern steering wheels are designed to be held lower, they aren't
something that looks more appropriate on a bus or a semi-truck. Some of
them, like the ones on the Scion, Echo, or Prius, are also smaller, too
(only slightly bigger than my force feedback Momo racing wheel I use on my
PC for racing and rally sims).

I'll accept that with crumple zones in cars and more people belted up, an
airbag on the wheel or above the glove box provides only marginal protection
in a frontal collision, and that in a frontal collision there's a real risk
of some aribag designs, mostly older ones ,of being too aggressive.
However, there is plenty of data from Europe that side impact airbags, and
especially systems that are designed to protect the head, offer substantial
protection in side impact collisions- in some cases reducing death by almost
50 percent and serious injury by 75 percent. So in theory the ida of an
airbag is perfectly acceptable, especially, as if in most countries, 4 point
restraints and helmets are illegal for passenger cars.

Magnulus wrote:

> "Arif Khokar" > wrote:

>>A system designed to save an average sized adult male who is not belted
>>in needs deploy with greater force and trigger lower speeds

> Newer airbags

Perhaps I'm not being clear here. The FMVSS standard 208 still requires
that airbags be designed to protect an "unbelted 50th percentile adult
male test dummy" in a frontal crash.

>>This leads to greater risk of injury from deployment and deployment in
>>situations where it is not needed (sub 40 mph collisions).

> I'm not sure you can categorically say a 40mph frontal collision
> wouldn't require an airbag to deploy. After all, crash tests using dummies
> have shown some very extreme forces when a vehicle crashes into a solid
> barrier at around 35 mph.

Which can be handled by a seatbelt.

>>If that were indeed the case, then their cost benefit ratio would be
>>much lower. You're either misinterpreting or misrepresenting airbag
>>statistics. Many statistics state that airbags *may* (i.e., not
>>definitely) saved lives in a given crash.

> How about in a side impact collision?

We're talking about the driver's side airbag that is required in all
vehicles. That's not going to protect anyone in a side impact collision.

>>One used to not have to worry about an airbag killing their properly
>>restained child in the front seat.

> But people should have used common sense.

No, the government should have used some common sense. The reason
airbags came about was because of poor rates of seatbelt usage. That's
the reason they were designed to protect unbelted occupants. They
didn't use common sense to conclude that the necessary force and trigger
speeds would be detrimental to those who are belted in and are smaller
than the 50th percentile sized adult male.

> It's like the idiots who go
> around eating, drinking, or smoking a pipe (or maybe sucking a lollypop?)
> while while driving a car with an airbag- they are just asking for that
> thing to get jammed in their throat.

Now you're claiming that the airbag is supposed to deploy right into
someone's face?

>>I'm 5' 7" tall. I position my seat so that I can press the cluth pedal
>>all the way down while my knee is slightly bent.

> You drive a manual? Why? Are you just a masochist?

Why I drive a manual is not relevant to the discussion. I begin to
wonder why you snipped the portion about seating position for a person
who is 5' 7" tall and the resulting distance from the steering wheel
that *is relevant* to the discussion.

If my chest is 11" from the steering wheel, how is someone who is 5' 3"
or less supposed to sit so that they're not too close?

>>You do realize that 10 and 2 (as well as 9 and 3) allow one to properly
>>control the vehicle. I don't see the reason why I should choose a
>>suboptimal way of holding the steering wheel due to some poorly
>>implemented, unnecessary supplemental restraint system.

> That's the old way of holding the steering wheel. If you held the wheel
> lower (9 and 3 is fine), you could sit back farther.

You're supposed to be able to drape your wrist over the top of the
steering without leaning forward when in proper position. Whether one
holds the steering wheel at 10 and 2 or 9 and 3 has no bearing on how
far back one can sit.

In article > , Generic wrote:

> "Brent P" > wrote in message

>> >> At least $500. I'd rather spend it elsewhere.

>> > ?!?!? Not hardly on new manufacture! They could never sell the $10,000
>> > Chevy Aveo or Hyundai otherwise. Replacement costs are easily $500+ when
>> > they deploy.

>> I was assuming (and this is clear from what I wrote) the cost to the end
>> buyer.

> How could they, for as the OP wrote, FRONT airbags are standard equipment?
> They are standard even on the $9,995 "Special Value" Aveo. The markup is of
> course higher on optional items (e.g. side airbags), but then options have
> always been a profit center.

Because the price of the whole car is marked up. You do realize that cars
cost considerably less to make than what they sell for. So even if the
manufacturer paid $200 for the airbags, by the time that gets marked up
to you, the buyer, you've paid $500. It doesn't matter if it's an
'option' or in the base price. As far as cheap lower margin cars are
concerned they take cost out where they can. Like say seat fabric or the
quality of carpeting, etc...

> Costs always go down when an item is standard and shipped in high volume.
> Car dealers always charge more the newest features, if they can get buyers
> to pay for it. Otherwise they bundle it in and the cost is part of the
> roughly 10% markup on the whole vehicle. [Luxury and exotic cars have a
> higher margin.]

Nice diversionary into marketing. The part cost is different from what
you pay. Unless you can show me that manufacturers are paying less than
$150 for the airbag system total, the end buyer is still paying around
$500 when it filters down to him.

>> It's nothing like that. A safety device should not kill or injure.

> Precisely the same argument used against seat belts. Bruising, trapped in
> vehicle, etc.

Not at all. I've already delt with this.

>> Airbags have been shown to do so in collisions where they should not have
>> deployed and were survivable without them. In the rare case a seat belt
>> causes injury, the collision would not be survivable without them.

> I personally think air bags are hardly worth it, but they've been in cars
> for many years now and the number of deaths per mile driven is still low.
> The cases you mention don't even register statistically.

The deaths per mile driven for a spike on the dashboard would be low too.

>> It's a good reason not to have explosives in the dash.

> It's a good reason not to have explosives in the gas tank and engine. Back
> to the horse!

You've been watching too much tv. See myth busters where they tried to
make a car explode.

>> > Many cars have weight sensors (such as Toyota) that turn the air bag off
>> > with less than 60 lbs in the front seat.

>> Many != all. The problems still occured. The sensor could fail. My 1973
>> maverick has a sensor under the seat for the seatbelt buzzer. It could
>> cause the buzz at times with no passenger. I disconnected it.

> Yes, machines break down. The odds of a drunken yahoo hitting you are
> probably greater.

Which is a good reason not have sensor driven explosives in the vehicle.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> > How could they, for as the OP wrote, FRONT airbags are standard
equipment?
> > They are standard even on the $9,995 "Special Value" Aveo. The markup is
of
> > course higher on optional items (e.g. side airbags), but then options
have
> > always been a profit center.
>
> Because the price of the whole car is marked up.

Hence my diversion into marketing below. The margin on a mass-market car is
in the 10% range. Some companies (e.g. GM & Ford) have had periods where
they LOST money on the cars and made enough to cover it with financing. Ford
was in this situation during 2004:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/10695402.htm

>You do realize that cars
> cost considerably less to make than what they sell for. So even if the
> manufacturer paid $200 for the airbags, by the time that gets marked up
> to you, the buyer, you've paid $500.

Easily for a stand alone item. Not when bundled into the base price for a
car. There are dozens of companies competing for marketshare. The
competition is intense.

>It doesn't matter if it's an
> 'option' or in the base price.

Yes it does! Individual options target buyers who have an emotional drive.
Base models and packaged setups (e.g. "luxury" or "sporty") are taken or
left as a whole. Some people are perfectly happy with a standard package and
a wide range of colors, others want to customize every little thing and
therefore pay for every little thing. These are a couple established
marketing segments.

>As far as cheap lower margin cars are
> concerned they take cost out where they can. Like say seat fabric or the
> quality of carpeting, etc...

So you are suggesting the airbags are less functional on a cheap car?

> > Costs always go down when an item is standard and shipped in high
volume.
> > Car dealers always charge more the newest features, if they can get
buyers
> > to pay for it. Otherwise they bundle it in and the cost is part of the
> > roughly 10% markup on the whole vehicle. [Luxury and exotic cars have a
> > higher margin.]
>
> Nice diversionary into marketing. The part cost is different from what
> you pay. Unless you can show me that manufacturers are paying less than
> $150 for the airbag system total, the end buyer is still paying around
> $500 when it filters down to him.

See above. The margin on a base model non-luxury car is quite low. Buyers DO
pay that degree of markup on OPTIONAL airbags like side curtains.

> >> It's nothing like that. A safety device should not kill or injure.
> > Precisely the same argument used against seat belts. Bruising, trapped
in
> > vehicle, etc.
> Not at all. I've already delt with this.

Not persuasively.

> > I personally think air bags are hardly worth it, but they've been in
cars
> > for many years now and the number of deaths per mile driven is still
low.
> > The cases you mention don't even register statistically.
> The deaths per mile driven for a spike on the dashboard would be low too.

An asinine analogy. By this reasoning you are suggesting that airbags are
99.9999% likely to cause injury when deployed.

> >> It's a good reason not to have explosives in the dash.
> > It's a good reason not to have explosives in the gas tank and engine.
Back
> > to the horse!
> You've been watching too much tv. See myth busters where they tried to
> make a car explode.

It's called sarcasm. You've been watching too many hysterical 1975 episodes
of 60 Minutes.

> > Yes, machines break down. The odds of a drunken yahoo hitting you are
> > probably greater.
> Which is a good reason not have sensor driven explosives in the vehicle.

This page http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/air...ur_airbags.htm
says they are effective:

"Virtually all new cars have airbags, and they're saving lives. They're
reducing driver deaths by about 14 percent, and passenger bags reduce deaths
by about 11 percent.

People who use safety belts may think they don't need airbags. But they do.
Airbags and lap/shoulder belts work together as a system, and one without
the other isn't as effective. Deaths are 12 percent lower among drivers with
belts and 9 percent lower among belted passengers."

They follow this up with details about exceptions and issues.

-John