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

On Tue, 31 Jan 2005 wrote:

> Nearly 329,000 lives have been saved by vehicle safety technologies
> since 1960, U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta announced
> today.

<etc>

Allowing NHTSA to self-evaluate its efficacy is rather like asking the fox
to evaluate his own effectiveness as a henhouse security guard.

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Do you have any evidence of what the meaning of "protection" is? Because
airbags realisticly don't offer much protection to an unbelted occupant-
some, but not as much as wearing a seatbelt would.

Just thought I'd add... a 5 point restraint would be illegal in many
areas (being as you would have to tamper with the belt mechanism in the car,
which is a crime). I believe this was discussed in a "helmets" thread I
posted a while back. I for one would love to have a 4/5 point restraint in
a car, but I guess regulators are weighing the benefit vs. the tradeoff that
fewer people would wear them. So they have to work within that framework.
Volvo and Autoliv are developing a pseudo-4-point restraint that uses 2
seatbelts, but at the same time complies with the laws.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> This means you don't have anything to back up your claim of trivial cost.
> I accept your surrender.
>
>

The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that adding side curtain
airbags to an SUV adds 270 dollars to the cost to manufacture the vehicle.
IMO, that's "trivial" when you consider the societal costs of the deaths and
injuries that would result from not having them.

"Magnulus" > writes:

>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>> This means you don't have anything to back up your claim of trivial cost.
>> I accept your surrender.

>The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that adding side
>curtain airbags to an SUV adds 270 dollars to the cost to
>manufacture the vehicle. IMO, that's "trivial" when you consider
>the societal costs of the deaths and injuries that would result
>from not having them.

How about you check the replacement cost and the cost of maintaining
the "fail-safe" systems that monitor and deploy the airbags? Nor the
consequential increase in insurance premiums over the life of a
vehicle. Also; check the cost of ownership of the airbags. They have
a "use-by" date that's significantly less than 20 years.

Going by your assertion, the "Union of Concerned Scientists" isn't
concerned with such practicalities.

Before you get carried away with quoting bogus data, go to
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk

Adding explosives to the interior of a car isn't my idea of making
cars safer. Having those explosives monitored and triggered by the
cheapest-possible electronics doesn't add any confidence.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

In article >, Magnulus wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> This means you don't have anything to back up your claim of trivial cost.
>> I accept your surrender.
>>
>>
>
> The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that adding side curtain
> airbags to an SUV adds 270 dollars to the cost to manufacture the vehicle.
> IMO, that's "trivial" when you consider the societal costs of the deaths and
> injuries that would result from not having them.

That's nice. However it supports my cost estimate for a standard front
airbag system.

Bernd Felsche > writes:
> Going by your assertion, the "Union of Concerned Scientists" isn't
> concerned with such practicalities.

Maybe somebody out there should start a Union of Concerned *Engineers*,
eh?

Not that I have anything about pure science...

--
Ignasi.
(using SPAM trap e-mail address)

Magnulus wrote:

> "Arif Khokar" > wrote:

>>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.

> Do you have any evidence of what the meaning of "protection" is?

Yeah, read sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 in FMVSS 208.

In article >,
Magnulus > wrote:
> Just thought I'd add... a 5 point restraint would be illegal in many
>areas (being as you would have to tamper with the belt mechanism in the car,
>which is a crime).

Actually, you can put in a 5 point restraint without even touching the
belt mechanism. And fortunately many of us don't live in such
authoritarian states as to make it a crime to modify our own car.

On 2/1/2005 8:36 PM, Magnulus wrote:

> Just thought I'd add... a 5 point restraint would be illegal in many
> areas (being as you would have to tamper with the belt mechanism in the car,
> which is a crime).

Got a cite for that?


I believe you are confusing what a licensed mechanic or dealership may
do to a vehicle's safety systems and what the owner may do. IOW, I
believe you can put in a 5 point harness and remove your airbags, but
don't ask the dealership to do it.

--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)