Hard evidence needed...

that the driver's side airbag is or is not a hazard to a rearward
facing child seat in the center position in a 2-door pickup truck.

For reasons that take too long to go into, I was wondering if anyone
has institutional, verifiable evidence that the driver's side airbag in
a 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 regular cab presents a significant hazard to a
child in the center seat position who is properly seated in a rearward
facing child seat.

The IIHS and NHSTA sites only talk about child seats in the passenger
position (at least from what I could discern) with no mention of the
center position; I need to know whether or not I need to disable the
driver's side airbag as well.

I am well aware that the safest place for a child seat is in the back
seat of a vehicle. I am also aware that my truck does not have one.
What I do have is a tether point in the middle and no clear indication
that the driver's side airbag will impact the baby seat.

Also, if anyone has another forum where I could post a similar query,
please let me know.

TIA,
-Phil Crow

wrote:
> that the driver's side airbag is or is not a hazard to a rearward
> facing child seat in the center position in a 2-door pickup truck.
>
> For reasons that take too long to go into, I was wondering if anyone
> has institutional, verifiable evidence that the driver's side airbag in
> a 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 regular cab presents a significant hazard to a
> child in the center seat position who is properly seated in a rearward
> facing child seat.
>
> The IIHS and NHSTA sites only talk about child seats in the passenger
> position (at least from what I could discern) with no mention of the
> center position; I need to know whether or not I need to disable the
> driver's side airbag as well.
>
> I am well aware that the safest place for a child seat is in the back
> seat of a vehicle. I am also aware that my truck does not have one.
> What I do have is a tether point in the middle and no clear indication
> that the driver's side airbag will impact the baby seat.
>
> Also, if anyone has another forum where I could post a similar query,
> please let me know.
>
> TIA,
> -Phil Crow
>
I have no such data. However, company I was working for was working on
occupant sensor to control when bag deployed. Problem with rear facing
child seat was that acceleration given to seat by bag would bang child's
head against backrest at sufficient Gs to cause injury. The kid seats
in most cars would not be far from bags.

Sniff! Sniff!

Do I detect the faint odor of litigation here?

Do the reasons REALLY "....take too long to go into....."?

Or do you just NOT want to make it known that any "hard evidence" provided
might be used in a lawsuit - with the subsequent subpoena of any "expert"
providing such information?

..
..
=============
=============
* wrote in message:


> Sniff! Sniff!
>
> Do I detect the faint odor of litigation here?
>
> Do the reasons REALLY "....take too long to go into....."?
>
> Or do you just NOT want to make it known that any "hard evidence" provided
> might be used in a lawsuit - with the subsequent subpoena of any "expert"
> providing such information?

===========
===========

You live in a weird world man.........

life so good you worry about **** like that?


lmao




~:~
MarshMonster
~is off to do a google on the airbag deal......he likes being
subpoena'd....
and if it'll save a kids life....it's worth the effort~

Marsh Monster > wrote in article
.com>...
> .
> .
> =============
> =============
> * wrote in message:
>
>
> > Sniff! Sniff!
> >
> > Do I detect the faint odor of litigation here?
> >
> > Do the reasons REALLY "....take too long to go into....."?
> >
> > Or do you just NOT want to make it known that any "hard evidence"
provided
> > might be used in a lawsuit - with the subsequent subpoena of any
"expert"
> > providing such information?
>
> ===========
> ===========
>
> You live in a weird world man.........
>
> life so good you worry about **** like that?
>
>
> lmao
>


It is obvious that you have never been subpoenaed as an "expert witness" in
a "wrongful death" lawsuit.....

.......unfortunately, I have been.....TWICE!

The second one almost cost me my business when I missed a contractual
deadline due to being in court.

My cynicism is well-grounded.

Once burned.....twice shy!

* wrote:
> Sniff! Sniff!
>
> Do I detect the faint odor of litigation here?
>
> Do the reasons REALLY "....take too long to go into....."?
>
> Or do you just NOT want to make it known that any "hard evidence" provided
> might be used in a lawsuit - with the subsequent subpoena of any "expert"
> providing such information?

Dude.

Okay, the short version is that my STBX is having an aneurism about our
kid riding with me in the truck. She is paranoid, but she may be
right. Personally, I hope there is hard evidence that the driver's
side airbag is NOT a hazard so I can cram it up her ass. But, if the
contrary is true, no reason to put my son in jeapordy, is there?

Secondly, if I'm asking for hard, verifiable evidence, why the ****
would I need to subpoena some phantom computer identity off usenet when
I've got an intstitutional study to prove or disprove my findings?

You should get out more.

No, really.

-Phil Crow

wrote in article
.com>...
>
> * wrote:
> > Sniff! Sniff!
> >
> > Do I detect the faint odor of litigation here?
> >
> > Do the reasons REALLY "....take too long to go into....."?
> >
> > Or do you just NOT want to make it known that any "hard evidence"
provided
> > might be used in a lawsuit - with the subsequent subpoena of any
"expert"
> > providing such information?
>
> Dude.
>
> Okay, the short version is that my STBX is having an aneurism about our
> kid riding with me in the truck. She is paranoid, but she may be
> right. Personally, I hope there is hard evidence that the driver's
> side airbag is NOT a hazard so I can cram it up her ass. But, if the
> contrary is true, no reason to put my son in jeapordy, is there?
>
> Secondly, if I'm asking for hard, verifiable evidence, why the ****
> would I need to subpoena some phantom computer identity off usenet when
> I've got an intstitutional study to prove or disprove my findings?
>
> You should get out more.
>
> No, really.


You came across like a lawyer trying to find an "expert witness" to call
upon in a lawsuit of some sort.

Been there, done that, and - trust me - they frown on wearing the T-shirt
in court.

You probably would have elicited many more responses if you hadn't come
across as being so clandestine about it all...... "Ex-wife thinks my
truck's air bag is unsafe for the kid. Any evidence to the contrary?"

Don't think a "phantom identity" is any way of stopping someone who really
wants to know who you are. I - like many others - just use it to avoid SPAM
and UCE.

* wrote:
> You came across like a lawyer trying to find an "expert witness" to call
> upon in a lawsuit of some sort.

And you come across as a trolling moron with a one-character name.

Kaz Kylheku > wrote in article
.com>...
> * wrote:
> > You came across like a lawyer trying to find an "expert witness" to
call
> > upon in a lawsuit of some sort.
>
> And you come across as a trolling moron with a one-character name.
>
>

"Kaz Kylheku" is, somehow, better?

..
..
========
========
wrote:
> * wrote:
> > Sniff! Sniff!
> >
> > Do I detect the faint odor of litigation here?
> >
> > Do the reasons REALLY "....take too long to go into....."?
> >
> > Or do you just NOT want to make it known that any "hard evidence" provided
> > might be used in a lawsuit - with the subsequent subpoena of any "expert"
> > providing such information?
>
> Dude.
>
> Okay, the short version is that my STBX is having an aneurism about our
> kid riding with me in the truck. She is paranoid, but she may be
> right. Personally, I hope there is hard evidence that the driver's
> side airbag is NOT a hazard so I can cram it up her ass. But, if the
> contrary is true, no reason to put my son in jeapordy, is there?
>
> Secondly, if I'm asking for hard, verifiable evidence, why the ****
> would I need to subpoena some phantom computer identity off usenet when
> I've got an intstitutional study to prove or disprove my findings?
>
> You should get out more.
>
> No, really.
>
> -Phil Crow
=========
=========

I agree, keep him caged.

Better yet.......
let him out during hunting season.





~"~
MarshMonster
~:~