Air Bag Decapitation #3, in a Plymouth Voyager
JCWCONSULT
Plymouth Voyager minivan. It is reported on page B1 of USA Today of 4/2/99.
I have a post from the EMS technician who responded to the call, and who deemed
it "...the most gruesome call I have ever experienced in my fifteen or so years
in EMS"
This was a low speed accident where there should have been no injuries, but
instead it resulted in a decapitation horror.
Yes, the girl was unrestrained in the front seat, and that was the mother's
fault. But note, please, this was a 1994 Plymouth Voyager, built before the
days of really clear warnings for new vehicle buyers of the dangers of
passenger side bags for kids. It was still in the interests of NHTSA and the
car companies to downplay the dangers of air bags, so as to insure that the
overall mandate to force air bag purchases on all vehicles would actually go
into effect a couple of years later.
If large numbers of people had realized just how dangerous passenger bags would
be to children, they might have refused to buy them at all, when they were
still optional equipment and we were not forced to buy these explosives. NHTSA
wanted the mandate to go into effect, at any cost of injuries and deaths, so
they downplayed and hid many of the dangers from the public, until the mandate
was assured to go through.
Some 85% of all kids are poorly restrained, or unrestrained at all, and many
are placed in the front seat, all according to current NHTSA research. Given
these facts, ALL vehicle owners deserve the unrestricted rights to not buy, and
not use, air bags - for whatever reasons the vehicle owner deems proper for
their family.
The forced purchase and use of air bags by unwilling people is wrong, and must
stop.
Regards,
Jim Walker
Richard
system of a vehicle, are plain stupid. On the road, I see many moms who let
their kids roam free in the front passenger compartment, unrestrained. They
belong belted in the back seat.
--
Richard ric...@gohome.com
I also hate to receive spam, so please discard the "go" to email me
JCWCONSULT wrote in message <19990402172346...@ng143.aol.com>...
Gar Housler
mother.
Mig
I've heard enough from all the ambulance chasing consultants and "experts". I
could care less if you like airbags or not. I really don't care if you like
Chrysler products or not. This is a fact of life-AIR BAGS ARE THE LAW OF THE
LAND. THEY ARE REQUIRED EQUIPMENT IN THE DESIGN OF THE VEHICLE. A MANUFACTURER
MUST PUT AIRBAGS IN ALL CARS THEY BUILD-NO OPTION.
An airbag, in an unrestrained accident, can actually "help " you out through the
windshield. That's why there is a warning label. Heck, I'm for putting one on
the driver's door--"Warning--Opening and driving this vehicle may be hazardous to
everyone. This includes YOU, YOUR PASSENGERS, AND OTHER DRIVERS ON THE ROAD AND
OFF. Enter at your own risk". There are activities that are risky regardless of
the safety rules and regulation and devices. This is one of them.
If you are upset, get enough people together and CHANGE THE LAW. But let us start
by "reasoning together". There are some basic FACTS we must all accept:
Driving is a hazardous activity that ALL drivers take too lightly. Note your
statement that the child was not buckled in. They must have been in the FRONT
too. I grieve for the loss of any driver or passenger, much less a child, but
where does the responsibility lie??With the Mfgr? Hardly-they did what the
"people" wanted, what the NHTSA required them to do-added airbags. The
dealer?-nope, he just sold the car--he even demonstrated how to buckle in the child
seat and reviewed the owners manual. The parent??-how can we blame them-they lost
a child. Through their SELFISH, THOUGHTLESS ACT of not placing the child in the
rear seat (THIS IS A VOYAGER-IT HAS 2 REAR BENCH SEATS-ENOUGH FOR 7 PEOPLE) AND
PROPERLY RESTRAINING THEM, A TERRIBLE accident happened. I am very sorry. I pray
for the family, BUT..
Cars can be dangerous. Driving is a hazardous pursuit. Drivers assume both risk
and responsibility when they CHOOSE to drive. If you are not an airbag aficionado,
perhaps you might consider driving an older car without one or getting an easily
obtained document allowing the airbag to be disabled on your car for just
cause(call NHTSA).
Remember, people died in accidents prior to airbags, too.
Adam
AL...@bellsouth.net
JCWCONSULT wrote:
> Last Friday, a 2 year old girl in Texas was decapitated by the air bag in their
> Plymouth Voyager minivan. It is reported on page B1 of USA Today of 4/2/99.
>
> I have a post from the EMS technician who responded to the call, and who deemed
> it "...the most gruesome call I have ever experienced in my fifteen or so years
> in EMS"
>
> This was a low speed accident where there should have been no injuries, but
> instead it resulted in a decapitation horror.
>
> Yes, the girl was unrestrained in the front seat, and that was the mother's
> fault. ....................
RMP4BOOKS
>
>Last Friday, a 2 year old girl in Texas was decapitated by the air bag in
>their
>Plymouth Voyager minivan. It is reported on page B1 of USA Today of 4/2/99.
>
>I have a post from the EMS technician who responded to the call, and who
>deemed
>it "...the most gruesome call I have ever experienced in my fifteen or so
>years
>in EMS"
>
>This was a low speed accident where there should have been no injuries, but
>instead it resulted in a decapitation horror.
>
>Yes, the girl was unrestrained in the front seat, and that was the mother's
>fault. But note, please, this was a 1994 Plymouth Voyager, built before the
>days of really clear warnings for new vehicle buyers of the dangers of
>passenger side bags for kids.
Even if it was a 1984 built before warnings, there has been much publicity over
the fact of the airbags being dangerous. The plain and simple truth to this
unfortunate experience is that the mother was at fault and the mother did not
care. Both my kids were 2 years old before airbags and they were always buckled
in a car seat in the back seat. Insensitivity and stupidity on the part of a
parent cost this little girl her life - plain and simple.
RMP
JCWCONSULT
On the road, I see many moms who let
their kids roam free in the front passenger compartment, unrestrained. They
belong belted in the back seat.
I couldn't agree more, I just do not believe in a government mandate that
punctuates this message with dead kids.
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
Remember, people died in accidents prior to airbags, too.
Dear Adam,
I do not like air bags, and I am working on creating enough opposition to get
them returned to optional status, for both purchase and use, without having to
prove just cause to get them disconnected.
Since 85% of kids are poorly or unrestrained, I find it unacceptable to execute
the kids for the parents errors, particularly if the vehicle owner was forced
to buy and use air bags against their will.
You may not know:
-America is the ONLY country with mandatory air bags
-In most other countries, disconnection is available -- on request
-In most other countries, air bags are a LOT safer, because they are calibrated
as supplemental restraint devices for belted persons
-Our idiot government insists that air bags be calibrated as primary restraints
for UNbelted 50th percentile males (167 pounds about 5'9" tall), so they are a
LOT deadlier than European ones
-We were "sold" air bags by prior NHTSA chiefs, including Joan Claybrook, as
being OK to use without belts and OK to use for UNbelted children. These were
baldfaced lies that led to many deaths, but they were part of a dis-information
campaign by government to "sell" the public on the safety (sic) of air bags
I DO have the bags disconnected in our vehicle that had them and I bought our
other car specifically because it did not have air bags. We have a high risk
female driver in the household, someone that would almost certainly get a
broken neck from a deployment. We BITTERLY resent spending the $500 to $1,000
that air bags cost on new vehicles, and then perhaps have to spend more to get
the explosives deactivated.
If you and other people knew as much about the whole air bag fiasco as I do,
you would also want them to be optional.
That is all I want, optional. I have no wish to ban air bags. For whatever it
is worth, the most respected safety researcher for the Big 3 agrees with me.
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
The plain and simple truth to this
unfortunate experience is that the mother was at fault and the mother did not
care. Both my kids were 2 years old before airbags and they were always buckled
in a car seat in the back seat. Insensitivity and stupidity on the part of a
parent cost this little girl her life - plain and simple.
I do not disagree with this analysis. I just think the innocent kid should not
pay for the mother's stupidity. NHTSA wants to leave the kids at risk, to try
to save unbelted males. I find the tradeoff to be unacceptable.
Regards,
Jim Walker
Richard
Try surviving a high speed crash with just belts and no bags.
Visit a junkyard some Saturday and look for cars experiencing (even minor)
frontal crashes. See all the holes in the windshields caused by people's
skulls impacting them; people who refuse to wear even seat belts for the
dumbest reasons.
What we need is an overnite visit to the local lockup for the stupid parents
who refuse to belt their whiney, snotnose kids in an approved childseat in
the back. Giving out a warning as cops do now is a waste of time.
The big 3 will always discourage safety equipment, it adds to the cost of a
car.
>
>I do not like air bags, and I am working on creating enough opposition to
get
>them returned to optional status, for both purchase and use, without having
to
>prove just cause to get them disconnected.
JCWCONSULT
I disagree, Mr Air Bag Expert.
Try surviving a high speed crash with just belts and no bags.
Visit a junkyard some Saturday and look for cars experiencing (even minor)
frontal crashes. See all the holes in the windshields caused by people's
skulls impacting them; people who refuse to wear even seat belts for the
dumbest reasons.
What we need is an overnite visit to the local lockup for the stupid parents
who refuse to belt their whiney, snotnose kids in an approved childseat in
the back. Giving out a warning as cops do now is a waste of time.
The big 3 will always discourage safety equipment, it adds to the cost of a
car.
NHTSA says that belts provide about a 45% increase in survivability in
accidents. Adding air bags brings the number up to about 50% - IF you believe
all of NHTSA's highly-biased data. The real gain is likely less than the
claimed 9% increase.
I have looked at a LOT of crashed cars in my 32 years in the car business. In
most cases, with the belts, you will be OK.
Air bags cost $500 to $1,000 to buy on new cars. It is EASY to spend that much
money on other features that would provide more additional safety than air
bags. Simply spend it on 300 pounds more car, without air bags, and you will
have greater safety than the 300 pound lighter car with air bags. (NHTSA says
the crossover is 297 pounds, some Big 3 companies say it takes only about 250
pounds.) WHY should these safer choices for any given price range of vehicle
be illegal for me to make?
Regards,
Jim Walker
MarkTAC
>not
>pay for the mother's stupidity. NHTSA wants to leave the kids at risk, to try
>to save unbelted males. I find the tradeoff to be unacceptable.
What a crock of crap! I don't know who you consult for, and don't really care,
but to blame the Federal Government for the laziness of some woman who let her
child bounce around the front seat is narrow minded and simplistic.
What does it take, 10 seconds to buckle a kid in the back seat? Maybe the
NHTSA needs to have an IQ test on a vehicle before you can start it. THAT
would really end some accidents before they happen!
JCWCONSULT
What a crock of crap! I don't know who you consult for, and don't really care,
but to blame the Federal Government for the laziness of some woman who let her
child bounce around the front seat is narrow minded and simplistic.
What does it take, 10 seconds to buckle a kid in the back seat? Maybe the
NHTSA needs to have an IQ test on a vehicle before you can start it. THAT
would really end some accidents before they happen!
----------------------------
NHTSA knows:
1. 85% of all kids are poorly restrained, or unrestrained, and many are in the
front seat. This is idiotic, entirely the fault of the parents or other
drivers, frequently illegal in many states, but it is today's reality.
2. American air bags are calibrated as Primary Restraint Devices, required to
stop an UNbelted 50th percentile male in a 30 mph barrier crash, and thus a LOT
more dangerous than European air bags.
I disagree with executing even small numbers of innocent kids to try to protect
the UNbelted adultsn that American air bags are designed for.
The fact that mom could belt the kids in is not relevant to whether the kid
should have to face an explosive designed to stop unbelted full size adult
males. The NHTSA rulemaking, and the mom's neglect, are NOT the kids fault --
but they are the ones that die because of it.
Wrong victim, and unacceptable in my value system. I find it morally
unacceptable to knowingly kill some people in Group A, in order to try to help
some in Group B.
Regards,
Jim Walker
james
Are you SURE thats what you mean??? If the airbags wern't there she
would not have died either so was she MURDERED by the NHSB, and Plymouth
too.
Do your self a favor and remove the compressed air cartrighes form you
air bag system.
and BTW If I don't want to wear my seatbelt, If I want to eat raw meat,
If I wanna smoke 5pks a day, or ride my Harley w/o a helmet, thats my
business not the ##$#$ governments!
A man who would give up a little freedom for a little security
deserves neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Gar Housler <Gar...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:37058063...@erols.com...
George Conklin
james <jam...@blazenet.net> wrote:
> MURDERED is a strong word
> Are you SURE thats what you mean??? If the airbags wern't there she
>would not have died either so was she MURDERED by the NHSB, and Plymouth
>too.
> Do your self a favor and remove the compressed air cartrighes form you
>air bag system.
Accidents and their results cannot be predicted at an
individual level so you have to go with the odds. And the
odds are better in a serious accident with an airbag.
This freedom debate is silly: you have to be alive to enjoy
freedom.
james
taxes"
JCWCONSULT <jcwco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990403131046...@ng08.aol.com...
james
George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net>
|This freedom debate is silly:
Is it now. Remember the revolutionary war??? They would not consider a
freedom debate silly at all. Many died over a "silly freedom debate" and
thanks to it we now live in the USA and not an English colony.
| you have to be alive to enjoy freedom.
This is true but if exercising my freedoms causes my death what business
is it of the governments???
JCWCONSULT
Accidents and their results cannot be predicted at an
odds are better in a serious accident with an airbag.
freedom.
---------------
NHTSA research chief Bill Boehly said that air bags were a wash, that they
caused as many injuries as they prevented (USA Today, 8/30/96).
Canadian research said air bags were slightly net-negative for women and
slightly net-positive for men.
Even NHTSA agrees that air bags are net-negative to kids, and by a LARGE
margin.
In a very serious accident, I agree that your chances are better with a bag
than without. However the percentage of serious accidents where this is true
is a small minority of all accidents.
Sorry, folks, the negatives outweigh the positives for mandatory bags. If
optional, and YOU choose to put these explosive in your dashboard, I have no
objections. Just let me say "No thanks".
Regards,
Jim Walker
Graham Shortt
what is the number of people saved compared to the number sacrificed?
Attributing terms such as 'innocent' etc does nothing other than to inflame
an arguement. If 85% of kids are poorly restrained, unbuckled etc, what is
the number of adults who reside in the drivers seat, passenger seat, etc.
what are the characteristics of those who are unbuckeled? If thses facts
are known then one can compare the design specifications with those results
that they were designed to achieve. On a personal note, I am happy that my
car, a 90 Lebaron, doesn't have an airbag staring me in the face.news:19990403171834...@ng42.aol.com...
Lloyd R. Parker
: George Conklin said:
: Accidents and their results cannot be predicted at an
: indivudal level so you have to go with the odds. And the
: odds are better in a serious accident with an airbag.
: This freedom debate is silly: you have to be alive to enjoy
: freedom.
: ---------------
: NHTSA research chief Bill Boehly said that air bags were a wash, that they
: caused as many injuries as they prevented (USA Today, 8/30/96).
I doubt this. Where did you get this "quote"? NHTSA is on record
numerous times as saying airbags have saved many, many more lives than the
few that have died from them.
:
: Canadian research said air bags were slightly net-negative for women and
: slightly net-positive for men.
Citation?
:
: Even NHTSA agrees that air bags are net-negative to kids, and by a LARGE
: margin.
Citation?
:
: In a very serious accident, I agree that your chances are better with a bag
: than without. However the percentage of serious accidents where this is true
: is a small minority of all accidents.
You probably will never need your seat belt either; you wear it for those
rare occasions when you do.
:
: Sorry, folks, the negatives outweigh the positives for mandatory bags. If
: optional, and YOU choose to put these explosive in your dashboard, I have no
: objections. Just let me say "No thanks".
They do no such thing. If you're properly belted in, air bags pose no
danger.
Lloyd R. Parker
:
: George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net>
: |This freedom debate is silly:
: Is it now. Remember the revolutionary war??? They would not consider a
: freedom debate silly at all. Many died over a "silly freedom debate" and
: thanks to it we now live in the USA and not an English colony.
:
: is it of the governments???
:
:
Generally, when you "exercise your freedom" and it leads to your injury or
death, it costs the rest of us money. THAT makes it our business.
Lloyd R. Parker
: MURDERED is a strong word
: Are you SURE thats what you mean??? If the airbags wern't there she
: would not have died either so was she MURDERED by the NHSB, and Plymouth
: too.
: Do your self a favor and remove the compressed air cartrighes form you
: air bag system.
: If I wanna smoke 5pks a day, or ride my Harley w/o a helmet, thats my
: business not the ##$#$ governments!
Only if you can promise I won't have to pay a nickel for your stupidity.
You won't need any insurance payments, your survivors won't get any money
from the government, you won't use police, fire, and rescue units, etc.
:
:
: A man who would give up a little freedom for a little security
: deserves neither freedom nor security
: -Benjamin Franklin
A man who'd be so incredibly stupid as to drive without a seatbelt
deserves scorn and ridicule.
Lloyd R. Parker
:
: 1. 85% of all kids are poorly restrained, or unrestrained, and many are in the
: front seat. This is idiotic, entirely the fault of the parents or other
: drivers, frequently illegal in many states, but it is today's reality.
I doubt this, considering it's a major violation in every state to have a
kid unrestrained.
:
: 2. American air bags are calibrated as Primary Restraint Devices, required to
: stop an UNbelted 50th percentile male in a 30 mph barrier crash, and thus a LOT
: more dangerous than European air bags.
Just awaking from a coma? Low-powered bags have been legal in the US for
a couple of years now, as have bags that inflate differently depending on
the speed of collision, whether the occupant is belted, etc.
:
: I disagree with executing even small numbers of innocent kids to try to protect
: the UNbelted adultsn that American air bags are designed for.
:
: The fact that mom could belt the kids in is not relevant to whether the kid
: should have to face an explosive designed to stop unbelted full size adult
: males. The NHTSA rulemaking, and the mom's neglect, are NOT the kids fault --
: but they are the ones that die because of it.
The hell it isn't! If a parent lets a child play in a medicine cabinet,
is a manufacturer who didn't put a child-resistant cap on a bottle
responsible?
:
: Wrong victim, and unacceptable in my value system. I find it morally
: unacceptable to knowingly kill some people in Group A, in order to try to help
: some in Group B.
Then it should be illegal to put kids in cars at all, since they're more
at risk than staying at home. Vaccinations should be illegal, since they
risk some lives to save many.
JCWCONSULT
I have to ask what is the net result. Given such a fatalistic philosophy
what is the number of people saved compared to the number sacrificed?
Attributing terms such as 'innocent' etc does nothing other than to inflame
an arguement. If 85% of kids are poorly restrained, unbuckled etc, what is
the number of adults who reside in the drivers seat, passenger seat, etc.
what are the characteristics of those who are unbuckeled? If thses facts
are known then one can compare the design specifications with those results
that they were designed to achieve. On a personal note, I am happy that my
car, a 90 Lebaron, doesn't have an airbag staring me in the face.
NHTSA claims a "saved to killed" ratio overall of about 30 to 1 for air bags.
But, the saved number is based on a corrupt database where belt use is not
known in many cases, so many of the "air bag saves" are likely "belt saves".
This use of a corrupt original database makes all of NHTSA's claims for saves
WAY into the field of Junk Science. Also, they severely delay admitting the
kills, so that number is artificially low, for deceptive purposes.
All considered, the "saved to killed" ratio in not better than 10 to 1 in my
estimation, and it may be as bad as 5 to 1. It is NO better than 10 to 1 for
the passenger side, even using NHTSA's Junk Science and deceptive numbers.
In my opinion, a save to kill rate of between 5 to 1 and 10 to 1 is not good
enough for a mandatory "safety device" (sic), since many of the victims will
indeed be innocent. Sorry you disagree with that word, but I think it is
important to recognize that the "saves" are adults that could have helped
themselves and the "kills" are kids that largely couldn't.
It is wrong to kill some people in Group A that cannot help themselves, in
order to help some people in Group B that could.
I am happy for your freedom from the problem.
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
JCWCONSULT (jcwco...@aol.com) wrote:
:
: 1. 85% of all kids are poorly restrained, or unrestrained, and many are in
the
: front seat. This is idiotic, entirely the fault of the parents or other
: drivers, frequently illegal in many states, but it is today's reality.
I doubt this, considering it's a major violation in every state to have a
kid unrestrained.
Lloyd, this was NHTSA's own research. About 11% of infants in rear facing
infant seats are still carried in front of live air bags.-Jim Walker
: 2. American air bags are calibrated as Primary Restraint Devices, required
to
: stop an UNbelted 50th percentile male in a 30 mph barrier crash, and thus a
LOT
: more dangerous than European air bags.
Just awaking from a coma? Low-powered bags have been legal in the US for
a couple of years now, as have bags that inflate differently depending on
the speed of collision, whether the occupant is belted, etc.
ALL US bags are still calibrated as Primary Devices for UNbelted dummies. The
Second Generation bags are 20% to 35% less powerful, but are still Primary
Devices, and a lot more powerful than European bags. They also kill belted
people - see case 84 in the SCIREPS list for new type bags on NHTSA's site.
This person was local to me, and I have met the family and seen the vehicle.
ONLY the air bag made this a fatal accident, it was otherwise fully
survivable.-Jim Walker
: The fact that mom could belt the kids in is not relevant to whether the kid
: should have to face an explosive designed to stop unbelted full size adult
: males. The NHTSA rulemaking, and the mom's neglect, are NOT the kids fault
--
: but they are the ones that die because of it.
The hell it isn't! If a parent lets a child play in a medicine cabinet,
is a manufacturer who didn't put a child-resistant cap on a bottle
responsible?
As a matter of fact, yes they are. Selling medicines without childproof caps
has been illegal for many years. How long have you been in a coma?-Jim Walker.
JCWCONSULT
: NHTSA research chief Bill Boehly said that air bags were a wash, that they
: caused as many injuries as they prevented (USA Today, 8/30/96).
I doubt this. Where did you get this "quote"? NHTSA is on record
numerous times as saying airbags have saved many, many more lives than the
few that have died from them.
See USA Today, 8/30/96, as noted above (trouble reading?).-Jim Walker
:
: Canadian research said air bags were slightly net-negative for women and
: slightly net-positive for men.
Citation?
I don't have this actual study, but I have seen many newspaper accounts of it.
Canada was ahead of the USA in asking for lower power bags, because of this
study. You can get a sense of this tendency to be negative to women by noting
that the killed people on NHTSA's website for air bag killings are largely
women.-Jim Walker
:
: Even NHTSA agrees that air bags are net-negative to kids, and by a LARGE
: margin.
Citation?
This appears in almost every NHTSA rulemaking document. Read the long ones on
the NHTSA website for the descriptions of who might be helped and who might be
hurt, and you will find many references to this. Even NHTSA makes NO attempt
to claim a safety benefit for kids.-Jim Walker
: In a very serious accident, I agree that your chances are better with a bag
: than without. However the percentage of serious accidents where this is true
: is a small minority of all accidents.
You probably will never need your seat belt either; you wear it for those
rare occasions when you do.
The problem is that air bags may help in 5% of the worst accidents, be neutral
in 60% and be negative in 35%. (About 1/3rd of all air bag users will suffer
an injury from the bag itself, per NHTSA, see their own documents on their
website.) I prefer to bet the odds and avoid the negative or neutral effects,
because I will come out ahead most of the time. BTW, I wear my belt all the
time, since the late 1950's, as you know from our earlier discussions.-Jim
Walker
:
: Sorry, folks, the negatives outweigh the positives for mandatory bags. If
: optional, and YOU choose to put these explosive in your dashboard, I have no
: objections. Just let me say "No thanks".
They do no such thing. If you're properly belted in, air bags pose no
danger.
Read Automotive News, page 32, March 8, 1999 for the story of Shawn Simpkins.
He was a belted driver, 1998 Dodge Dakota pickup, Second Generation air bag,
injuries described on the NHTSA website as "Axonal injury to the brain". This
was probably a deliberate choice of obscure words to disguise the fact he is
dead, and of a broken brainstem. See item #84 on the NHTSA SCIREPS website for
Second Generation air bags for this listing. Incidentally, it took about 7
months after his burial before NHTSA would even acknowledge the fact he was
seriously injured. Before that time the website said: "Injured, severity
unknown". IF you are gullible enough to believe you are OK with air bags when
belted in, then you simply have not studied the issue very much. You might
also read the other portions of the SCIREPS site for other dead people who were
belted in when executed by their air bombs. I could find you quite a few
gravesites to visit, of people who had similarly gullible beliefs in the pablum
that NHTSA puts out about these explosives.-Jim Walker
Regards,
Jim Walker
Lloyd R. Parker
: Graham Shortt asked:
: I have to ask what is the net result. Given such a fatalistic philosophy
: what is the number of people saved compared to the number sacrificed?
: Attributing terms such as 'innocent' etc does nothing other than to inflame
: an arguement. If 85% of kids are poorly restrained, unbuckled etc, what is
: the number of adults who reside in the drivers seat, passenger seat, etc.
: what are the characteristics of those who are unbuckeled? If thses facts
: are known then one can compare the design specifications with those results
: that they were designed to achieve. On a personal note, I am happy that my
: car, a 90 Lebaron, doesn't have an airbag staring me in the face.
: ---------------------------
: NHTSA claims a "saved to killed" ratio overall of about 30 to 1 for air bags.
: But, the saved number is based on a corrupt database where belt use is not
: known in many cases, so many of the "air bag saves" are likely "belt saves".
And a lot of the "bag deaths" would have been killed in the accident
anyway, so it works both ways.
: This use of a corrupt original database makes all of NHTSA's claims for saves
: WAY into the field of Junk Science. Also, they severely delay admitting the
: kills, so that number is artificially low, for deceptive purposes.
:
: All considered, the "saved to killed" ratio in not better than 10 to 1 in my
: estimation, and it may be as bad as 5 to 1. It is NO better than 10 to 1 for
: the passenger side, even using NHTSA's Junk Science and deceptive numbers.
You're blowing hot air. You have no data to base this on.
:
: In my opinion, a save to kill rate of between 5 to 1 and 10 to 1 is not good
: enough for a mandatory "safety device" (sic),
Yeah, well, you get elected president and then your opinion may matter.
My opinion is just the opposite -- bags do help. NHTSA credits them with
an addition 5% safety even for properly belted occupants.
Lloyd R. Parker
: Lloyd R. Parker said:
:
: JCWCONSULT (jcwco...@aol.com) wrote:
: :
: : 1. 85% of all kids are poorly restrained, or unrestrained, and many are in
: the
: : front seat. This is idiotic, entirely the fault of the parents or other
: : drivers, frequently illegal in many states, but it is today's reality.
:
: I doubt this, considering it's a major violation in every state to have a
: kid unrestrained.
:
: Lloyd, this was NHTSA's own research. About 11% of infants in rear facing
: infant seats are still carried in front of live air bags.-Jim Walker
And this is somehow the auto makers' fault? Or the government's? I guess
if parents sit their child on a hot stove, it would be the stove maker's
fault if the child gets burned?
:
: : 2. American air bags are calibrated as Primary Restraint Devices, required
: to
: : stop an UNbelted 50th percentile male in a 30 mph barrier crash, and thus a
: LOT
: : more dangerous than European air bags.
:
: Just awaking from a coma? Low-powered bags have been legal in the US for
: a couple of years now, as have bags that inflate differently depending on
: the speed of collision, whether the occupant is belted, etc.
:
: ALL US bags are still calibrated as Primary Devices for UNbelted dummies. The
: Second Generation bags are 20% to 35% less powerful, but are still Primary
: Devices, and a lot more powerful than European bags.
They also offer more protection. Europe also has much stricter
enforcement of seat belt laws than we do, alleviating the need somewhat
for more powerful bags.
You ignored the part of my post about dual-mode bags that some cars have
-- ones that inflate less powerfully if the occupant is buckled up.
: They also kill belted
: people - see case 84 in the SCIREPS list for new type bags on NHTSA's site.
: This person was local to me, and I have met the family and seen the vehicle.
: ONLY the air bag made this a fatal accident, it was otherwise fully
: survivable.-Jim Walker
:
I see. Anecdotal evidence! Gee, wow! I was using actually statistical
data, facts, evidence, and you have an anecdote to rely on!
:
: The hell it isn't! If a parent lets a child play in a medicine cabinet,
: is a manufacturer who didn't put a child-resistant cap on a bottle
: responsible?
:
: As a matter of fact, yes they are. Selling medicines without childproof caps
: has been illegal for many years. How long have you been in a coma?-Jim Walker.
:
:
Some sizes can still be sold w/o those caps. And a parent not belting a
child in is analogous to a parent giving a child an opened bottle of
medicine to play with.
Lloyd R. Parker
: Lloyd R. Parker replied:
:
: : NHTSA research chief Bill Boehly said that air bags were a wash, that they
: : caused as many injuries as they prevented (USA Today, 8/30/96).
:
: I doubt this. Where did you get this "quote"? NHTSA is on record
: numerous times as saying airbags have saved many, many more lives than the
: few that have died from them.
:
: See USA Today, 8/30/96, as noted above (trouble reading?).-Jim Walker
I dispute your version of it.
:
: :
: : Canadian research said air bags were slightly net-negative for women and
: : slightly net-positive for men.
:
: Citation?
:
: I don't have this actual study, but I have seen many newspaper accounts of it.
: Canada was ahead of the USA in asking for lower power bags, because of this
: study. You can get a sense of this tendency to be negative to women by noting
: that the killed people on NHTSA's website for air bag killings are largely
: women.-Jim Walker
So you can't back it up.
And the killed people are, by a HUGE majority, people not buckled up or
improperly bucked up.
: :
: : Even NHTSA agrees that air bags are net-negative to kids, and by a LARGE
: : margin.
:
: Citation?
:
: This appears in almost every NHTSA rulemaking document. Read the long ones on
: the NHTSA website for the descriptions of who might be helped and who might be
: hurt, and you will find many references to this. Even NHTSA makes NO attempt
: to claim a safety benefit for kids.-Jim Walker
Again, I dispute your take on it.
:
: : In a very serious accident, I agree that your chances are better with a bag
: : than without. However the percentage of serious accidents where this is true
: : is a small minority of all accidents.
:
: You probably will never need your seat belt either; you wear it for those
: rare occasions when you do.
:
: The problem is that air bags may help in 5% of the worst accidents, be neutral
: in 60% and be negative in 35%.
Prove that.
: (About 1/3rd of all air bag users will suffer
: an injury from the bag itself, per NHTSA, see their own documents on their
: website.)
That is totally false.
If I suffer a bruise from my seatbelt in an accident, does that mean
seatbelts did me more harm than good?
:
: Read Automotive News, page 32, March 8, 1999 for the story of Shawn Simpkins.
: He was a belted driver, 1998 Dodge Dakota pickup, Second Generation air bag,
: injuries described on the NHTSA website as "Axonal injury to the brain". This
: was probably a deliberate choice of obscure words to disguise the fact he is
: dead, and of a broken brainstem. See item #84 on the NHTSA SCIREPS website for
Conspiracy alert! Conspiracy alert! I get it -- the auto makers and the
government are in cahoots with the UN to kill us off withy airbags, making
it easier for the black helicopters to take over.
: Second Generation air bags for this listing. Incidentally, it took about 7
: months after his burial before NHTSA would even acknowledge the fact he was
: seriously injured. Before that time the website said: "Injured, severity
: unknown". IF you are gullible enough to believe you are OK with air bags when
: belted in, then you simply have not studied the issue very much.
Perhaps if you're paranoid to believe you're at such a high risk, you've
been reading the wrong sources, or misreading the right ones.
: You might
: also read the other portions of the SCIREPS site for other dead people who were
: belted in when executed by their air bombs.
Yeah, right, sure.
: I could find you quite a few
: gravesites to visit, of people who had similarly gullible beliefs in the pablum
: that NHTSA puts out about these explosives.-Jim Walker
Yeah, right, sure. You know more than the engineers at all the auto
companies and NHTSA, right? Do you think makers with a reputation for
safety like Mercedes, Saab, and Volvo wouldn't have protested and appealed
air bag mandates if they thought they were unsafe? Consumer Reports
recommends air bags for their safety, and they're not exactly in bed with
the auto makers or the government.
james
Lloyd R. Parker <lpa...@emory.edu>
| : A man who would give up a little freedom for a little security
| : deserves neither freedom nor security
| : -Benjamin Franklin
|
| A man who'd be so incredibly stupid as to drive without a seatbelt
| deserves scorn and ridicule.
If you wish to scorn and ridicule me for not wearing a seatbelt-go ahead
be my guest my e-mail address is right on this message. But it is NOT, I
repeat NOT the governments job to mandate that I must.
Mike Manning
james wrote:
>
> Are you SURE thats what you mean??? If the airbags wern't there she
> would not have died either so was she MURDERED by the NHSB, and Plymouth
> too.
Plymouth had nothing to do with it. Airbags were mandated - and all
manufacturers complained about it.
An airbag in a 1994 vehicle deploys with enough force to cushion a full grown
man WITHOUT a seatbelt travelling at 30 MPH. Ridiculous.
Regardless, everyone should take heed. Kids belong in the back, airbag or
not. And they need to be belted in, or in the case of younger children,
secured safely in car seats.
And this is not the government cramming anything down your throat. This is
common sense in protecting your children.
RMP4BOOKS
>I couldn't agree more, I just do not believe in a government mandate that
>punctuates this message with dead kids.
If the kids were in the back seat where they belonged, they wouldn't be dead,
would they? The government does not punctuate the issue with dead kids - the
dead kids are the result of severly neglectful uncaring parents.
RMP4BOOKS
>I do not disagree with this analysis. I just think the innocent kid should
>not
>pay for the mother's stupidity. NHTSA wants to leave the kids at risk, to try
>to save unbelted males. I find the tradeoff to be unacceptable.
You dodge the issue. A two-year-old child cannot make the decision as to where
he/she is placed in the vehicle. The fact that this innocent child died as the
result of the mother's stupidity is not the fault of NHTSA and NHTSA does not
leave the kids at risk when parents are blatantly careless and irresponsible.
Daniel the Red
> : Lloyd, this was NHTSA's own research. About 11% of infants in rear facing
> : infant seats are still carried in front of live air bags.-Jim Walker
>
> And this is somehow the auto makers' fault? Or the government's?
Certainly not, but putting a device that increases the likelihood
of maims or kills (airbag calibrated to "save"
unbelteds) in front of a position where kids are improperly placed--THAT
is improper government action, because it is based on how things SHOULD be
rather than how they are. YES, kids should all be properly positioned,
and YES, kids (and adults!) should all be properly restrained. But I do
not believe that the threat of infanticide by airbag is an appropriate
means to bring about "what should be".
> if parents sit their child on a hot stove, it would be the stove maker's
> fault if the child gets burned?
Find me the government regulation saying that any time the kitchen lights
are on the stove must be hot and your analogy here will become
tangentially relevant. Find me the statistics saying that despite the
danger, a vast majority of kids are placed on stoves and it will become
directly relevant. I'll be over here waiting.
> : ALL US bags are still calibrated as Primary Devices for UNbelted dummies. The
> : Second Generation bags are 20% to 35% less powerful, but are still Primary
> : Devices, and a lot more powerful than European bags.
>
> They also offer more protection. Europe also has much stricter
> enforcement of seat belt laws than we do, alleviating the need somewhat
> for more powerful bags.
The "need" to save idiots too stupid to protect themselves with the device
that does over ninety percent of the reduction of risk of maiming or
killing (the seat belt)? Why do you think these clods deserve to be
"saved"? They'll only procreate. Better to let them eject themselves
from the gene pool. ESPECIALLY when their salvation comes at the cost of
increased risk--by ANY AMOUNT--to me or my family members. We ALWAYS
ALWAYS ALWAYS use our seat belts, NO exceptions.
> You ignored the part of my post about dual-mode bags that some cars have
> -- ones that inflate less powerfully if the occupant is buckled up.
Except when they get confused and go off when they're not supposed to. Or
are you just awakening from a coma and haven't yet read about the many
different makes and models being recalled and/or investigated for
"inadvertent" or "improper" bag deployments...some of which are the
multi-mode bags?
> : They also kill belted
> : people - see case 84 in the SCIREPS list for new type bags on NHTSA's site.
> : This person was local to me, and I have met the family and seen the vehicle.
> : ONLY the air bag made this a fatal accident, it was otherwise fully
> : survivable.-Jim Walker
> :
>
> I see. Anecdotal evidence! Gee, wow! I was using actually statistical
> data, facts, evidence, and you have an anecdote to rely on!
Yeah, isn't it nice to be able to stand on your platform and preach about
statistics? It certainly is. That's 'cause statistics shield you from
the reality that we're talking about LIVES LOST DIRECTLY DUE TO MANDATORY
DEVICES CALIBRATED TO SAVE STUPID PEOPLE. That's the fact, sir. If you
can't handle it, that's YOUR problem.
--Daniel
-----
Fight to Preserve Your Right to Arm Bears!
james
Daniel the Red <das...@ftp.spydernet.com> wrote in message
| Yeah, isn't it nice to be able to stand on your platform and preach about
| statistics? It certainly is. That's 'cause statistics shield you from
| the reality that we're talking about LIVES LOST DIRECTLY DUE TO MANDATORY
| DEVICES CALIBRATED TO SAVE STUPID PEOPLE. That's the fact, sir. If you
| can't handle it, that's YOUR problem.
|
|
| --Daniel
|
| -----
| Fight to Preserve Your Right to Arm Bears!
Some people use statistics the way a drunkard uses a lamp post- for a
crutch rather than for illumination.
-Benjamin Franklin
|
Nipper219
>People who refuse to use seat belts, which are only a part of the safety
>system of a vehicle, are plain stupid. On the road, I see many moms who let
>their kids roam free in the front passenger compartment, unrestrained. They
>belong belted in the back seat.
>--
But in the days before airbags it was perfectly OK for kids to ride in the
front seat. Some "safety" device, eh?
-Nipper
Hang up the phone and Drive!!!
Nipper219
> Accidents and their results cannot be predicted at an
>indivudal level so you have to go with the odds. And the
>odds are better in a serious accident with an airbag.
Where did you get that little tidbit of "information", ralph nader's webpage?
>This freedom debate is silly
There's absolutly nothing silly about freedom. If I want to live in a risk-free
society I will pay a doctor to put me into a drug-induced coma for the rest of
my life.
Nipper219
>JCWCONSULT (jcwco...@aol.com) wrote:
>: NHTSA research chief Bill Boehly said that air bags were a wash, that they
>: caused as many injuries as they prevented (USA Today, 8/30/96).
>I doubt this. Where did you get this "quote"?
I belive it was in USA today, 8/30/96. As James Thurber once said, "you could
look it up".
>NHTSA is on record
>numerous times as saying airbags have saved many, many more lives than the
>few that have died from them.
The NHTSA, the same morons who used to tell us the 55mph limit was good for us.
Why should we belive them this time?
RMP4BOOKS
>But in the days before airbags it was perfectly OK for kids to ride in the
>front seat. Some "safety" device, eh?
No, it wasn't. My kids were born before airbags and they had to ride in the
back seat in a car seat.
Nipper219
>JCWCONSULT (jcwco...@aol.com) wrote:
>: This appears in almost every NHTSA rulemaking document. Read the long ones
>on
>: the NHTSA website for the descriptions of who might be helped and who might
>be
>: hurt, and you will find many references to this. Even NHTSA makes NO
>attempt
>: to claim a safety benefit for kids.-Jim Walker
>Again, I dispute your take on it.
He gave you the name of the website, why don't you go and read it for yourself?
>: (About 1/3rd of all air bag users will suffer
>: an injury from the bag itself, per NHTSA, see their own documents on their
>: website.)
>That is totally false.
See above response.
>: You might
>: also read the other portions of the SCIREPS site for other dead people who
>were
>: belted in when executed by their air bombs.
>Yeah, right, sure.
See above response (again).
> Consumer Reports
>recommends air bags for their safety
Consumer Reports isn't exactly renowned for their credibility in the automotive
department. Check some of Pat Bedard's "Car and Driver" columns on the subject
and get the real facts about airbags.
Nipper219
>james (jam...@blazenet.net) wrote:
>: This is true but if exercising my freedoms causes my death what
>business
>: is it of the governments???
>Generally, when you "exercise your freedom" and it leads to your injury or
>death, it costs the rest of us money. THAT makes it our business.
The government has been using that line of crap to slowly chip away at our
civil rights for the last 25 years, but despite their best efforts nobody is
buying into the idea. Except for a gullible few, of course.
Nipper219
> deserves neither freedom nor security
> -Benjamin Franklin
>A man who'd be so incredibly stupid as to drive without a seatbelt
>deserves scorn and ridicule.
-Lloyd R. Parker
And now we see why a $100 bill is referred to as a "Franklin" rather than a
"Parker". :)
Nipper219
>If the kids were in the back seat where they belonged, they wouldn't be dead,
>would they? The government does not punctuate the issue with dead kids - the
>dead kids are the result of severly neglectful uncaring parents.
Most people are simply (and understandably) unable to comprehend the fact that
their dashboards now contain a device powerful enough to cut a life short in
the blink of an eyelash. Our cars are supposed to protect us in accidents, not
murder and maim us. I guess the idea of built-in dashboard mayhem is going to
take a little getting used for all of us.
Nipper219
>JCWCONSULT wrote:
>I just think the innocent kid should
>>not
>>pay for the mother's stupidity. NHTSA wants to leave the kids at risk, to
>try
>>to save unbelted males. I find the tradeoff to be unacceptable.
>What a crock of crap! I don't know who you consult for, and don't really
>care,
>but to blame the Federal Government for the laziness of some woman who let
>her
>child bounce around the front seat is narrow minded and simplistic.
Yea, that 2 year old deserved to die. Thank you for setting the record
straight. MORON!
John Kunkel
> : and BTW If I don't want to wear my seatbelt, If I want to eat raw meat,
> : If I wanna smoke 5pks a day, or ride my Harley w/o a helmet, thats my
> : business not the ##$#$ governments!
His Royal Pompousness Lloyd R. Parker said:
>
> Only if you can promise I won't have to pay a nickel for your stupidity.
> You won't need any insurance payments, your survivors won't get any money
> from the government, you won't use police, fire, and rescue units, etc.
Ah, Mr. Parker takes us down this road again. Following his logic it is
perfectly OK for the guv'mint to mandate no red meat, no smoking, no
unprotected sex, ad nauseum. Then factor in the cost of the meat patrol,
the smoking patrol and the sex patrol (headed by none other than Jerry
Falwell) and the government's intrusion in our lives will be complete.
> :
> :
> : A man who would give up a little freedom for a little security
> : deserves neither freedom nor security
> : -Benjamin Franklin
>
> A man who'd be so incredibly stupid as to drive without a seatbelt
> deserves scorn and ridicule.
As does one who advocates a "nanny" government.
John
Dan Smith, Jr.
> Last Friday, a 2 year old girl in Texas was decapitated by the air bag in their
> Plymouth Voyager minivan. It is reported on page B1 of USA Today of 4/2/99.
>
> Yes, the girl was unrestrained in the front seat, and that was the mother's
> fault. But note, please, this was a 1994 Plymouth Voyager, built before the
> days of really clear warnings for new vehicle buyers of the dangers of
> passenger side bags for kids. It was still in the interests of NHTSA and the
> car companies to downplay the dangers of air bags, so as to insure that the
> overall mandate to force air bag purchases on all vehicles would actually go
> into effect a couple of years later.
Okay, if the family purchased this car new, then in 5 YEARS surely they
heard how
dangerous it was to put small children in the front seat.
>
>
> If large numbers of people had realized just how dangerous passenger bags would
> be to children, they might have refused to buy them at all, when they were
> still optional equipment and we were not forced to buy these explosives. NHTSA
> wanted the mandate to go into effect, at any cost of injuries and deaths, so
> they downplayed and hid many of the dangers from the public, until the mandate
> was assured to go through.
>
Okay, 2 year old kid, 5 year old car. If purchased new, then the
family had 3
years to prepare their vehicle for a child.
Just my opinions though....
--
Dan Smith, Jr.
Dan Smith, Jr.
> NHTSA says that belts provide about a 45% increase in survivability in
> accidents. Adding air bags brings the number up to about 50% - IF you believe
> all of NHTSA's highly-biased data. The real gain is likely less than the
> claimed 9% increase.
>
And you have data to back this on? where are you getting the "real"
gain?
--
Dan Smith, Jr.
Dan Smith, Jr.
>
>
> I DO have the bags disconnected in our vehicle that had them and I bought our
> other car specifically because it did not have air bags. We have a high risk
> female driver in the household, someone that would almost certainly get a
> broken neck from a deployment.
And planting your face in the windshield would be better, how?
> We BITTERLY resent spending the $500 to $1,000
> that air bags cost on new vehicles, and then perhaps have to spend more to get
> the explosives deactivated.
>
What about the $10,000+ medical costs of reconstructive surgery for
someone who
planted their face into the windshield...
Just my $.02....
--
Dan Smith, Jr.
Ray McNairy
can make things fool proof, but not damn fool proof. Wish the guvvie would
stop trying to prove this wrong. Maybe we need another warning label to save
us from another evil occurrence.
--
Delete either one of the 2's from my address to reply
Ciao, Ray (Boomer) McNairy
"624"
"So many fools, so few comets!"
JCWCONSULT
And a lot of the "bag deaths" would have been killed in the accident
anyway, so it works both ways.
: All considered, the "saved to killed" ratio in not better than 10 to 1 in my
: estimation, and it may be as bad as 5 to 1. It is NO better than 10 to 1 for
: the passenger side, even using NHTSA's Junk Science and deceptive numbers.
You're blowing hot air. You have no data to base this on.
------------
The list of air bag deaths admitted by NHTSA are almost all low speed deaths,
where only minor injuries would be expected, absent the explosives that killed
the people. NHTSA has made no serious attempt to discover how many deaths
there are from air bags at higher speeds, cases where the belt would have saved
the person, but the bag killed them. This might be a big number, but hard to
prove, and NHTSA doesn't want to know - because any knowledge of this might
help dump the air bag mandate.
You can show, with NHTSA's own Junk Science numbers that the saved to killed
ratio on the passenger side is in the range of 5 to one or 7 to 1. The ratio
is that bad, even if you accept all their "saves" and use their own deflated
"kill" number.
Jim Hall, Chairman of the NTSB agrees here.
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
I dispute your version of it.
Send me a fax number and I will fax the article.
I do not have time to find all the quotes from the NHTSA data on things like
1/3rd will be injured by air bag deployments, but people who follow my posts
know I always use good data. You can find these things yourself at
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ and go to the airbag section.
Regards,
Jim Walker
Mike Manning
Nipper219 wrote:
> Yea, that 2 year old deserved to die. Thank you for setting the record
> straight. MORON!
>
> -Nipper
>
> Hang up the phone and Drive!!!
No he/she did not deserve to die. And if he/she had been placed in the back
seat, as has been stated in print, TV, radio, etc, he/she would not have died.
Regardless of the intent of the airbag, and whomever is to blame for it - if
you put your kids in the back seat, there is ZERO chance of the airbag injuring
them.
Plain and simple. My kids ride in the back.
JCWCONSULT
Okay, 2 year old kid, 5 year old car. If purchased new, then the
family had 3
years to prepare their vehicle for a child.
I agree the seating was mom's fault. I just do not see the appropriateness of
beheading the kid as the penalty.
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
You dodge the issue. A two-year-old child cannot make the decision as to where
he/she is placed in the vehicle. The fact that this innocent child died as the
result of the mother's stupidity is not the fault of NHTSA and NHTSA does not
leave the kids at risk when parents are blatantly careless and irresponsible.
This is the whole point, the kid has no choice.
And, NHTSA knows, from its own research, that 85% of kids are poorly or
UNrestrained, many of them in the front seat.
To then deny the unrestricted right of families to disable their air bags, on
request, is simply wrong -- and transfers at least a part of the blame to NHTSA
for those denials.
NHTSA claims to make rules for real-world situations, not for theoretical
ideals. In an ideal world, maybe all kids would be properly restrained in
back, but that is not reality. The current rules prohibiting most people from
disabling their air bags is based on a theoretical ideal and not on reality.
If you know that many people will misuse a product, then you do not force them
to use it - against their will - and particularly when the penalty for misuse
is death.
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
And planting your face in the windshield would be better, how?
What about the $10,000+ medical costs of reconstructive surgery for
someone who planted their face into the windshield...
---------------
Properly belted people do not end up in the windshield. Neither my lady nor I
will leave the curb without all occupants belted in. Even NHTSA agrees she
should not use air bags, and we have one of the very rare "permission to
disconnect" letters from NHTSA.
Again, properly belted people do not end up in the windshield.
Yes, yes, I know there are a few very violent accidents where they can hit the
windshield, but these are the upper couple of percent of all accidents. You
should not make rules for a tiny fraction of accidents, when those choices make
common accidents more dangerous.
This is like saying my car could suffer submersion or fire, so I don't want to
wear belts. Fire and submersion combined are a factor in about 0.5% of all
accidents, so making rules for those rare occurences is not smart.
Regards,
Jim Walker
Richard J Hutchinson
Living may be hazardous to your health"
Hey, if ya live long enough somethin's gonna kill ya..
JCWCONSULT
---------------
The 45% and 50% numbers are well known, and often quoted by NHTSA and other
authorities. The 9% is the increase over 45% that gets you close to 50% safety
increase for belts and bags together.
I question the 9% because I know NHTSA's claimed "saved" number comes from a
corrupt database where belt use is not known for many cases. See Wall St.
Journal, 1/22/97, Marketplace section. IF you do not know belt use, it is
utter nonsense to claim the "save" was from the bag. There is perhaps a 90%
chance in that case the save was the belt, if the person was belted.
I also know, from personal experience, that NHTSA's claimed number of "killed"
by air bag is deceptively depressed by slow reporting. So, the net of "saved"
minus "killed" reported by NHTSA is a bad number, from both ends.
Regards,
Jim Walker
Lloyd R. Parker
: On 5 Apr 1999, Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
:
: > : Lloyd, this was NHTSA's own research. About 11% of infants in rear facing
: > : infant seats are still carried in front of live air bags.-Jim Walker
: >
: > And this is somehow the auto makers' fault? Or the government's?
:
: Certainly not, but putting a device that increases the likelihood
: of maims or kills (airbag calibrated to "save"
: unbelteds) in front of a position where kids are improperly placed--THAT
: is improper government action, because it is based on how things SHOULD be
You're still blaming the gov't/auto makers for parents' mistakes. Making
a stove that gets hot and then having a parent set a child down on it --
is that the stove maker's fault?
: rather than how they are. YES, kids should all be properly positioned,
: and YES, kids (and adults!) should all be properly restrained. But I do
: not believe that the threat of infanticide by airbag is an appropriate
: means to bring about "what should be".
:
: > if parents sit their child on a hot stove, it would be the stove maker's
: > fault if the child gets burned?
:
: Find me the government regulation saying that any time the kitchen lights
: are on the stove must be hot and your analogy here will become
: tangentially relevant.
It's still relevant as far as the stove maker is concerned. Or do you
think some stove makers make stoves that don't get hot?
: Find me the statistics saying that despite the
: danger, a vast majority of kids are placed on stoves and it will become
: directly relevant. I'll be over here waiting.
A "vast majority" of kids are not placed in cars without proper restraints
anymore either.
:
:
: > : ALL US bags are still calibrated as Primary Devices for UNbelted dummies. The
: > : Second Generation bags are 20% to 35% less powerful, but are still Primary
: > : Devices, and a lot more powerful than European bags.
: >
: > They also offer more protection. Europe also has much stricter
: > enforcement of seat belt laws than we do, alleviating the need somewhat
: > for more powerful bags.
:
: The "need" to save idiots too stupid to protect themselves with the device
: that does over ninety percent of the reduction of risk of maiming or
: killing (the seat belt)? Why do you think these clods deserve to be
: "saved"? They'll only procreate. Better to let them eject themselves
: from the gene pool. ESPECIALLY when their salvation comes at the cost of
: increased risk--by ANY AMOUNT--to me or my family members. We ALWAYS
: ALWAYS ALWAYS use our seat belts, NO exceptions.
It has never been shown that air bags increase the risk to properly belted
adults. NHTSA, in fact, says they provide an additional 5% safety edge.
:
: > You ignored the part of my post about dual-mode bags that some cars have
: > -- ones that inflate less powerfully if the occupant is buckled up.
:
: Except when they get confused and go off when they're not supposed to.
Well then, I assume you don't use power steering, ABS, automatic
transmissions, fuel injection, stability control, traction control, etc.,
because all of these might "get confused" and malfunction, leading to an
accident too!
: Or
: are you just awakening from a coma and haven't yet read about the many
: different makes and models being recalled and/or investigated for
: "inadvertent" or "improper" bag deployments...some of which are the
: multi-mode bags?
More get recalled for fires, cruise controls that malfunction, wheels that
fall off, etc. I assume you still drive cars with electrical systems and
wheels.
Lloyd R. Parker
:
:
: james wrote:
:
: >
: > Are you SURE thats what you mean??? If the airbags wern't there she
: > would not have died either so was she MURDERED by the NHSB, and Plymouth
: > too.
:
: Plymouth had nothing to do with it. Airbags were mandated - and all
: manufacturers complained about it.
Actually, Chrysler and Iaccoca embraced it. Put them in before they were
required. As did Mercedes, I believe.
Lloyd R. Parker
: > james (jam...@blazenet.net) wrote:
: > : and BTW If I don't want to wear my seatbelt, If I want to eat raw meat,
: > : If I wanna smoke 5pks a day, or ride my Harley w/o a helmet, thats my
: > : business not the ##$#$ governments!
:
: His Royal Pompousness Lloyd R. Parker said:
: >
: > Only if you can promise I won't have to pay a nickel for your stupidity.
: > You won't need any insurance payments, your survivors won't get any money
: > from the government, you won't use police, fire, and rescue units, etc.
:
: Ah, Mr. Parker takes us down this road again. Following his logic it is
: perfectly OK for the guv'mint to mandate no red meat, no smoking, no
: unprotected sex, ad nauseum. Then factor in the cost of the meat patrol,
: the smoking patrol and the sex patrol (headed by none other than Jerry
: Falwell) and the government's intrusion in our lives will be complete.
Not wearing a seat belt has no advantages (meat does). It has high odds
of leading to an injury (meat does not).
:
: > :
: > :
: > : A man who would give up a little freedom for a little security
: > : deserves neither freedom nor security
: > : -Benjamin Franklin
: >
: > A man who'd be so incredibly stupid as to drive without a seatbelt
: > deserves scorn and ridicule.
:
: As does one who advocates a "nanny" government.
Or one who thinks freedom is the same as anarchy.
: John
Lloyd R. Parker
: From: "Richard" <ric...@stophome.com>
:
: >People who refuse to use seat belts, which are only a part of the safety
: >system of a vehicle, are plain stupid. On the road, I see many moms who let
: >their kids roam free in the front passenger compartment, unrestrained. They
: >belong belted in the back seat.
: >--
: But in the days before airbags it was perfectly OK for kids to ride in the
: front seat. Some "safety" device, eh?
: -Nipper
:
: Hang up the phone and Drive!!!
"Perfectly OK?" By whose standards? It was never "OK" by safety experts
for kids to ride in the front seat. In fact, I can remember by
grandfather referring to the passenger seat as the "suicide seat." The
back seat is and was always a safer place for kids.
Lloyd R. Parker
: > james (jam...@blazenet.net) wrote:
: > : and BTW If I don't want to wear my seatbelt, If I want to eat raw meat,
: > : If I wanna smoke 5pks a day, or ride my Harley w/o a helmet, thats my
: > : business not the ##$#$ governments!
:
: His Royal Pompousness Lloyd R. Parker said:
: >
: > Only if you can promise I won't have to pay a nickel for your stupidity.
: > You won't need any insurance payments, your survivors won't get any money
: > from the government, you won't use police, fire, and rescue units, etc.
:
: Ah, Mr. Parker takes us down this road again. Following his logic it is
: perfectly OK for the guv'mint to mandate no red meat, no smoking, no
: unprotected sex, ad nauseum. Then factor in the cost of the meat patrol,
: the smoking patrol and the sex patrol (headed by none other than Jerry
: Falwell) and the government's intrusion in our lives will be complete.
: > :
: > :
: > : A man who would give up a little freedom for a little security
: > : deserves neither freedom nor security
: > : -Benjamin Franklin
: >
: > A man who'd be so incredibly stupid as to drive without a seatbelt
: > deserves scorn and ridicule.
:
: As does one who advocates a "nanny" government.
If you want to mingle with the rest of us on public roads, you have to
give up some of your "freedoms." If you want absolute freedom, you'll
have to move to some island all by yourself.
Lloyd R. Parker
:
: The NHTSA, the same morons who used to tell us the 55mph limit was good for us.
: Why should we belive them this time?
Well, the first poster was citing NHTSA data (and misusing it) to "prove"
his point.
Further, simple laws of physics dictate that more people will be killed in
crashes at 70 mph than at 55 mph.
Lloyd R. Parker
: From: lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker)
Au contraire, all but a paranoid few agree that gov't has legitimate
functions, and making fools buckle up is one of them.
Lloyd R. Parker
: From: rmp4...@aol.com (RMP4BOOKS)
:
: >If the kids were in the back seat where they belonged, they wouldn't be dead,
: >would they? The government does not punctuate the issue with dead kids - the
: >dead kids are the result of severly neglectful uncaring parents.
:
: Most people are simply (and understandably) unable to comprehend the fact that
: their dashboards now contain a device powerful enough to cut a life short in
: the blink of an eyelash. Our cars are supposed to protect us in accidents, not
Then how do they manage to do a complicated act like drive a car without
running into things? These people are the same ones who think holding a
child is better than a child restraint, or that you're safer without a
belt in case the car plunges into a lake.
Lloyd R. Parker
: > A man who would give up a little freedom for a little security
: > deserves neither freedom nor security
: > -Benjamin Franklin
:
: >A man who'd be so incredibly stupid as to drive without a seatbelt
: >deserves scorn and ridicule.
:
: And now we see why a $100 bill is referred to as a "Franklin" rather than a
: "Parker". :)
:
: -Nipper
:
: Hang up the phone and Drive!!!
Open up a dictionary and look up "non sequitir." Your picture may be next
to it.
Lloyd R. Parker
: Lloyd R. Parker said;
Checked. They say "few are at risk" and "almost everyone is safer with an
air bag."
Guess one of us just makes up things at NHTSA.
Lloyd R. Parker
:
: >: This appears in almost every NHTSA rulemaking document. Read the long ones
: >on
: >: the NHTSA website for the descriptions of who might be helped and who might
: >be
: >: hurt, and you will find many references to this. Even NHTSA makes NO
: >attempt
: >: to claim a safety benefit for kids.-Jim Walker
:
: >Again, I dispute your take on it.
:
: He gave you the name of the website, why don't you go and read it for yourself?
I did. For kids old enough to use a conventional belt, and sit far enough
away from the air bag, the benefit is the same as for adults.
:
: >: (About 1/3rd of all air bag users will suffer
: >: an injury from the bag itself, per NHTSA, see their own documents on their
: >: website.)
:
: >That is totally false.
:
: See above response.
You see it. Nowhere, nowhere does NHTSA say 1/3 or all air bag users will
be injured from the bag. In fact they say, "very few people are at risk
with an air bag. In fact, almost everyone is safer with an air bag."
:
: >: You might
: >: also read the other portions of the SCIREPS site for other dead people who
: >were
: >: belted in when executed by their air bombs.
:
: >Yeah, right, sure.
:
: See above response (again).
:
: > Consumer Reports
: >recommends air bags for their safety
:
: Consumer Reports isn't exactly renowned for their credibility in the automotive
: department. Check some of Pat Bedard's "Car and Driver" columns on the subject
: and get the real facts about airbags.
Sorry, they most certainly are.
Bedard had to apologize to a person who was in an accident. Bedard
claimed the side air bag caused injury to the person's wife, and got
details of the accident wrong. The person wrote in and corrected him,
saying the air bag actually protected his wife from more serious injury,
and Bedard had to apologize.
C/D is fine for "rah-rah" car tests, but they are far from objective or
even serious when it comes to safety, emissions, etc. They look at cars
as things to have fun in, and anything that they think detracts from that
is bad. They were against emissions requirements, and CAFE standards, and
many safety requirements.
CR, on the other hand, rates cars as things consumers buy, and does
include safety in their consideration.
Reading only a magazine like C/D for auto information is like reading only
a school's catalog to evaluate that school.
Lloyd R. Parker
: Lloyd R. Parker said:
: And a lot of the "bag deaths" would have been killed in the accident
: anyway, so it works both ways.
:
: : All considered, the "saved to killed" ratio in not better than 10 to 1 in my
: : estimation, and it may be as bad as 5 to 1. It is NO better than 10 to 1 for
: : the passenger side, even using NHTSA's Junk Science and deceptive numbers.
:
: You're blowing hot air. You have no data to base this on.
: ------------
: The list of air bag deaths admitted by NHTSA are almost all low speed deaths,
"Almost"?
: where only minor injuries would be expected, absent the explosives that killed
: the people.
People have been killed in low-speed accidents. If an airbag is deploying
at an accident speed below which it should, then that's a manufacturing
defect.
: NHTSA has made no serious attempt to discover how many deaths
: there are from air bags at higher speeds,
Speculation on your part.
: cases where the belt would have saved
: the person, but the bag killed them.
If you're properly belted in, most of the time you won't contact the air
bag anyway. And if you do, who's to say impacting the steering wheel or
windshield wouldn't have done more damage?
: This might be a big number, but hard to
: prove, and NHTSA doesn't want to know - because any knowledge of this might
: help dump the air bag mandate.
Paranoia on your part.
:
: You can show, with NHTSA's own Junk Science numbers that the saved to killed
: ratio on the passenger side is in the range of 5 to one or 7 to 1. The ratio
: is that bad, even if you accept all their "saves" and use their own deflated
: "kill" number.
No you can't.
:
: Jim Hall, Chairman of the NTSB agrees here.
Which doesn't investigate most auto accidents.
Tell you what, why not ask auto engineers what they think? I think you'll
find engineers at all the major safety-conscious companies -- Mercedes,
Volvo, Saab, for example -- are unanimous in believing air bags are a
safety advantage. But of course, your paranoia overwhelms all the
engineers at all the car makers, right?
:
: Regards,
:
: Jim Walker
Dan Smith, Jr.
> Yes, yes, I know there are a few very violent accidents where they can hit the
> windshield, but these are the upper couple of percent of all accidents. You
> should not make rules for a tiny fraction of accidents, when those choices make
> common accidents more dangerous.
>
> This is like saying my car could suffer submersion or fire, so I don't want to
> wear belts. Fire and submersion combined are a factor in about 0.5% of all
> accidents, so making rules for those rare occurences is not smart.
>
like the tiny fraction of people that are actually killed by airbags? I think
the circle is now complete...
--
Dan Smith, Jr.
Lloyd R. Parker
: Dan Smith, Jr. said:
: > NHTSA says that belts provide about a 45% increase in survivability in
: > accidents. Adding air bags brings the number up to about 50% - IF you
: believe
: > all of NHTSA's highly-biased data. The real gain is likely less than the
: > claimed 9% increase.
:
: And you have data to back this on? where are you getting the "real"
: gain?
: ---------------
: The 45% and 50% numbers are well known, and often quoted by NHTSA and other
: authorities. The 9% is the increase over 45% that gets you close to 50% safety
: increase for belts and bags together.
:
: I question the 9% because I know NHTSA's claimed "saved" number comes from a
: corrupt database where belt use is not known for many cases. See Wall St.
You know no such thing.
: Journal, 1/22/97, Marketplace section.
A notorious right-wing, pro-business, anti-government publication.
: IF you do not know belt use, it is
: utter nonsense to claim the "save" was from the bag. There is perhaps a 90%
: chance in that case the save was the belt, if the person was belted.
Speculation on your part.
:
: I also know, from personal experience, that NHTSA's claimed number of "killed"
: by air bag is deceptively depressed by slow reporting. So, the net of "saved"
: minus "killed" reported by NHTSA is a bad number, from both ends.
Speculation on your part. I'll trust their numbers to yours, as you
obviously are not objective and have an agenda.
Lloyd R. Parker
: RMP4BOOKS said:
: You dodge the issue. A two-year-old child cannot make the decision as to where
: he/she is placed in the vehicle. The fact that this innocent child died as the
: result of the mother's stupidity is not the fault of NHTSA and NHTSA does not
: leave the kids at risk when parents are blatantly careless and irresponsible.
: ------------------------
: This is the whole point, the kid has no choice.
:
: And, NHTSA knows, from its own research, that 85% of kids are poorly or
: UNrestrained, many of them in the front seat.
And if it were found that lots of parents were placing kids on stoves,
would you demand that stoves be made so they couldn't get hot?
If lots of kids are sticking their fingers in electrical sockets, should
electricity not be supplied to houses?
If lots of kids are picking up snakes and getting bit, should we eradicate
all snakes from the earth?
If lots of kids are hanging themselves on venetian blind cords, is the
solution to ban blinds?
I will bet you more kids die from ordinary accidents such as these and
others than are "killed" by air bags every year.
When are you going to realize parents are the ones responsible for the
safety of their kids?
Lloyd R. Parker
: Dan Smith Jr. said:
:
: And planting your face in the windshield would be better, how?
:
: What about the $10,000+ medical costs of reconstructive surgery for
: someone who planted their face into the windshield...
: ---------------
: Properly belted people do not end up in the windshield. Neither my lady nor I
: will leave the curb without all occupants belted in. Even NHTSA agrees she
Neither do they end up impacting the air bag with fatal force.
Nipper219
> I guess
>if parents sit their child on a hot stove, it would be the stove maker's
>fault if the child gets burned?
That depends. Does the stove have a government-mandated explosive device built
into it?
Nipper219
>Making
>a stove that gets hot and then having a parent set a child down on it --
>is that the stove maker's fault?
Someone here seems to have a stove fixation.
>It's still relevant as far as the stove maker is concerned. Or do you
>think some stove makers make stoves that don't get hot?
Yep.
>It has never been shown that air bags increase the risk to properly belted
>adults. NHTSA, in fact, says they provide an additional 5% safety edge.
Do you belive *everything* the government tells you? Just wondering.
Mike Manning
JCWCONSULT wrote:
>
> I agree the seating was mom's fault. I just do not see the appropriateness of
> beheading the kid as the penalty.
>
>
And if mom stands by while Junior put a screwdriver into an electrical socket and
fries himself - who is at fault, mom or the power company? It was mom's fault,
but the kid still paid the penalty.
A kid in the backseat has ZERO chance of injury from an airbag. Regardless of
your argument about whether or not the airbag is necessary, etc., it is the
well-being of the child that should be considered.
Personally, I feel that airbag deployment is too severe. But I do not put my
kids in the front seat as an act of defiance.
Nipper219
> if
>you put your kids in the back seat, there is ZERO chance of the airbag
>injuring
>them.
>
>Plain and simple. My kids ride in the back.
And if there is no airbag installed in the first place the odds are also ZERO,
plus the kid doesn't have to sit in the back after a wreck looking at the
lifeless body of his Mother or Father who has just become the latest airbag
fatality. I will pass on the airbag, thanks.
Nipper219
>And a lot of the "bag deaths" would have been killed in the accident
>anyway, so it works both ways.
Yea, those 15MPH fender benders can be real dangerous....now that we have
airbags.
Nipper219
>If you're properly belted in, most of the time you won't contact the air
>bag anyway.
Wrong. Picture it: You're cruising at 30 mph in your car when suddenly a senile
oldster pulls out directly in front of you. As a driver, what will you do?
a) hit the horn (where the airbag lives)
b) brace your hands against the wheel
either tactic in a bag-equipped car will leave you unable to feed yourself for
the next 6 weeks or more. A passenger will instinctivly brace his/her hands
against the dashboard, where the passenger airbag lives. Break out the plaster,
looks like another multiple trauma case!
Nipper219
>Further, simple laws of physics dictate that more people will be killed in
>crashes at 70 mph than at 55 mph.
All thing being equal? Still debatable. But when you take into account the
clogged, snarling traffic common to the 55mph era it's pretty easy to see that
the higher limits are the first good idea the government has come up with since
they repealed prohibition. I've drive under both conditions and I can
wholeheartedly vouch for the new "real" speed limits as opposed to the old 55
"revenue generator".
Nipper219
>Nowhere, nowhere does NHTSA say 1/3 or all air bag users will
>be injured from the bag. In fact they say, "very few people are at risk
>with an air bag. In fact, almost everyone is safer with an air bag.
You have to learn to seperate the facts from the "spin" when reading gov't web
sites.
>Bedard had to apologize to a person who was in an accident. Bedard
>claimed the side air bag caused injury to the person's wife, and got
>details of the accident wrong.
In which issue did this apology appear? I have all of them dating back to 1975.
> They look at cars
>as things to have fun in, and anything that they think detracts from that
>is bad. They were against emissions requirements, and CAFE standards, and
>many safety requirements.
Aren't we all? They had a good idea when they mandated lap belts and side
marker lights but it all went downhill from there. :)
Nipper219
>Au contraire, all but a paranoid few agree that gov't has legitimate
>functions, and making fools buckle up is one of them.
The government has no right to tell me to buckle up (although I always wear my
lap belts due to simple common sense) or to wear a helmet on my motorcycle. The
whole idea of "social cost" it just another attempt at an end run around the
constitution by the people in Washington. If you disagree, let me ask: Where do
you draw the line? Sould we outlaw hang gliding? Rock climbing? Scuba diving?
How much liberty should we give up in order to achiev a risk-free society?
Nipper219
>Nipper219 (nipp...@aol.com) wrote:
> Most people are simply (and understandably) unable to comprehend the fact
>that
>: their dashboards now contain a device powerful enough to cut a life short
>in
>: the blink of an eyelash.
>Then how do they manage to do a complicated act like drive a car without
>running into things?
They DO run into things, if they didn't run into things airbags wouldn't be
responsible for so many fatalities. Except for the cases when they deploy for
absolutly no reason, of course.
Nipper219
>If you want to mingle with the rest of us on public roads, you have to
>give up some of your "freedoms." If you want absolute freedom, you'll
>have to move to some island all by yourself.
In this case I agree with you. A person does not have the right to shave, put
on make-up, read, comb their hair or send a fax when they are sharing a highway
with other drivers. Unfortunatly, I have NEVER seen a cop execute a traffic
stop for ANY of these offences even when the officer in question plainly saw
that the "driver" involved was guilty of one of the aforementioned offences.
And don't even get me started on cell-phone users. :)
Nipper219
>JCWCONSULT (jcwco...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Properly belted people do not end up in the windshield.
>Neither do they end up impacting the air bag with fatal force.
They do not impact the airbag, the airbag impacts them. Imagine a Mike Tyson
right hook (but at ten times the intensity) suddenly slamming into your face,
arms and torso and you will begin to understand the savage attack of the airbag
upon the human body. Talk to some airbag survivors firsthand and maybe they can
fill you in on this "safety device".
Nipper219
>JCWCONSULT (jcwco...@aol.com) wrote:
>:See Wall St.
>: Journal, 1/22/97, Marketplace section.
>A notorious right-wing, pro-business, anti-government publication.
The Wall St Journal is suddenly "notorious"? Why wasn't I informed of this! :)
-Nipper
p.s. This is my last reply to this NG tonight and due to my work schedule I
probably won't be posting again for 5 or 6 days. I advise patience to any and
all who would care to dispute what I have said. Goodnight.
james
| Au contraire, all but a paranoid few agree that gov't has legitimate
| functions, and making fools buckle up is one of them.
|
| : -Nipper
| :
| : Hang up the phone and Drive!!!
Hmmm really now
The job of government is to do for the people what the people cannot
do for themselves
-Thomas Jefferson
And I certainly can decide what level of risk I wish to take in my
own life w/o any hel[p from the "All Knowing" government who MANDATES safty
devices that kill people.
Only government beaurocrats are so dumb
james
dangerous to YOU while you're driving I may agree w/ you
c...@webtv.net
jcwco...@aol.com (JCWCONSULT) wrote:
> RMP said:
> The plain and simple truth to this
> unfortunate experience is that the mother was at fault and the mother did not
> care. Both my kids were 2 years old before airbags and they were always buckled
> in a car seat in the back seat. Insensitivity and stupidity on the part of a
> parent cost this little girl her life - plain and simple.
> --------
> I do not disagree with this analysis. I just think the innocent kid should not
> pay for the mother's stupidity. NHTSA wants to leave the kids at risk, to try
> to save unbelted males. I find the tradeoff to be unacceptable.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim Walker
>
Have we considered that since the speed of the
vehicle was fast enough to set off the airbag, the
unbelted child would have sustained head injuries
from contacting the dash in a non-airbag vehicle.
Unbelted children are projectiles with or
without airbags.
Jim T.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Richard
products a this point in the game? Can you move it to another, more
appropriate ng?
--
Richard ric...@gohome.com
I also hate to receive spam, so please discard the "go" to email me
RMP4BOOKS
>Wrong. Picture it: You're cruising at 30 mph in your car when suddenly a
>senile
>oldster pulls out directly in front of you.
For your information, the majority of people who pull out like this here in
southern California are immature, "I-gotta-get-there-now-so-I-can't-wait"
drivers in their late-teens or early-20's. You have something against older
people?
JCWCONSULT
: The list of air bag deaths admitted by NHTSA are almost all low speed deaths,
"Almost"?
There is an occasional item in their list with an impact speed of 20 mph or
more, but most are under 20 mph.-JCW
: where only minor injuries would be expected, absent the explosives that
killed
: the people.
People have been killed in low-speed accidents. If an airbag is deploying
at an accident speed below which it should, then that's a manufacturing
defect.
There were no rules established for lower end deployments, most companies used
about 12 mph as the lower deployment accident severity, and there are deaths as
low as 5 mph accidents. The specific purpose of the lists of air bag dead from
first generation bags was to show how many people had died in collisions where
they likely would have survived without the air bags.-JCW
: NHTSA has made no serious attempt to discover how many deaths
: there are from air bags at higher speeds,
Speculation on your part.
Perhaps, but the lists are headed "In minor or moderate severity air bag
deployment crashes" There is NO list for higher speed crashes, or if there is
-- NHTSA has keep it internally secret.-JCW
: cases where the belt would have saved
: the person, but the bag killed them.
If you're properly belted in, most of the time you won't contact the air
bag anyway. And if you do, who's to say impacting the steering wheel or
windshield wouldn't have done more damage?
Again, read Automotive News, page 32, 3/8/99 for the story of Shawn Simpkins,
belted driver, age 16, killed by a Second Generation air bag in an otherwise
survivable accident, 26 mph speed. The ONLY mark on his body was the air bag
abrasion under his chin, where the bag snapped his head back hard enough to
break his brainstem. NHTSA's own data says about one-third of all occupants
exposed to an air bag deployment will get an injury from the bag itself. You
are QUITE wrong if you think the bag does not touch belted people, and you will
be in for a rude and painful shock if one deploys for you.-JCW
: This might be a big number, but hard to
: prove, and NHTSA doesn't want to know - because any knowledge of this might
: help dump the air bag mandate.
Paranoia on your part.
(Refers to the high speed accident air bag tragedies) Then why don't they
publish a list? If it is my paranoia, it would only have a tiny number of
listings.-JCW
:
: You can show, with NHTSA's own Junk Science numbers that the saved to killed
: ratio on the passenger side is in the range of 5 to one or 7 to 1. The ratio
: is that bad, even if you accept all their "saves" and use their own deflated
: "kill" number.
No you can't.
Actually, I can. Lloyd, you should know by now that I do NOT post things I
cannot back up. Go to http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/airbags/rule/section02.html for
the final rule on on-off switches. Go to section B. 1. a. for lives saved and
lives lost. NHTSA claims 332 passengers saved through late 1997 at the time
this rule was published. They show 49 children killed plus 3 adult passengers
killed, for a total of 52 confirmed dead passengers. This is about 6 to 1.
Then they show numbers for cases under investigation, with 1 infant and 11
children = 12 cases still under investigation. They admit that 80% of cases
under investigation are ultimately deemed to be confirmed air bag deaths. So
12 times .8 = 10 more -- likely to be added to the confirmed dead. 52+10=62,
with the saved number still at 332. This is down to just over 5 saves for each
kill, about the same as Russian Roulette. Pardon the shout, but NO WAY IN MY
CAR, NO HOW, NO WAY, NEVER. A "save to kill" ratio of 5 to 1 is outrageous for
a mandatory "safety device" (sic) that is designed to explode in your face.-JCW
Tell you what, why not ask auto engineers what they think? I think you'll
find engineers at all the major safety-conscious companies -- Mercedes,
Volvo, Saab, for example -- are unanimous in believing air bags are a
safety advantage. But of course, your paranoia overwhelms all the
engineers at all the car makers, right?
Volvo has repeatedly petitioned NHTSA to be allowed to market the safer
European bags, but has been told NO WAY in the USA. The first infant death
from an air bag on NHTSA's list is in a Volvo.-JCW
Sorry Lloyd, we do disagree, and I can back up my numbers. It is the numbers
that make me SO angry, because any bureaucrat ought to be able to read their
own stuff and figure out the mandate is wrong.
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
: I do not have time to find all the quotes from the NHTSA data on things like
: 1/3rd will be injured by air bag deployments, but people who follow my posts
: know I always use good data. You can find these things yourself at
: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ and go to the airbag section.
Checked. They say "few are at risk" and "almost everyone is safer with an air
bag."
Guess one of us just makes up things at NHTSA.
--------------
You read one of their generic "Everybody ought to love air bags" sales pitches.
I meant read their own data panels with the hard numbers that tell the story.
Try http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/airbags/RegEval/ which is the cost evaluation for
the air bag switch rule. Go down to table 11 and look at the full fleet
estimates for injuries prevented and injuries caused by air bags. You will
note that there is one admitted injury for about each two claimed preventions.
I ask you Lloyd, and I mean this very seriously. Do you think you could go
before Congress today and propose some fancy new safety device that would cost
$500 to $1,000 per car, and which would pro-actively injure one user for each
two it helps, and would kill one user on the passenger side for each five it
saves, and get it even permitted to be sold, let alone mandated?
You would not stand the proverbial snow ball's chance in hell of getting
something with that level of user danger even permitted today.
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
Personally, I feel that airbag deployment is too severe. But I do not put my
kids in the front seat as an act of defiance.
Good for you and your kids.
And I do not allow air bags in my vehicles at all.
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
: Properly belted people do not end up in the windshield. Neither my lady nor
I
: will leave the curb without all occupants belted in. Even NHTSA agrees she
Neither do they end up impacting the air bag with fatal force.
---------
Automotive News, 3/8/99, page 32, story of Shawn Simpkins. Second Generation
air bag, belted,. 26 mph accident, NO intrusion on the drivers side (I have
examined the 1998 Dodge Dakota), fully survivable accident, broken brain stem
from the air bag hit under the chin, FATAL.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/NHTSA.html item #84.
This air bag killing is local to me, and I know the family.
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
(I knew it was fruitless to reply to Lloyd, but decided to give it a brief try,
to educate others. I won't keep up for long, because if you put a blue ashtray
on his desk and said it was blue, he would dispute that fact. Proof of points
is inadequate to sway Lloyd's preconceived notions.)
: I question the 9% because I know NHTSA's claimed "saved" number comes from a
: corrupt database where belt use is not known for many cases. See Wall St.
You know no such thing.
: Journal, 1/22/97, Marketplace section.
A notorious right-wing, pro-business, anti-government publication.
Actually, Lloyd, I later got a copy of the NHTSA database myself, and the study
itself admits that belt use was not known for many of the cases. You might not
like the Wall St. Journal, but they do pretty careful reporting.-JCW
: IF you do not know belt use, it is
: utter nonsense to claim the "save" was from the bag. There is perhaps a 90%
: chance in that case the save was the belt, if the person was belted.
Speculation on your part.
This is just using NHTSA's own estimates, 45% better with belts, only 50%
better with belts and bags. So, if someone lives with a belt and bag (50% do)
and if someone lives with a belt (45% do), the belt clearly did 90% of the work
-- 50% times 90% = 45%. Simple for most of us, and using entirely NHTSA
numbers. No speculation required.-JCW
:
: I also know, from personal experience, that NHTSA's claimed number of
"killed"
: by air bag is deceptively depressed by slow reporting. So, the net of
"saved"
: minus "killed" reported by NHTSA is a bad number, from both ends.
Speculation on your part. I'll trust their numbers to yours, as you
obviously are not objective and have an agenda.
I personally know of one case where the death report was delayed about 11
months, despite repeated requests from the surviving daughter. Shawn Simpkins
death report was delayed about 6 months. See Autoweek magazine, 5/25/98, page
4 for a description of the deceptive delay tactics used to under-report air bag
deaths. I do not speculate, Lloyd, I report. It is NHTSA that has the agenda,
to keep the air bag mandate in effect, REGARDLESS of the costs in lives and
serious injuries.-JCW
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
Interesting arguments on both sides, but what do they have to do with DC
products a this point in the game? Can you move it to another, more
appropriate ng?
These were some extensions from the report of the decapitation on 3/26/99 of a
two year old in a Plymouth Voyager. Chrysler makes some of the most deadly air
bags on the market.
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
A "vast majority" of kids are not placed in cars without proper restraints
anymore either.
---------
Actually, Lloyd, NHTSA's own recent research says that 85% of kids in cars
today are improperly restrained, or not restrained at all, and many will be in
front (not good, but true).
NHTSA claims, absolutely falsely, to make rules for real world situations. No
rule requiring deadly explosives in dashboards should exist when it is known
that 85% of kids are not properly restrained.
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
Actually, Chrysler and Iaccoca embraced it. Put them in before they were
required. As did Mercedes, I believe.
----------
After years of opposing air bags because of the dangers, Iacocca did a
flip-flop and installed them in all Chrysler vehicles. It was a brilliant sales
move to gain market share for his almost-bankrupt company. It was also among
the most cynical moves ever made, because all the dangers remained true.
Regards,
Jim Walker
JCWCONSULT
Have we considered that since the speed of the
vehicle was fast enough to set off the airbag, the
unbelted child would have sustained head injuries
from contacting the dash in a non-airbag vehicle.
Unbelted children are projectiles with or
without airbags.
Agreed, the kid might have gotten some injuries from the dash..
It is quite unlikely that his head would have been ripped off his neck and
chucked down onto the carpet next to the rest of the body, as occured with the
air bag explosion.
Actually, the EMS tech expected NO injuries - from his view of the slight body
damage as he drove up to the scene.
Instead he got to witness a real horror.
Regards,
Jim Walker
james
the oldster and the situation he described doesn't change
--
_________________________________________________
War is neither to be feared nor to be provoked
Homer