Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mtx5a.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!ariel!mtunh!mtung!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mat From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.auto Subject: Re: airbags Message-ID: <1163@mtx5a.UUCP> Date: Mon, 30-Dec-85 17:54:24 EST Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1163 Posted: Mon Dec 30 17:54:24 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jan-86 06:41:30 EST References: <294@frog.UUCP> <408@gcc-milo.ARPA> <761@unc.unc.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801. Lines: 71 Xref: watmath net.politics:12735 net.auto:8927 > Why would you rather have seat belts than airbags? Just offhand, > airbags have the following advantages: > - They work even when you don't think about them (i.e., when you are > distracted or tired, which is when you might need them most...). They also protect you only in frontal collisions. > - They are more comfortable than seat belts, and comfort when > driving is important. And I feel one helluva lot better strapped into the car so that if something happens and I get thrown to one side, I won't yank the wheel over and compound the accident. By the way, a study showed that people who wear seat belts use LESS energy just riding in the car than those who don't. Where's the comfort? > - They work even for kids or people who aren't "normal size". A real problem with the current crop of belts, but I blame car designers and people who don't wear seat belts correctly ... forcing designers to create belts that can only be put on in one way ... and an inconvenient one at that. > - It is easier to enforce airbag installation than seat belt wearing. And harder to test the damned thing without destroying it. What about the person whose eyglasses can't be made of safety glass? When the bag fires and shatters the lens, it blinds him. The seat belt won't do that. > This means that more people will be protected. Dee below. > - Once you have an airbag, you will always use it when needed. Once. In a multicollision accident, you are totally vulnerable on the second impact. In a roll-over, you bounce around the car. > - You have no incentive to deactivate the airbag. I have seen lots > of cars where the seat belts have been taken down. I do. I want my three-point harness. I don't want a system that will knock me away from the controls when I may need the most control effort - and skill. > The only disadvantage I can see in airbags is their cost, which last > I heard was estimated at about $300 (U.S.). Since that is about 5% > of a CHEAP car, it seems like it might be worth the investment. > Other than this extra cost, I can't think why anyone would prefer seat > belts to airbags, unless it is to encourage "natural" selection, > of course :-) . . . Seat belt laws mean the not wearing a seat belt will make it impossible for someone to collect insurance money for harm that he could have mitagated or prevented. Why the hell should he collect MY insurance money for HIS aforethough negligence? It may also mean that more drivers will be able to control their cars in panic stops when the rear wheels break loose. I can, but without the belt, there's just no way I could keep all my weight from going to the brake pedal, and no way I could steer. I don't think most drivers are much better. Dammit, I want my harness. Seat belts are NOT just emergency (read collision) protection, they are basic equipment necessary for the safe operation of an automobile. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.