| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Uncle Al" |
| Date: |
03 Jun 2005 11:44:16 AM |
| Object: |
Airbag safety study |
http://physorg.com/news4363.html
"While the value of airbags seems dubious in the new study, the value
of seatbelts is not. The analysis found that proper use of a seatbelt
reduces the odds of death by 67 percent for any given speed category
and airbag availability. Airbags, however, cause no statistical
difference in car-crash deaths, except for unseatbelted occupants at
low speeds, where the odds of death are estimated to be more than four
times higher with an airbag than without."
"Making everyone have airbags and then verifying the effectiveness
using only fatal crashes in FARS is like making everyone get radiation
and then estimating the lives saved by looking only at people who have
cancer. Overall, there will be more deaths if everyone is given
radiation, but in the cancer subset, radiation will be effective."
Uncle Al says, "An advocate makes virtue of failure. The worse the
cure the better the treatment - and the more that is required."
Told ya! - More than 10 years ago.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bags.htm
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bags2.htm
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bags3.htm
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
| User: "Philip Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Airbag safety study |
05 Jun 2005 10:54:03 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42A088E0.C45C3825@hate.spam.net...
http://physorg.com/news4363.html
"While the value of airbags seems dubious in the new study, the value
of seatbelts is not. The analysis found that proper use of a seatbelt
reduces the odds of death by 67 percent for any given speed category
and airbag availability. Airbags, however, cause no statistical
difference in car-crash deaths, except for unseatbelted occupants at
low speeds, where the odds of death are estimated to be more than four
times higher with an airbag than without."
"Making everyone have airbags and then verifying the effectiveness
using only fatal crashes in FARS is like making everyone get radiation
and then estimating the lives saved by looking only at people who have
cancer. Overall, there will be more deaths if everyone is given
radiation, but in the cancer subset, radiation will be effective."
Uncle Al says, "An advocate makes virtue of failure. The worse the
cure the better the treatment - and the more that is required."
Told ya! - More than 10 years ago.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bags.htm
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bags2.htm
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bags3.htm
The problem with car safety studies is the difficulty in isolating the
safety commodity being studied. With the introduction of seat belts,
airbags, anti-lock braking, crush zones, crash barriers etc, etc one
would expect to see a decline in automobile accidents and casualties.
The death rate has been maintained at a steady 36/37 thousand per year
for a long time. Responsible driving appears to be inversely
proportional to the number of safety devices present.
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/eventscience/OtherActivities/AccidentData.doc
Phil H
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Logullo" |
|
| Title: Re: Airbag safety study |
04 Jun 2005 06:56:02 AM |
|
|
I was buckled in when this dingbat turned left in front of me causing a head
on collision.
Airbags went off and all I suffered was a slight bruise from the seat belt
and a red spot on my sweat shirt from the airbag.
Car was borderline totaled. If it were not for need of airbag replacement,
car would have been fixed.
Years ago, I was in a head on collision in UK when my collegue who was
driving forgot which side of the road to drive on even though he was born in
the UK. All had seatbelts and none were hurt.
I don't mind the extra safety factor but hate paying for those too stupid to
use seat belts.
Frank
.
|
|
|
| User: "lee.christopher" |
|
| Title: Re: Airbag safety study |
05 Jun 2005 03:21:51 PM |
|
|
"Frank Logullo" <frankDOTlogullo@dol.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
mFgoe.10596$5I5.921104@newshog.newsread.com...
I was buckled in when this dingbat turned left in front of me causing a
head
on collision.
Airbags went off and all I suffered was a slight bruise from the seat belt
and a red spot on my sweat shirt from the airbag.
Car was borderline totaled. If it were not for need of airbag
replacement,
car would have been fixed.
Years ago, I was in a head on collision in UK when my collegue who was
driving forgot which side of the road to drive on even though he was born
in
the UK. All had seatbelts and none were hurt.
I don't mind the extra safety factor but hate paying for those too stupid
to
use seat belts.
Frank
I agree; airbags came in because in some countries personal freedom (not
wearing seatbelts) is more important than the consequences of overloading
the emergency services. I read somewhere that in places where you have to
wear your seatbelt, airbags are not cost-effective in terms of national
economies.
In fact, wherever you go, domestic and industrial accidents are a far
greater risk to life & limb. There are more victims of asbestos than of road
accidents. Risk prevention is always subject to political, emotive and other
subjective pressures, and we chemists seem to be no different to anyone else
when it comes to decision-taking.
Regards
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Airbag safety study |
03 Jun 2005 01:00:48 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Fri, 03 Jun 2005 09:44:16 -0700) it happened Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in <42A088E0.C45C3825@hate.spam.net>:
http://physorg.com/news4363.html
I propose eating more fat food.
then we can do a study if fat absorbs shocks: 'if more fat people
survive crashes then skinny ones'.
Then we can put those results against the heart condition ones.
Maybe it can be financed by Kentucky Fried or some burger kingdom.
I did not write this.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard J Kinch" |
|
| Title: Re: Airbag safety study |
05 Jun 2005 11:09:23 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al writes:
Told ya! - More than 10 years ago.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bags.htm
Gotta love how Hollywood plays airbags for a slapstick joke. They always
expand slowly like marshmallowly pillows, and then don't deflate. No doubt
this is the popular conception of what happens in reality.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Airbag safety study |
03 Jun 2005 01:15:26 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
http://physorg.com/news4363.html
"While the value of airbags seems dubious in the new study, the value
of seatbelts is not. The analysis found that proper use of a seatbelt
reduces the odds of death by 67 percent for any given speed category
and airbag availability. Airbags, however, cause no statistical
difference in car-crash deaths, except for unseatbelted occupants at
low speeds, where the odds of death are estimated to be more than four
times higher with an airbag than without."
Hang on Al. Isn't the problem here that in the USA everything is bigger
and better - including the explosive charge in the airbag which is set
to kill small women and children in front seats! The idea being to save
the 600lb slob that can't be arsed to put his seatbelt on.
The solution is simple. Set the charge like in European cars so that it
adds to the protection of a seatbelted passenger. If you are not wearing
a seatbelt then tough - you had the choice.
Even in the UK there are a couple of cases where airbag inflation is
thought to have been the cause of death.
Regards,
Martin Brown
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Sinclair" |
|
| Title: Re: Airbag safety study |
06 Jun 2005 03:09:35 PM |
|
|
In article <d7q6ns$e8f$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
http://physorg.com/news4363.html
"While the value of airbags seems dubious in the new study, the value
of seatbelts is not. The analysis found that proper use of a seatbelt
reduces the odds of death by 67 percent for any given speed category
and airbag availability. Airbags, however, cause no statistical
difference in car-crash deaths, except for unseatbelted occupants at
low speeds, where the odds of death are estimated to be more than four
times higher with an airbag than without."
Hang on Al. Isn't the problem here that in the USA everything is bigger
and better - including the explosive charge in the airbag which is set
to kill small women and children in front seats! The idea being to save
the 600lb slob that can't be arsed to put his seatbelt on.
IIRC they are designed to be effective with a seat belt. People that don't
wear set belts are asking for their Darwin clause to be invoked .... and I
have no problem with that. They are obviously too stupid to live :) :)
Bruce
-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Airbag safety study |
03 Jun 2005 10:00:10 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote
on Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:15:26 +0100
<d7q6ns$e8f$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>:
Uncle Al wrote:
http://physorg.com/news4363.html
"While the value of airbags seems dubious in the new study, the value
of seatbelts is not. The analysis found that proper use of a seatbelt
reduces the odds of death by 67 percent for any given speed category
and airbag availability. Airbags, however, cause no statistical
difference in car-crash deaths, except for unseatbelted occupants at
low speeds, where the odds of death are estimated to be more than four
times higher with an airbag than without."
Hang on Al. Isn't the problem here that in the USA everything is bigger
and better - including the explosive charge in the airbag which is set
to kill small women and children in front seats! The idea being to save
the 600lb slob that can't be arsed to put his seatbelt on.
The solution is simple. Set the charge like in European cars so that it
adds to the protection of a seatbelted passenger. If you are not wearing
a seatbelt then tough - you had the choice.
Even in the UK there are a couple of cases where airbag inflation is
thought to have been the cause of death.
It's probably beneficial to set the charge smaller anyway. A fair
number of municipalities implement "click it or ticket" laws.
The primary intent of the airbag would then be to reduce injury
(e.g. by hitting one's cranium on the steering wheel or the
dash). Whether it can succeed, I for one can't say.
Of course, there's a problem with seat belts and air bags:
not everyone is a nice standard size. Maybe we need to
reengineer humans so that we're all 6'1" 190 pounds or
something...even at birth.
The difficulties in such a course might well be insuperable,
as many a young mother will attest; it's bad enough carrying
9 pounds, never mind 190.
I don't see this happening in Detroit's next model cycle, somehow...
Regards,
Martin Brown
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Airbag safety study |
03 Jun 2005 11:30:23 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
It's probably beneficial to set the charge smaller anyway. A fair
number of municipalities implement "click it or ticket" laws.
The primary intent of the airbag would then be to reduce injury
(e.g. by hitting one's cranium on the steering wheel or the
dash). Whether it can succeed, I for one can't say.
Of course, there's a problem with seat belts and air bags:
not everyone is a nice standard size. Maybe we need to
reengineer humans so that we're all 6'1" 190 pounds or
something...even at birth.
The difficulties in such a course might well be insuperable,
as many a young mother will attest; it's bad enough carrying
9 pounds, never mind 190.
I don't see this happening in Detroit's next model cycle, somehow...
I stand fully grown at 160 cm, less than average, with the
difference in height from most others being in the legs. Thus when I
drive I always have the seat scooted as far front as it goes. I don't
even keep the fuse for the airbag in the panel anymore.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Airbag safety study |
04 Jun 2005 07:00:14 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Mark Martin
<qed100@hotmail.com>
wrote
on 3 Jun 2005 21:30:23 -0700
<1117859423.598841.220210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
It's probably beneficial to set the charge smaller anyway. A fair
number of municipalities implement "click it or ticket" laws.
The primary intent of the airbag would then be to reduce injury
(e.g. by hitting one's cranium on the steering wheel or the
dash). Whether it can succeed, I for one can't say.
Of course, there's a problem with seat belts and air bags:
not everyone is a nice standard size. Maybe we need to
reengineer humans so that we're all 6'1" 190 pounds or
something...even at birth.
The difficulties in such a course might well be insuperable,
as many a young mother will attest; it's bad enough carrying
9 pounds, never mind 190.
I don't see this happening in Detroit's next model cycle, somehow...
I stand fully grown at 160 cm, less than average, with the
difference in height from most others being in the legs. Thus when I
drive I always have the seat scooted as far front as it goes. I don't
even keep the fuse for the airbag in the panel anymore.
Most of the height is in fact in the legs, AIUI.
Admittedly, that's probably why you need to scoot up,
so that you can reach the accelerator and brake pedals.
(Another problem, that.) Of course this means you're that
much closer to the aforementioned sodium azide device,
were it active.
I myself stand 6'1" = 1.86m, on a good day. I've not
checked myself lately, though. Let us both hope that we
don't have to measure the airbag's effectiveness the hard
way... :-)
Women also tend to have shorter torsos, as well. (I don't
know regarding their legs, or their general bone structure.
But presumably it has to be factored into the general
car design.)
-Mark Martin
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila the Bum" |
|
| Title: Re: Airbag safety study |
03 Jun 2005 01:01:13 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
http://physorg.com/news4363.html
10,000 consumers, saved. Average
shopping per day, $30. Annual
increase to the economy $30 X 300
(approximately). Cost of airbags,
$30 X 300 (when ancillary costs
are included).
"While the value of airbags seems dubious in the new study, the value
of seatbelts is not. The analysis found that proper use of a seatbelt
reduces the odds of death by 67 percent for any given speed category
and airbag availability. Airbags, however, cause no statistical
difference in car-crash deaths, except for unseatbelted occupants at
low speeds, where the odds of death are estimated to be more than four
times higher with an airbag than without."
What about airbags for _pedistrians_?
"Making everyone have airbags and then verifying the effectiveness
using only fatal crashes in FARS is like making everyone get radiation
and then estimating the lives saved by looking only at people who have
cancer. Overall, there will be more deaths if everyone is given
radiation, but in the cancer subset, radiation will be effective."
NOT.
Uncle Al says, "An advocate makes virtue of failure. The worse the
cure the better the treatment - and the more that is required."
Airbags for fish? Catholic Priests?
Members of Congress? sci.chem posters
(now that one should be federally
mandated!)?
Told ya! - More than 10 years ago.
Feeling chipper, eh?
Atty (The truth has just begun to
to be soiled. Total, absolute,
all-out sniggering :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Sinclair" |
|
| Title: Re: Airbag safety study |
06 Jun 2005 03:08:11 PM |
|
|
In article <1117819494.246263.192210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Attila the Bum" <mark_tarka@yahoo.com> wrote:
What about airbags for _pedistrians_?
Being developed now :)
Bruce
-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
