Bob Juch wrote:wintergreen48 wrote:And it wouldn not be the first example of experts 'urging us to use' something dangerous in the name of safety: if you exclude the people who would have been safe if they had been wearing seat belts, it turns out that the number of people killed by air bags exceeds the number of people who have been saved by air bags. Air bags are primarily a 'safety feature' for people too stupid to use a seat belt-- if you use a seat belt, an air bag is more likely to kill you than save you (hence the modifications that let 'small people' disable them, the directions to keep children in the back seats, etc.)
Please quote a credible source for that.
Side impact air bags keep your head from bouncing off the window or metal. How would a seat belt help?
Well, a good three-point seat belt, properly fastened, should keep you from moving side-to-side, which should prevent you from bouncing off the window or metal part of the car (do cars actually have interior metal anymore? but of course hard plastic can hurt as much as sheet metal)
To be honest, I was not even thinking about side-impact bags: I was talking about the front-impact air bags, which were the ones mandated, which do cause some injuries but generally do not do more for you than a good seat belt will do for you, and were the subject of a lot of NHSA reviews in the early years (the bags were mandated in 1998, studies were issue around 2000). I do not have the study in front of me now-- this is several years back, but the initial numbers that were coming out after the first few years of mandatory air bag installations showed a lot of people-- several thousand-- whose lives were saved by the bags, but the vast majority of them were people who would have survived if they were wearing seatbelts, which is the basis for my comment that air bags save people who are too stupid to wear seatbelts; if you remove those people from the list, limiting it only to those whose lives were saved BECAUSE they had an air bag and who would NOT have survived with just seat belts, the positive results were down to single digits. But a greater number of people than this (not a huge number, but more than the number 'saved') were actually killed by air bags, and other people seriously injured (arm and facial fractures mostly). The people who were injured or killed were generally 'small stature' people (infants, children, petite women, etc.), and that study is the one that led to the recommedations about putting children (who are generally 'small stature') in the back seat rather than in the front seat of the car (so they would not be hit by the air bags at all), and allowing for people to disable the air bags (when the driver is a 'small stature' person).
It's been a while since I read that study, but I do not think that it mentioned side impact air bags, which may not have been in common use at that time; in any event, I don't think that, even today, they are actually required, are they? Dual front airbags have been required since (I think) 1998, but I don't think that thare is a requirement for side impact bags (which have their own issues-- if the passenger is leaning against the window or door when it deploys, it apparently can cause very severe injury).
Innocent, naive and whimsical. And somewhat footloose and fancy-free.