The problem is that by making the airbags weaker, they provide the
equivalent protection to belted passengers but greatly reduces the risk to
the same. If it hadn't been for Claybrook we would have airbags that
protect the driver without putting them at risk. It doesn't really bother
me because I'm in the low risk group but my mother is in the high risk
group.
My philosophy is that I don't want devices protecting unbelted drivers.
We're just defeating natural selection. Protecting those people should
not put smarter drivers at risk.
glen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-autox@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-autox@autox.team.net]On
Behalf Of Patrick Washburn
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:46 PM
To: David Hillman; autox list
Subject: re: Airbags
Yeah, but that is the trick isn't it? The numbers/risk game. If your
accident had been one of those "very small minority" type, you would be
singing a different tune. (The fact that you would be singing at all
would
be reward enough.) No one ever claimed air bags will keep you safe at all
times, coddling you in comfy softness at the nearest hint of danger every
minute of you commute. What they do is save lives in those small
percentage
situations. Besides, how can you so sure that your air bag did'nt prevent
serious injury or death in your accident? Just because it was low speed?
Just something to think about. I personally will accept the risk for the
benefit.
> The facts are that frontal airbags are only beneficial to belted
> occupants in a very small minority of crashes. The rest of the time,
they
> are detrimental, causing additional injuries and even death.
>
> http://www.motorists.org/issues/airbags/airbags_optional2.html
>
Patrick Washburn
C-Tech Trailer Cabinets
Designed for the Racer
Wausau, WI
www.racecabinet.com
715-355-8842
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|