Do You Have A Glove Box?

position. With as much as people move around in crashes, it would be

I can't remember who my original source was (bloke in a pub, probably) so I did a quick google to see if I was talking drivel - after I posted, of course :o)

Turned up a few pages along these lines (4th paragraph is the relevant one)

It doesn't mention legislation, though I'm sure my pub source claimed that some kind of effort to protect unbelted human missiles was mandatory. Even if it was ever true, I suppose it could be out of date by now though.

Cheers,

Colin.

Yup - very likely. Yanks are too dumb to realise that wearing seatbelts is sensible. Their 'freedom' mentality means that the gov't is reluctant to impose it as law nationwide.

Smaller ppl as well as kids have been known to be injured by airbags - e.g person of small stature ( e.g short woman ) sits close to the steering wheel and is hit hard in an accident by the larger US airbag. Has resulted in disabilities if not deaths.

Graham

Quite !

Graham

Yes, heaven forbid people take responsibility for their own actions instead of relying on the government to legislate what should be common sense.

I'm not keen either on relying on the government to legislate what should be common sense, but I think you're missing the target here by a long shot. Seat belt wearing is almost universally accepted; it's a very old story. Anybody can cause a traffic accident, e.g. a blown tire or swerving around an unexpected obstacle. That accident may easily affect other road users, not just yourself. I would be happier if I knew that other road users wore seat belts and had a better chance of survival if it came to the worst.

I'm of the opinion that the government should do whatever they can to help you make yourself safe. Make sure the roads are in good shape, properly lit, clear of debris, etc. Make sure car companies provide seat belts, air bags, safety cages, etc. But, I have a hard time accepting that the government should require me, an adult, to wear a seat belt. I'll accept seatbelt laws for minors because they haven't developed common sense, but once you're an adult, it should be up to you to look after yourself.

Someone I know runs a business that, by its very nature, presents a moderate risk to the employees (heavy equipment, industrial machinery). His feeling is "I'll do anything I can to protect you from this stuff, but I'm not going to protect you from yourself."

Funny....I have never seen or heard of anyone objecting to putting on a seatbelt when required to do so in a passenger aircraft...so why is it such a big deal in a car where the benefits are much, much more likely to be proven the hard way?

A friend of mine hit a stationary truck at 100 KPH (60 MPH) in a small car. The car was fitted with a drivers airbag which failed to inflate but she was mercifully wearing a standard european style lap/diagonal seat belt and she survived with only minor cuts (from flying glass) and a massive seatbelt shaped bruise where the belt decelerated her from 100 KPH rather quickly.

As an unrestrained front seat occupant of a motor vehicle (it doesn't matter much what the vehicle is)in a head on collision with a solid stationary object or a solid obect moving in the opposite direction, your chances of surviving are close to nill. Your chance of surviving without massive trauma and disfigurement are nill. There is nothing in a car that can decelerate a human being from that sort of speed other than a seatbelt or an airbag (or much better yet both) without the human being being massively damaged.

Many years ago I had the dubious priviledge of seeing the result of a head on collision (truck @ 60 KPH and car @ approx 100 KPH) in which both the driver and passenger of the car were decapitated by the

*safetly* glass of the windscreen. The guy driving the car had been married just 1 hour and the front seat passenger was his father in law....I don't envy the person who had to break the news to the bride. Neither party was wearing a seatbelt and this was a bit before the invention of airbags.

Cheers

Paul BJ

Funny....I have never seen or heard of anyone objecting to putting on a seatbelt when required to do so in a passenger aircraft...so why is it such a big deal in a car where the benefits are much, much more likely to be proven the hard way?

A friend of mine hit a stationary truck at 100 KPH (60 MPH) in a small car. The car was fitted with a drivers airbag which failed to inflate but she was mercifully wearing a standard european style lap/diagonal seat belt and she survived with only minor cuts (from flying glass) and a massive seatbelt shaped bruise where the belt decelerated her from 100 KPH rather quickly.

As an unrestrained front seat occupant of a motor vehicle (it doesn't matter much what the vehicle is)in a head on collision with a solid stationary object or a solid obect moving in the opposite direction, your chances of surviving are close to nill. Your chance of surviving without massive trauma and disfigurement are nill. There is nothing in a car that can decelerate a human being from that sort of speed other than a seatbelt or an airbag (or much better yet both) without the human being being massively damaged.

Many years ago I had the dubious priviledge of seeing the result of a head on collision (truck @ 60 KPH and car @ approx 100 KPH) in which both the driver and passenger of the car were decapitated by the

*safetly* glass of the windscreen. The guy driving the car had been married just 1 hour and the front seat passenger was his father in law....I don't envy the person who had to break the news to the bride. Neither party was wearing a seatbelt and this was a bit before the invention of airbags.

Cheers

Paul BJ

The reason why my opinion differs from yours when it comes to adults wearing or not wearing seatbelts is as follows:

If we (all citizens i a given country) finance our hospitals with our taxes means that I have to pay for for the care of injured people hurt in car accidents (I accept that). I don't want to pay for injures that could have been avoided by use of seatbelts. That's why I advocate the use of seatbelt (and other safety measures).

BTW: I use the same reasoning as stated for my wish for the banning of (for instance) the use of tobacco.

/Bengt in Sweden

This also holds for countries where the hospitals and health care are funded more by insurance funds. All traffic injuries just increase the insurance fee and I will have to pay for other peoples "freedom" to look after themselves. Thus, people not wearing seatbelts are basically stealing from those who are more cautious, wearing seatbelts and paying their taxes/insurance fees.

Having legislation controlling seat belt usage is thus comparable with having legislation controlling fraud, corruption etc.

You heard wrong. The US Airbags are meant to be used in conjunction with seatbelts just like yours.

-Fred W

Oh yeah, that has to be it... It's because all Americans are big, fat and stupid, right?

Talk about predjudice and bigotry! Do you folks actually believe half of the tripe that you spew? Perhaps it is all just a case of sour grapes?

-Fred W

Where did I say they weren't meant to be used with seatbelts? US airbags have an *extra* requirement above european ones - they have to provide some last-ditch protection for beltless people. To meet that requirement, they have to be bigger, more powerful and more dangerous.

A casual Google seems to confirm. It seems I heard right after all.

Cheers,

Colin.

Then let me clarify the intent of my reply: US airbags are only designed to effectively protect the occupants during a crash if they are also wearing their seatbelts. They are not designed to provide adequate protection when seatbelts are not worn. Any airbag would provide *some* amount of additional protection as compared to no airbag, even without seatbelts, but that is not the intention of the design.

A casual Google gives me no sites that say otherwise. Please provide a link to any credible site that does.

Thanks, Fred W

Nothing can provide adequate protection to an unbelted person, but US airbags seem to be subject to some standard requirement intended to improve the chances of the belt-free.

It is the intention of the extra US requirement. The designers, as you say, may not be under any such illusions but their hands are (were?*) tied.

I already have. On this very thread even.

or there's this, which mentions legislation. or how about this.

*One thing I haven't come across, is anything to say that the legislation is still current.

Cheers,

Colin.

Funny that there are more foreign (non-US based) web sites that make this claim about the US situation that there are sites within the US. It does seem to cast some doubt about the credidability of such claims.

I think more digging is in order. Perhaps as you say, this was the intention at one time, but I'm pretty sure it is not any longer. I'll see if I can find out more from NHTSA.

-Fred W

"Fred W." wrote in message news:4p6dnch0D5d snipped-for-privacy@adelphia.com...

>

>

My apologies; It appears that I have been incorrect in my assertion that the US airbags were designed to be effective only with seatbelt use. I was always under that impression and find it ludicrous that it would be anything different. But alas, it seems that the NHTSA, under prompting from consumer groups including one "Ralph Nader" have made the manufacturers certify the frontal airbags for protection of the 50th percentile unbelted male. It appears that trhis design requirement is still in place today.

I do not know that the European airbags are actually any different, but it would certainly appear that their mandated requirements are different. I suppose I should not be all that surprised. It certainly is not the first instance of the NHTSA getting things such as this farkled up...

Fred W

It's the same with child seats. The NHTSA recommendations are to have the child rear faced seated only up to 12 months of age while almost all medical expertise recommends rear facing at least up to three years of age when the neck has grown strong enough to support the relatively large head of the child in case of a frontal collision. Yet again I would like everybody to read the recommendations from Swedish traffic safety researchers that recommend rear faced seating even up to the age of 5. To be able to do this when the child is that grown up the use of the passenger seat is almost necessary since there is more room in the front seat.

Here NHTSA end up in another problem since they recommend children to be located in the rear seat only. Only if you have no rear seat or if you frequently drive around with many children in your car you are allowed to disconnect the passenger seat airbag!

We had a similar discussion about this topic last year IIRC, where I tried to show that traffic accident statistics clearly indicate that the Swedish model leads to significantly lower fatal accident rates. Both Saab and Volvo live in this climate of what we call "zero vision", i.e. there shall be no persons killed in traffic accidents. This vision affects both the design of roads as well as the design of the cars. In real traffic situations the Saab 9-5 is the safest car all categories (maybe except for those driving around in a tank or something similar).

NHTSA doesn't seem to care very much about the US public as several of their recommendations are clearly influenced by strong industrial and political interests, instead of what seems to be best from a scientific point of view. Maybe this statement is somewhat strong, but it is strange to see how obviously incorrect recommendations appear from a public department.

It is a big difference in having "the goal of reducing fatalities and injuries on our nation?s roads and highways" (from NHTSA web site, quite difficult to find a clear vision somewhere) compared with "Sweden´s long-term road safety goal is that there should be no fatalities or serious injuries in road traffic. This goal was approved by the Swedish Parliament in 1997 and is based on the 'Vision Zero' program" (from the Swedish Road Administration web site)

Without getting into a heated discussion about who influences what, where, and how, there would be seem to be a point of diminishing returns where it becomes unacceptably expensive to prevent the last accident/injury/fatality/whatever. We are all mortal, so applying infinite resources will not ever prevent our eventual deaths. If we apply sufficient resources, we can all die healthy, though.