In article <[email protected]>,
Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
<...snipped...>
>>
>tell that to the several hundred people who have died as a
>result of airbags. Granted, air bags are better than just
>seat belts, but they DO sometimes result in death when deployed.
>
>dave
>
Telling something to dead people is about as effective as telling
something to people on a newsgroup.
--
Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]
If by used, you mean had one deploy in an accident, then my wife has
used one and I know of at least 2 people where I work that had them
deploy in an accident. I am not siding with the original author nor his
figures just saying that I know of 3 people.
J. Clarke wrote:
> Old Nick wrote:
>
>
>>On 21 Jun 2004 07:45:36 -0700, [email protected] (brian roth)
>>vaguely proposed a theory
>>......and in reply I say!:
>>
>> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>>
>>
>>>FWW had a short write up about the first pre-production sawstop cabnet
>>>saw.
>>>
>>>More pictures at www.sawstop.com. I didn't like thier efforts to force
>>>the technolgy on all saws, but applaud them building a better mousetrap.
>>
>>
>>There was some simplistic prat who said "If you invent a better
>>mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door." They forgot to
>>include economics.
>>
>>IIRc the Saw Stop was a significant part of the cost of a saw.
>>pphhptht!
>>
>>IME, WRT the sawstop, as with all "bright ideas" if they
>>(a) take the long sales view
>>(b) really care about safety
>>
>>and rather than trying to enforce their market, they then price the
>>thing to _sell easily_, (rather than pay for development costs in 6
>>months), then there is no _need_ for the "enforced view".
>>
>>Reality. X percent of the saw-using community suffer loss of a weener
>>sausage during their career or hobby life. Cost your mousetrap at much
>>more than this, and Govt intervention (insurance lobby groups) is your
>>only hope.
>>
>>There are those that _succeed_ in their lobbies. There are those that
>>fail.
>>
>>It's a BIG bet. Fail and you will NOT sell. "Ferget you, man!"
>>
>>
>>If I was going to lobby for mandatory whatever, I would say "What
>>votes
>>
>>!!!!!!!!!_use_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>this thing?"..............table saws? umm......... .....2%
>>
>>....Looooser!
>>
>>Market forces apply. Get the price down.
>>
>>Airbags? 80+% _use_ the thing it "helps". Winner! Bullshit _or_ not.
>
>
> Huh? I don't personally know _anybody_ who has _used_ an airbag. If "80%"
> actually USED them then I would expect to know _somebody_ who had.
>
>
>>"Short people" it kills? 1%.......see stat on weener savers.
>
>
> 1% of what? It kills 1% of short people? 1% of airbags kill short people?
> Something else?
>
--
---
BRuce
"brian roth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> FWW had a short write up about the first pre-production sawstop cabnet
saw.
>
> More pictures at www.sawstop.com. I didn't like thier efforts to force
> the technolgy on all saws, but applaud them building a better mousetrap.
Taking a long time to get into production though. IIRC it has been over a
year since they started taking orders. The next release of Windows will
probably be out before Saw Stop.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Ed Pawlowski writes:
>"brian roth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> FWW had a short write up about the first pre-production sawstop cabnet
>saw.
>>
>> More pictures at www.sawstop.com. I didn't like thier efforts to force
>> the technolgy on all saws, but applaud them building a better mousetrap.
>
>Taking a long time to get into production though. IIRC it has been over a
>year since they started taking orders. The next release of Windows will
>probably be out before Saw Stop.
IIRC, they were taking orders, with pre-production saw models sitting on the
floor, at IWWF in '02. That's well over a year ago, and I'm not sure why anyone
would write those saws up as "new" pre-production models.
Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to." Dorothy Parker
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> IIRC, they were taking orders, with pre-production saw models sitting on
the
> floor, at IWWF in '02. That's well over a year ago, and I'm not sure why
anyone
> would write those saws up as "new" pre-production models.
>
Two years+ is a long time to wait if you need or want a new saw. I looked
at their web page. Price of the saw seems OK, but they I noticed, the fence
is optional. Gets pricey all of a sudden. I'd like to see it in production
a reasonable cost for those that want to buy them, not be forced into it.
Ed
Ed Pawlowski notes:
>Two years+ is a long time to wait if you need or want a new saw. I looked
>at their web page. Price of the saw seems OK, but they I noticed, the fence
>is optional. Gets pricey all of a sudden. I'd like to see it in production
>a reasonable cost for those that want to buy them, not be forced into it.
Yeah. Me, too, but their attempt at forcing it down people's throats really
turned me off. When you discover the number/percentage of digit removal
accidents on a table saw and compare such costs with the overall cost of the
SawStop, you have to wonder a bit. Yes, it's a tragedy to the guy who loses a
finger or 2. But why should it cost me, and 10,000,000 other table saw owners,
$700 or so each to keep a dozen such people from losing a digit annually.
That forced marketing is probably impossible, anyway, but it would sure stir up
immediate interest in the used table saw markets. Something like 20 years ago,
Black & Decker estimated that there were at least 10,000,000 table saws in the
U.S. which is where I got the above figure as well. At that time, the hobby was
a minor one, relatively speaking. Today, whoooweee!
The biggest problem seems to actually be fear of loss, not actual loss, of a
digit. I'd like to see some accurate, and certified, figures on table saw
ownership versus amputation, or partial amputation, injuries, which seem to be
all the SawStop is aimed at preventing. But I still wouldn't want legislation
telling me that the next time I got a table saw, I'd have to double its price
to pay for safety equipment I won't buy on my own.
Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to." Dorothy Parker
Ed,
You do not need a fence if all you are sawing are hot dogs.
Two years+ is a long time to wait if you need or want a new saw. I looked
at their web page. Price of the saw seems OK, but they I noticed, the fence
is optional. Gets pricey all of a sudden. I'd like to see it in production
a reasonable cost for those that want to buy them, not be forced into it.
Ed
>
>Two years+ is a long time to wait if you need or want a new saw. I looked
>at their web page. Price of the saw seems OK, but they I noticed, the fence
>is optional. Gets pricey all of a sudden. I'd like to see it in production
>a reasonable cost for those that want to buy them, not be forced into it.
>Ed
>
This saw technology is being developed for the long term. Should this
technology succeed, it will become a required feature on all saws of every
application.
Examples of this type of marketing abound. Seat belts, airbags, anit-lock
brakes, life jackets, emergency locator beacons, anti kickback, guards of
every size and shape.
Trust me when I say, as soon as the technology makes it past the commercial
world where OSHA and the insurance companies force it on all machines
operated by employees, it won't be long before its on every saw.
Dave
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Pawlowski notes:
>
> >Two years+ is a long time to wait if you need or want a new saw. I
looked
> >at their web page. Price of the saw seems OK, but they I noticed, the
fence
> >is optional. Gets pricey all of a sudden. I'd like to see it in
production
> >a reasonable cost for those that want to buy them, not be forced into it.
>
> Yeah. Me, too, but their attempt at forcing it down people's throats
really
> turned me off. When you discover the number/percentage of digit removal
> accidents on a table saw and compare such costs with the overall cost of
the
> SawStop, you have to wonder a bit. Yes, it's a tragedy to the guy who
loses a
> finger or 2. But why should it cost me, and 10,000,000 other table saw
owners,
> $700 or so each to keep a dozen such people from losing a digit annually.
>
> That forced marketing is probably impossible, anyway, but it would sure
stir up
> immediate interest in the used table saw markets. Something like 20 years
ago,
> Black & Decker estimated that there were at least 10,000,000 table saws in
the
> U.S. which is where I got the above figure as well. At that time, the
hobby was
> a minor one, relatively speaking. Today, whoooweee!
>
> The biggest problem seems to actually be fear of loss, not actual loss, of
a
> digit. I'd like to see some accurate, and certified, figures on table saw
> ownership versus amputation, or partial amputation, injuries, which seem
to be
> all the SawStop is aimed at preventing. But I still wouldn't want
legislation
> telling me that the next time I got a table saw, I'd have to double its
price
> to pay for safety equipment I won't buy on my own.
>
> Charlie Self
> "If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he
gave
> it to." Dorothy Parker
>
>
>
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
TeamCasa writes:
>This saw technology is being developed for the long term. Should this
>technology succeed, it will become a required feature on all saws of every
>application.
I can just see dropping a bandsaw blade below the table instantaneously.
>Examples of this type of marketing abound. Seat belts, airbags, anit-lock
>brakes, life jackets, emergency locator beacons, anti kickback, guards of
>every size and shape.
You're writing of life and death or major injury situations there, applying to
many thousands of deaths or injuries. That simply is not the case with
amputation and partial amputation injuries.
>Trust me when I say, as soon as the technology makes it past the commercial
>world where OSHA and the insurance companies force it on all machines
>operated by employees, it won't be long before its on every saw.
When will it "make it past the commercial world" when it can be forced on every
saw? It may be required on commercial saws, but damned few tablesaws sold are
commercial use models, in comparison to the overall market.
Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to." Dorothy Parker
But wouldn't most folks already own a suitable fence?
If you have to have it to be insured in the future, you can bet it'll be at
a minimum license fee, like the air bags.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Pawlowski notes:
>
> >Two years+ is a long time to wait if you need or want a new saw. I
looked
> >at their web page. Price of the saw seems OK, but they I noticed, the
fence
> >is optional. Gets pricey all of a sudden. I'd like to see it in
production
> >a reasonable cost for those that want to buy them, not be forced into it.
>
> Yeah. Me, too, but their attempt at forcing it down people's throats
really
> turned me off. When you discover the number/percentage of digit removal
> accidents on a table saw and compare such costs with the overall cost of
the
> SawStop, you have to wonder a bit.
Charlie,
Unfortunately {or fortunately - if you believe in Darwinism}, the ONE piece
of absolutely vital Safety Equipment can't be either bought or legislated.
The one between your ears.
Regards & Good Luck,
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop
{as I mentioned to JT . . . still have all my fingers & toes, my OEM teeth &
eyes, and enough hair to be a 'donor' }
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote ...
SNIP
But I still wouldn't want legislation telling me that the next time I got a
table saw, I'd have to double its price to pay for safety equipment I won't
buy on my own.
>
> Charlie Self
Ron Magen responds:
>Charlie,
>Unfortunately {or fortunately - if you believe in Darwinism}, the ONE piece
>of absolutely vital Safety Equipment can't be either bought or legislated.
>
>The one between your ears.
>
>Regards & Good Luck,
>Ron Magen
>Backyard Boatshop
>{as I mentioned to JT . . . still have all my fingers & toes, my OEM teeth &
>eyes, and enough hair to be a 'donor' }
>
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote ...
>SNIP
> But I still wouldn't want legislation telling me that the next time I got a
>table saw, I'd have to double its price to pay for safety equipment I won't
>buy on my own.
True enough. A quick OSHA check shows that in 1999 there were 3 reported
incidences of table saw accidents, 2 with amputations and 1 with partial. The
following year saw 1 injury reported, no amputations. The reports all indicate
a degree of Darwinism in action, and, of course, don't show a full spectrum of
amateur and pro workers, but do give an indication of the scarcity of the type
of wounds the SawStop is designed to prevent.
There just are no overall figures, at least that I can locate, that show what
kindo of real value this device might have. And reading recently of false
indications causing the SawStop to activate makes me even more leery of its
forced use. Those may or may not be true. There really needs to be some
industry study in this area.
Charlie Self
"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
it to." Dorothy Parker
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > But wouldn't most folks already own a suitable fence?
> >
>
> Good point. The fence from my Craftsman saw with 22" table could probably
> be made to fit. When I bought my new saw I went and bought a new fence
with
> it. How dumb was that?
> Ed
Ed, Ed, Ed. You must have money growing on trees going out and splurging
for a new fence when you had a perfectly good Craftsman fence available.
Seriously, I have what I believe is a decent fence in the Delta Unifence,
but if I sold my saw and bought a new one, I would expect that the fence
would go with it. I don't have a lot of data to go on here. I've only
bought one table saw up to now and the fence came attached.
todd
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But wouldn't most folks already own a suitable fence?
>
Good point. The fence from my Craftsman saw with 22" table could probably
be made to fit. When I bought my new saw I went and bought a new fence with
it. How dumb was that?
Ed
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:WHCCc.25011
> I would suggest that the real reason they don't use airbags is that they
> don't need them. The driver is already restrained in the car by the
harness
> system, and when it's properly installed, coupled with head and neck
> restraint systems found in all forms of racing today, it's extremely
> effective.
Ok Mike. Reconcile that with my example of goalies not using face masks all
those years. What would be your explanation for that? Catharsis is alive and
well in race car driving as much as any other sport. There's any number of
improvements that could assist race car drivers, but it doesn't fit the
image of this dangerous sport.
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:58:42 -0400, George <george@least> wrote:
> If there's one thing _not_ to use as a bad example of regulation, it's the
> airbag.
>
> For folks who don't have sense enough to use belts, they're lifesavers.
Not really. The airbag is designed for them to be in position. Airbags will
only be in the right place if the patient is held in place by the seat
belts - they work _with_ the belts, not _instead of_. They are
going to do their little "partially or fully ejected" trick without
belts, no matter if the airbags go off or not. If they're not where the
airbag expects them to be, _that_ is when you'll see more airbag-assisted
injuries - if your face is in the big pillow when it goes bang, it's
gonna hurt. Still softer than the glass, but...
> I've noticed a big reduction in head injuries in my little county from
> deployed bags. It's always a relief to survey the scene and not see that
> impact star in the windshield.
I don't think I've been to a scene with deployed bags and windshield
"football sign", but I'm not sure if that's specifically because of the
bags, or because of the people driving cars with, vs. without.
> I have cut seven fatals from seatbelts in twenty years, four of which also
> had airbags deploy, but when the engine is in the passenger compartment, or
> the door intrudes past the center console, I don't think anything will work.
> Of ejected, two of probably 20 survived.
You do not want to be ejected. You _especially_ do not want to be
partially ejected (translation: head sticking out when the car rolls on
top of it).
> Oh yeah, hundreds who wore the belts were collared and boarded as precaution
> only.
Yup. If the car is smacked hard enough to deploy the airbags, it's pretty
much trashed anyway - better to let the car's safety systems work together
to help you out. What this has to do with, what, Roundup on weeds, well,
who knows. But, people who say airbags aren't a valuable life-saving
development must have limited exposure to crashes and the results
of them.
Dave Hinz
(ff/emt)
Lawrence Wasserman wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> <...snipped...>
>
>>tell that to the several hundred people who have died as a
>>result of airbags. Granted, air bags are better than just
>>seat belts, but they DO sometimes result in death when deployed.
>>
>>dave
>>
>
>
> Telling something to dead people is about as effective as telling
> something to people on a newsgroup.
>
I knew the absurdity of my statement, Larry. I ALSO know
the uselessness of most newsgroups. They are akin to train
wrecks; it's hard to stop staring...
dave
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> Taking a long time to get into production though. IIRC it has been over a
> year since they started taking orders. The next release of Windows will
> probably be out before Saw Stop.
With the price of the SawStop Microsoft will probably three of four other
releases out before anyone orders one.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
If there's one thing _not_ to use as a bad example of regulation, it's the
airbag.
For folks who don't have sense enough to use belts, they're lifesavers.
I've noticed a big reduction in head injuries in my little county from
deployed bags. It's always a relief to survey the scene and not see that
impact star in the windshield.
I have cut seven fatals from seatbelts in twenty years, four of which also
had airbags deploy, but when the engine is in the passenger compartment, or
the door intrudes past the center console, I don't think anything will work.
Of ejected, two of probably 20 survived.
Oh yeah, hundreds who wore the belts were collared and boarded as precaution
only.
<BRuce> wrote in message news:1087853629.777278@sj-nntpcache-5...
> If by used, you mean had one deploy in an accident, then my wife has
> used one and I know of at least 2 people where I work that had them
> deploy in an accident. I am not siding with the original author nor his
> figures just saying that I know of 3 people.
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> > Huh? I don't personally know _anybody_ who has _used_ an airbag. If
"80%"
> > actually USED them then I would expect to know _somebody_ who had.
> >
> >
> >>"Short people" it kills? 1%.......see stat on weener savers.
> >
> >
> > 1% of what? It kills 1% of short people? 1% of airbags kill short
people?
> > Something else?
> >
Yep, had some of those "automatic" seatbelts which qualified, initially.
Now, of course, the law has been modified.
As we know from recent M$oft legislation, you've gotta give it away if it
becomes popular....
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The reason airbags became popular is that in 1984 the NHTSA enacted a
> regulation requiring all new cars to have passive restraints, and in 1993
> amended that regulation to require airbags. Had nothing to do with patent
> expiration and everything to do with being forced by the government to
> install them.
And with more miles and vehicles, too.
MI just went to primary seatbelt enforcement a year or so ago, because that,
as I mentioned earlier, is the best restraint.
I'm sure that remark about what idiots think about is really
tongue-in-cheek. Something is still better than nothing, and idiots seldom
have any thoughts which interest me, anyway.
"Tom Veatch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:10:03 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
> >
> >And how many people die because they think the airbag is a substitute for
a
> >seat belt? And if it's such a good idea then why couldn't the airbag
> >manufacturers sell it to the FAA or the various racing organizations?
Has
> >there been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were mandated?
> >
>
>
> Working strictly from memory, I seem to recall that during the '50s and
'60s there was something on the order of 50k highway
> fatalities per year in the US. Nowadays, I believe it is closer to 30k. If
those numbers are correct, I'd say the highways are
> somewhat safer today than they were 50 years ago. I'll leave it to someone
else to attribute the reason for the improvement.
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS USA
One of the reasons for the adjustable height types. And child seats.
Standard seatbelt injuries are clavicles (collarbones) and for those wearing
them high on their bellies, against advice, possible spleen. Other than
that, abrasions.
Seems the only thing that works as advertised, even when you do nothing
right, is that airbag.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> for that matter, seatbelts DO present a choking hazard. I don't know
> how much of one, but it is not zero, probably highest for kids and
> very short people. however, they present a net gain in safety for
> passenger vehicles.
"Herman Family" <[email protected]/without_any_s/> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I strongly suspect that the reason airbags started to be popular in the
late
> 80's and early 90's is that the patent (probably mid 60's) ran out and so
no
> one would have to pay royalties.
Perhaps my memory is failing me, but I seem to recall a car commercial
(Mercedes, Volvo?) a while back that talked about having the patent on
airbags but choosing not to enforce it.
todd
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:58:42 -0400, George <george@least> wrote:
> > If there's one thing _not_ to use as a bad example of regulation, it's
the
> > airbag.
> >
> > For folks who don't have sense enough to use belts, they're lifesavers.
>
> Not really. The airbag is designed for them to be in position. Airbags
will
> only be in the right place if the patient is held in place by the seat
> belts - they work _with_ the belts, not _instead of_. They are
> going to do their little "partially or fully ejected" trick without
> belts, no matter if the airbags go off or not. If they're not where the
> airbag expects them to be, _that_ is when you'll see more airbag-assisted
> injuries - if your face is in the big pillow when it goes bang, it's
> gonna hurt. Still softer than the glass, but...
>
> > I've noticed a big reduction in head injuries in my little county from
> > deployed bags. It's always a relief to survey the scene and not see
that
> > impact star in the windshield.
>
> I don't think I've been to a scene with deployed bags and windshield
> "football sign", but I'm not sure if that's specifically because of the
> bags, or because of the people driving cars with, vs. without.
>
> > I have cut seven fatals from seatbelts in twenty years, four of which
also
> > had airbags deploy, but when the engine is in the passenger compartment,
or
> > the door intrudes past the center console, I don't think anything will
work.
> > Of ejected, two of probably 20 survived.
>
> You do not want to be ejected. You _especially_ do not want to be
> partially ejected (translation: head sticking out when the car rolls on
> top of it).
>
> > Oh yeah, hundreds who wore the belts were collared and boarded as
precaution
> > only.
>
> Yup. If the car is smacked hard enough to deploy the airbags, it's pretty
> much trashed anyway - better to let the car's safety systems work together
> to help you out. What this has to do with, what, Roundup on weeds, well,
> who knows. But, people who say airbags aren't a valuable life-saving
> development must have limited exposure to crashes and the results
> of them.
>
> Dave Hinz
> (ff/emt)
>
>
I've also been to a number of accidents where airbags and seatbelts were
used. Seatbelts save lives. Shoulder harnesses safe faces. Airbags go a
bit further. I've been absolutely amazed at the level of damage to some
vehicles with no serious injury to the occupants of the vehicle. That's not
to say there wasn't the famous shoulder harness stripe down the chest, but
certainly no head impact.
The only injury I've seen from airbags is a burn or abrasion. One fellow
had the reverse image of his car logo impressed into his arm from the airbag
cover. I'll take that level of injury any day.
Michael (also an emt)
I strongly suspect that the reason airbags started to be popular in the late
80's and early 90's is that the patent (probably mid 60's) ran out and so no
one would have to pay royalties.
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:19:53 GMT, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> and consider the consequences of a false deployment of that air bag at
>> 200 MPH in a cluster of cars when one bumps into another....
>
>Senseless statement. About as bad as saying that seat belts are dangerous
>because you might accidentally choke yourself with one.
>
nope.
on the race track with all of the jostling for position and stiff
suspensions and whatnot the opportunities for false deployments is
much higher than for the highway. at 200MPH the result is certain to
involve the loss of control of a race car, generally in the middle of
a pack of other race cars. I'd guess airbags in race cars would cause
more accidents than they would be worth, IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.
for that matter, seatbelts DO present a choking hazard. I don't know
how much of one, but it is not zero, probably highest for kids and
very short people. however, they present a net gain in safety for
passenger vehicles.
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One of the reasons for the adjustable height types. And child seats.
>
> Standard seatbelt injuries are clavicles (collarbones) and for those
wearing
> them high on their bellies, against advice, possible spleen. Other than
> that, abrasions.
>
> Seems the only thing that works as advertised, even when you do nothing
> right, is that airbag.
If I came away from a crash at 200 mph with just a broken clavicle I'd be
very happy, thank you.
I have direct knowledge of the value of seat belts. I was aligning cars on
the false grid while a race was running when an MG was forced off the track
by another racer. The MG slid on gravel straight onto the end of the metal
Armco barrier. The barrier speared completely through the center of the car
and extended for 6 feet beyond its rear end. (I have photos of this)
When the dust cleared and I saw what had happened I didn't want to get any
closer. But the driver walked out, saved by the engine block that had
deflected the Armco and by his seat belts. I saw him in the control tower
later that day and he said that all he got were belt bruises.
Mark me on the anti-air bag side for race cars. There is no resemblance
between driving at racing speeds and driving on the highway, and the false
deployment of an air bag in a Cup car would be a disaster.
Bob
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And how many people die because they think the airbag is a substitute for
a
> seat belt?
My WAG is that people who think an airbag is a substitute for a seat belt
wouldn't be wearing the seat belt even if the airbag was not present.
> And if it's such a good idea then why couldn't the airbag
> manufacturers sell it to the FAA or the various racing organizations?
Maybe there's a difference between a 60mph crash and a 160mph crash that
changes the usefulness of the airbag.
> Has
> there been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were mandated?
Well, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled was at a
historic low of 1.51 in 2002. I don't know when airbags went into
widespread use, but the fatality rate has dropped or stayed the same every
year since at least 1994, which was the earliest table I could find in the
60 seconds I searched for it. From 1994 to 2002, the fatality rate has
dropped 13%. Is all of the decrease due to airbags? I doubt it. I'm sure
you can factor in safer vehicles and increased seat belt use (it's gone up
from 61% in '97 to 79% now), plus a few other effects.
todd
"Lawrence Wasserman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> <...snipped...>
> >>
> >tell that to the several hundred people who have died as a
> >result of airbags. Granted, air bags are better than just
> >seat belts, but they DO sometimes result in death when deployed.
> >
> >dave
> >
>
> Telling something to dead people is about as effective as telling
> something to people on a newsgroup.
And what was it you wished to tell us, Larry?
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:WHCCc.25011
> > I would suggest that the real reason they don't use airbags is that they
> > don't need them. The driver is already restrained in the car by the
> harness
> > system, and when it's properly installed, coupled with head and neck
> > restraint systems found in all forms of racing today, it's extremely
> > effective.
>
> Ok Mike. Reconcile that with my example of goalies not using face masks
all
> those years. What would be your explanation for that? Catharsis is alive
and
> well in race car driving as much as any other sport. There's any number of
> improvements that could assist race car drivers, but it doesn't fit the
> image of this dangerous sport.
>
>
Well, I think I can reconcile it - but I'm not sure that upholds your point.
Whether it can or cannot be reconciled does not prove or disprove either of
our points. These are different sports, and a face mask does not equate to
an airbag - perhaps to a helmet, but not to an airbag. However... to
address the point of change taking a while and then being embraced upon some
pivotal event, that has already occurred within racing. Witness the advent
and overall acceptance of the head and neck restraint systems. Witness the
almost complete acceptance of the closed face helmet over the open face
helmet. Witness strict adherence to manufacturer's spec on safety harness
installation. You obviously don't follow motor sports in order for you to
make the assertion that safety does not fit the image of this dangerous
sport. You'd be well served by doing a quick google search on safety
improvements over the past 5 years in stock car racing alone. Your
assertion that image prevails will fall under its own weight.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> and consider the consequences of a false deployment of that air bag at
>> 200 MPH in a cluster of cars when one bumps into another....
>
>Senseless statement. About as bad as saying that seat belts are dangerous
>because you might accidentally choke yourself with one.
>
I don't see that as a "senseless" statement at all. Have you ever watched
stock car racing? Seems like those guys bump into each other all the time.
Some of those bumps are surely hard enough to deploy airbags in a car so
equipped. And it's got to be thoroughly disconcerting to have one of those
things go off in your face when you're not expecting it. Being startled at 200
mph is a Bad Thing.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Nobody would attend a 5 mph race with everybody driving bumper car
> > protection. Too many safeguards and people would quickly lose interest
in
> > the racing scene.
>
> Hey, I'd go. Providing they got rid of all that noise, the fumes and the
> beer. It would be better each brand of car had the same color paint. It
> would make for a much better experience. ;)
Haw! Now that's funny.
In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>And how many people die because they think the airbag is a substitute for
>>>a
>>>seat belt? And if it's such a good idea then why couldn't the airbag
>>>manufacturers sell it to the FAA or the various racing organizations? Has
>>>there been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were mandated?
>>>
>> Why not the FAA? Because it's pointless. Most deaths in aircraft crashes
>> are caused by fire, either directly or by smoke inhalation, not by impact
>> injuries.
>>
>> Why not racing organizations? Pointless again. It's evidently escaped your
>> notice that fatalities in auto racing are actually rather rare events;
>> roll bars and five-point harnesses do a pretty good job of protecting the
>> drivers. Furthermore, racing crashes tend mostly to be sideswipes, either
>> with another car or with a retaining wall. It's difficult to see that
>> airbags would provide any meaningful additional protection. Particularly
>> in collisions at 200+ MPH.
>
>No, it has not "escaped my notice". My point obviously escaped yours.
I guess it did. I wasn't completely sure that you had one there to begin with.
My point was that the merits of using airbags in passenger automobiles are not
diminished in the least by the failure to employ airbags in other situations
where they are manifestly far less useful.
>
>> Whether there has been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags
>> were mandated is irrelevant: most collisions occur on secondary roads.
>
>Never mind, if you are picking at points this trivial I'm not wasting any
>more time on you.
Perhaps you should have been more precise with your terminology. :-)
>
>> In the United States at least, fatalities from automobile accidents have
>> been declining for a number of years, even though the number of cars and
>> the number of drivers have been increasing, and the distance driven per
>> driver per year has been increasing even faster. I won't claim that's due
>> entirely to airbags; obviously other factors such as mandatory seat belt
>> laws, seat belt education, and numerous improvements in the design of both
>> vehicles and roads have contributed to the decline as well, but it would
>> be silly to think that airbags have had no effect
>
>I notice that you do not mention the increased quality and availability of
>trauma care.
So I missed that one. Doesn't change the final conclusion: it would be silly
to think that airbags have had no effect.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Qg%[email protected]...
> > >Senseless statement. About as bad as saying that seat belts are
dangerous
> > >because you might accidentally choke yourself with one.
>
> > I don't see that as a "senseless" statement at all. Have you ever
watched
> > stock car racing? Seems like those guys bump into each other all the
time.
> > Some of those bumps are surely hard enough to deploy airbags in a car so
> > equipped.
>
> That's not why air bags aren't deployed in race cars. They're not used
> because of a combination of three factors. Those factors consist of cost
to
> develop, engineering difficulty and that fact that race car driving is
> supposed to be dangerous. That's what draws the crowds.
> Nobody would attend a 5 mph race with everybody driving bumper car
> protection. Too many safeguards and people would quickly lose interest in
> the racing scene. Race car drivers' images would suffer and that's a "no,
> no" for any professional sportsman.
>
I suppose that's why they use a 5-point harness system that is infinitely
more effective than a standard passenger car seat belt. I don't know where
you came up with your theory, but aside from the cost to develop/deploy, the
rest of your point sounds like pure hogwash.
I would suggest that the real reason they don't use airbags is that they
don't need them. The driver is already restrained in the car by the harness
system, and when it's properly installed, coupled with head and neck
restraint systems found in all forms of racing today, it's extremely
effective.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > and consider the consequences of a false deployment of that air bag at
> > 200 MPH in a cluster of cars when one bumps into another....
>
> Senseless statement. About as bad as saying that seat belts are dangerous
> because you might accidentally choke yourself with one.
Are you friggin' kidding? Have you ever watched a NASCAR race? How often
do the cars bump each other from behind? I'll answer it for you...it
happens a lot. There's a very real danger of having a false deployment
under those conditions. And at this point, I'd hazard a guess to say the
additional safety to be had by an air bag in a Cup car is minimal on top of
four-point harnesses and a HANS device. I'd also say it's dubious that an
air bag would even be an effective aid in a 160mph collision
todd
George wrote:
> One of the reasons for the adjustable height types. And child seats.
>
> Standard seatbelt injuries are clavicles (collarbones) and for those wearing
> them high on their bellies, against advice, possible spleen. Other than
> that, abrasions.
>
> Seems the only thing that works as advertised, even when you do nothing
> right, is that airbag.
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>for that matter, seatbelts DO present a choking hazard. I don't know
>>how much of one, but it is not zero, probably highest for kids and
>>very short people. however, they present a net gain in safety for
>>passenger vehicles.
>
>
>
tell that to the several hundred people who have died as a
result of airbags. Granted, air bags are better than just
seat belts, but they DO sometimes result in death when deployed.
dave
"brian roth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> FWW had a short write up about the first pre-production sawstop cabnet
saw.
>
> More pictures at www.sawstop.com. I didn't like thier efforts to force
> the technolgy on all saws, but applaud them building a better mousetrap.
For some interesting reading, look at the Power Tool Institute (industry
group) comment to the CPSC petition contained in pgs. 35-69 of this file:
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA04/pubcom/REDUCEPT2.pdf
and pgs.1-29 of this file:
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA04/pubcom/REDUCEPT3.pdf
Alot of reading, some of which is legalese, but alot of food for thought.
Some highlights:
-- Testing of a prototype Sawstop showed a very high rate of false trips
(alot of detail given in the comment)
-- The UL standard for tablesaws (UL987) is under review for addition of a
requirement for a mandatory riving knife
-- Estimated US tablesaw population is 6 million with sales of about 750k
per year. They have some back of the envelope stats that claim on a per saw
cut basis that injuries are rare. I would take that analysis with a big
grain of salt.
Personally, I think the Sawstop concept is great, but would want to see some
hard real-world data that shows it works. Even if it does, it shouldn't be
a mandated feature.
Tim
In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>And how many people die because they think the airbag is a substitute for a
>seat belt? And if it's such a good idea then why couldn't the airbag
>manufacturers sell it to the FAA or the various racing organizations? Has
>there been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were mandated?
>
Why not the FAA? Because it's pointless. Most deaths in aircraft crashes are
caused by fire, either directly or by smoke inhalation, not by impact
injuries.
Why not racing organizations? Pointless again. It's evidently escaped your
notice that fatalities in auto racing are actually rather rare events; roll
bars and five-point harnesses do a pretty good job of protecting the drivers.
Furthermore, racing crashes tend mostly to be sideswipes, either with another
car or with a retaining wall. It's difficult to see that airbags would provide
any meaningful additional protection. Particularly in collisions at 200+ MPH.
Whether there has been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were
mandated is irrelevant: most collisions occur on secondary roads.
In the United States at least, fatalities from automobile accidents have been
declining for a number of years, even though the number of cars and the number
of drivers have been increasing, and the distance driven per driver per year
has been increasing even faster. I won't claim that's due entirely to airbags;
obviously other factors such as mandatory seat belt laws, seat belt education,
and numerous improvements in the design of both vehicles and roads have
contributed to the decline as well, but it would be silly to think that
airbags have had no effect.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
On 21 Jun 2004 07:45:36 -0700, [email protected] (brian roth)
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>FWW had a short write up about the first pre-production sawstop cabnet saw.
>
>More pictures at www.sawstop.com. I didn't like thier efforts to force
>the technolgy on all saws, but applaud them building a better mousetrap.
There was some simplistic prat who said "If you invent a better
mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door." They forgot to
include economics.
IIRc the Saw Stop was a significant part of the cost of a saw.
pphhptht!
IME, WRT the sawstop, as with all "bright ideas" if they
(a) take the long sales view
(b) really care about safety
and rather than trying to enforce their market, they then price the
thing to _sell easily_, (rather than pay for development costs in 6
months), then there is no _need_ for the "enforced view".
Reality. X percent of the saw-using community suffer loss of a weener
sausage during their career or hobby life. Cost your mousetrap at much
more than this, and Govt intervention (insurance lobby groups) is your
only hope.
There are those that _succeed_ in their lobbies. There are those that
fail.
It's a BIG bet. Fail and you will NOT sell. "Ferget you, man!"
If I was going to lobby for mandatory whatever, I would say "What
votes
!!!!!!!!!_use_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this thing?"..............table saws? umm......... .....2%
....Looooser!
Market forces apply. Get the price down.
Airbags? 80+% _use_ the thing it "helps". Winner! Bullshit _or_ not.
"Short people" it kills? 1%.......see stat on weener savers.
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:22:47 GMT, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>That's not why air bags aren't deployed in race cars. They're not used
>because of a combination of three factors. Those factors consist of cost to
>develop, engineering difficulty and that fact that race car driving is
>supposed to be dangerous.
nope.
race car seat belts are the most expensive, best engineered sealtbelts
around, and all of the extra weight of those roll cages can't be
helping their lap times any. considering that some of those cars cost
upwards of a million bux, the cost of air bags, even custom made ones,
is nothing. hell, part of the machismo of race cars is the "mine cost
more than yours did" bit.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Qg%[email protected]...
> >Senseless statement. About as bad as saying that seat belts are dangerous
> >because you might accidentally choke yourself with one.
> I don't see that as a "senseless" statement at all. Have you ever watched
> stock car racing? Seems like those guys bump into each other all the time.
> Some of those bumps are surely hard enough to deploy airbags in a car so
> equipped.
That's not why air bags aren't deployed in race cars. They're not used
because of a combination of three factors. Those factors consist of cost to
develop, engineering difficulty and that fact that race car driving is
supposed to be dangerous. That's what draws the crowds.
Nobody would attend a 5 mph race with everybody driving bumper car
protection. Too many safeguards and people would quickly lose interest in
the racing scene. Race car drivers' images would suffer and that's a "no,
no" for any professional sportsman.
For a number of years, professional hockey goalies didn't wear masks, solely
because they felt it would effect their macho, tough guy image on the ice.
It stayed that way until one person made the change, then the others
followed.
It's entirely possible to construct an air bag than can offer a measure of
protection in a serious crash and yet still withstand all the rubbing those
race car endure without going off. It's just difficult and costly.
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:10:03 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>And how many people die because they think the airbag is a substitute for a
>seat belt? And if it's such a good idea then why couldn't the airbag
>manufacturers sell it to the FAA or the various racing organizations? Has
>there been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were mandated?
>
Working strictly from memory, I seem to recall that during the '50s and '60s there was something on the order of 50k highway
fatalities per year in the US. Nowadays, I believe it is closer to 30k. If those numbers are correct, I'd say the highways are
somewhat safer today than they were 50 years ago. I'll leave it to someone else to attribute the reason for the improvement.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA
Old Nick wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2004 07:45:36 -0700, [email protected] (brian roth)
> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
>
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
>>FWW had a short write up about the first pre-production sawstop cabnet
>>saw.
>>
>>More pictures at www.sawstop.com. I didn't like thier efforts to force
>>the technolgy on all saws, but applaud them building a better mousetrap.
>
>
> There was some simplistic prat who said "If you invent a better
> mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door." They forgot to
> include economics.
>
> IIRc the Saw Stop was a significant part of the cost of a saw.
> pphhptht!
>
> IME, WRT the sawstop, as with all "bright ideas" if they
> (a) take the long sales view
> (b) really care about safety
>
> and rather than trying to enforce their market, they then price the
> thing to _sell easily_, (rather than pay for development costs in 6
> months), then there is no _need_ for the "enforced view".
>
> Reality. X percent of the saw-using community suffer loss of a weener
> sausage during their career or hobby life. Cost your mousetrap at much
> more than this, and Govt intervention (insurance lobby groups) is your
> only hope.
>
> There are those that _succeed_ in their lobbies. There are those that
> fail.
>
> It's a BIG bet. Fail and you will NOT sell. "Ferget you, man!"
>
>
> If I was going to lobby for mandatory whatever, I would say "What
> votes
>
> !!!!!!!!!_use_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> this thing?"..............table saws? umm......... .....2%
>
> ....Looooser!
>
> Market forces apply. Get the price down.
>
> Airbags? 80+% _use_ the thing it "helps". Winner! Bullshit _or_ not.
Huh? I don't personally know _anybody_ who has _used_ an airbag. If "80%"
actually USED them then I would expect to know _somebody_ who had.
> "Short people" it kills? 1%.......see stat on weener savers.
1% of what? It kills 1% of short people? 1% of airbags kill short people?
Something else?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George wrote:
> If there's one thing _not_ to use as a bad example of regulation, it's the
> airbag.
>
> For folks who don't have sense enough to use belts, they're lifesavers.
> I've noticed a big reduction in head injuries in my little county from
> deployed bags. It's always a relief to survey the scene and not see that
> impact star in the windshield.
>
> I have cut seven fatals from seatbelts in twenty years, four of which also
> had airbags deploy, but when the engine is in the passenger compartment,
> or the door intrudes past the center console, I don't think anything will
> work. Of ejected, two of probably 20 survived.
>
> Oh yeah, hundreds who wore the belts were collared and boarded as
> precaution only.
And how many people die because they think the airbag is a substitute for a
seat belt? And if it's such a good idea then why couldn't the airbag
manufacturers sell it to the FAA or the various racing organizations? Has
there been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were mandated?
> <BRuce> wrote in message news:1087853629.777278@sj-nntpcache-5...
>> If by used, you mean had one deploy in an accident, then my wife has
>> used one and I know of at least 2 people where I work that had them
>> deploy in an accident. I am not siding with the original author nor his
>> figures just saying that I know of 3 people.
>>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>> >
>> > Huh? I don't personally know _anybody_ who has _used_ an airbag. If
> "80%"
>> > actually USED them then I would expect to know _somebody_ who had.
>> >
>> >
>> >>"Short people" it kills? 1%.......see stat on weener savers.
>> >
>> >
>> > 1% of what? It kills 1% of short people? 1% of airbags kill short
> people?
>> > Something else?
>> >
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Herman Family wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:58:42 -0400, George <george@least> wrote:
>> > If there's one thing _not_ to use as a bad example of regulation, it's
> the
>> > airbag.
>> >
>> > For folks who don't have sense enough to use belts, they're lifesavers.
>>
>> Not really. The airbag is designed for them to be in position. Airbags
> will
>> only be in the right place if the patient is held in place by the seat
>> belts - they work _with_ the belts, not _instead of_. They are
>> going to do their little "partially or fully ejected" trick without
>> belts, no matter if the airbags go off or not. If they're not where the
>> airbag expects them to be, _that_ is when you'll see more airbag-assisted
>> injuries - if your face is in the big pillow when it goes bang, it's
>> gonna hurt. Still softer than the glass, but...
>>
>> > I've noticed a big reduction in head injuries in my little county from
>> > deployed bags. It's always a relief to survey the scene and not see
> that
>> > impact star in the windshield.
>>
>> I don't think I've been to a scene with deployed bags and windshield
>> "football sign", but I'm not sure if that's specifically because of the
>> bags, or because of the people driving cars with, vs. without.
>>
>> > I have cut seven fatals from seatbelts in twenty years, four of which
> also
>> > had airbags deploy, but when the engine is in the passenger
>> > compartment,
> or
>> > the door intrudes past the center console, I don't think anything will
> work.
>> > Of ejected, two of probably 20 survived.
>>
>> You do not want to be ejected. You _especially_ do not want to be
>> partially ejected (translation: head sticking out when the car rolls on
>> top of it).
>>
>> > Oh yeah, hundreds who wore the belts were collared and boarded as
> precaution
>> > only.
>>
>> Yup. If the car is smacked hard enough to deploy the airbags, it's
>> pretty much trashed anyway - better to let the car's safety systems work
>> together
>> to help you out. What this has to do with, what, Roundup on weeds, well,
>> who knows. But, people who say airbags aren't a valuable life-saving
>> development must have limited exposure to crashes and the results
>> of them.
>>
>> Dave Hinz
>> (ff/emt)
>>
>>
> I've also been to a number of accidents where airbags and seatbelts were
> used. Seatbelts save lives. Shoulder harnesses safe faces. Airbags go a
> bit further. I've been absolutely amazed at the level of damage to some
> vehicles with no serious injury to the occupants of the vehicle. That's
> not to say there wasn't the famous shoulder harness stripe down the chest,
> but certainly no head impact.
>
> The only injury I've seen from airbags is a burn or abrasion. One fellow
> had the reverse image of his car logo impressed into his arm from the
> airbag
> cover. I'll take that level of injury any day.
>
> Michael (also an emt)
>
>
> I strongly suspect that the reason airbags started to be popular in the
> late 80's and early 90's is that the patent (probably mid 60's) ran out
> and so no one would have to pay royalties.
The reason airbags became popular is that in 1984 the NHTSA enacted a
regulation requiring all new cars to have passive restraints, and in 1993
amended that regulation to require airbags. Had nothing to do with patent
expiration and everything to do with being forced by the government to
install them.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>And how many people die because they think the airbag is a substitute for
>>a
>>seat belt? And if it's such a good idea then why couldn't the airbag
>>manufacturers sell it to the FAA or the various racing organizations? Has
>>there been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags were mandated?
>>
> Why not the FAA? Because it's pointless. Most deaths in aircraft crashes
> are caused by fire, either directly or by smoke inhalation, not by impact
> injuries.
>
> Why not racing organizations? Pointless again. It's evidently escaped your
> notice that fatalities in auto racing are actually rather rare events;
> roll bars and five-point harnesses do a pretty good job of protecting the
> drivers. Furthermore, racing crashes tend mostly to be sideswipes, either
> with another car or with a retaining wall. It's difficult to see that
> airbags would provide any meaningful additional protection. Particularly
> in collisions at 200+ MPH.
No, it has not "escaped my notice". My point obviously escaped yours.
> Whether there has been a reduction in highway fatalities since airbags
> were mandated is irrelevant: most collisions occur on secondary roads.
Never mind, if you are picking at points this trivial I'm not wasting any
more time on you.
> In the United States at least, fatalities from automobile accidents have
> been declining for a number of years, even though the number of cars and
> the number of drivers have been increasing, and the distance driven per
> driver per year has been increasing even faster. I won't claim that's due
> entirely to airbags; obviously other factors such as mandatory seat belt
> laws, seat belt education, and numerous improvements in the design of both
> vehicles and roads have contributed to the decline as well, but it would
> be silly to think that airbags have had no effect
I notice that you do not mention the increased quality and availability of
trauma care.
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Upscale wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:WHCCc.25011
>> I would suggest that the real reason they don't use airbags is that they
>> don't need them. The driver is already restrained in the car by the
> harness
>> system, and when it's properly installed, coupled with head and neck
>> restraint systems found in all forms of racing today, it's extremely
>> effective.
>
> Ok Mike. Reconcile that with my example of goalies not using face masks
> all those years.
Uh, what racing class do these goalies run in and what is the sanctioning
body?
> What would be your explanation for that?
That the people who run organized hockey aren't as safety conscious as the
ones who run organized racing?
> Catharsis is alive and well in race car driving as much as any other
> sport. There's any number of improvements that could assist race car
> drivers,
Such as?
> but it doesn't fit the image of this dangerous sport.
With all the safety features in the world people will still manage to die on
the racetrack.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Upscale wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Qg%[email protected]...
>> >Senseless statement. About as bad as saying that seat belts are
>> >dangerous because you might accidentally choke yourself with one.
>
>> I don't see that as a "senseless" statement at all. Have you ever watched
>> stock car racing? Seems like those guys bump into each other all the
>> time. Some of those bumps are surely hard enough to deploy airbags in a
>> car so equipped.
>
> That's not why air bags aren't deployed in race cars. They're not used
> because of a combination of three factors. Those factors consist of cost
> to develop, engineering difficulty and that fact that race car driving is
> supposed to be dangerous. That's what draws the crowds.
> Nobody would attend a 5 mph race with everybody driving bumper car
> protection. Too many safeguards and people would quickly lose interest in
> the racing scene. Race car drivers' images would suffer and that's a "no,
> no" for any professional sportsman.
>
> For a number of years, professional hockey goalies didn't wear masks,
> solely because they felt it would effect their macho, tough guy image on
> the ice. It stayed that way until one person made the change, then the
> others followed.
>
> It's entirely possible to construct an air bag than can offer a measure of
> protection in a serious crash and yet still withstand all the rubbing
> those race car endure without going off. It's just difficult and costly.
Uh, the folks who control organized automobile racing are _very_ safety
conscious. That's why the Mille Miglia is no longer run, it's why the
Monza oval with the famed Wall is no longer used, it's why many tracks have
had multiple chicanes added, it's why nearly if not all organizations
require self-sealing fuel cells, and on and on.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
<[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> and consider the consequences of a false deployment of that air bag at
> 200 MPH in a cluster of cars when one bumps into another....
Senseless statement. About as bad as saying that seat belts are dangerous
because you might accidentally choke yourself with one.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:P1DCc.25032>
> installation. You obviously don't follow motor sports in order for you to
> > make the assertion that safety does not fit the image of this dangerous
> > sport. You'd be well served by doing a quick google search on safety
> > improvements over the past 5 years in stock car racing alone. Your
> > assertion that image prevails will fall under its own weight.
>
> So, you're telling me that danger in the sport has no consideration?
That's
> a crock and you know it. I never said that safety doesn't fit motor
sports,
> what I said essentially is that there's a slowly changing limit to which
> safety is incorporated in it, otherwise the sport loses it's thrill to a
> great many people. Would you go to races where there was absolutely no
> chance of injury or death? Many wouldn't.
I seen you before - you're all over the internet and you're all over where
people are discussing things. You're the guy that takes a statement made by
a person and twists it so that you can force your own conclusion. Sorry,
but I never said danger was of no consideration in the sport. I simply
replied to your broad sweeping assertion that airbags would not be placed in
race cars because of the macho, danger image that is so important to the
racing industry. I challenged that assertion, demonstrated the outright
lunacy of that statement and challenged your very knowledge of the sport you
feel so free to speak about. You need to go back and read the thread again.
Don't bother me again until you can employ intellectual honesty in a
discussion. Those who argue like you argue simply for the sake of the
argument and I don't have any interest in that.
>
> Your assertion that air bags are impractical in race car driving is solely
> based on the fact that it hasn't been done yet. Not a very reliable
> viewpoint to base your argument on.
>
>
No - read what I wrote again - airbags would bring nothing to the sport.
Kindly explain what purpose they would serve that is not already served by
the 5 point harness. An airbag is a restraint device. What more restraint
is needed in a race car? Now, if you had asserted that they provide a
better degree of g-force management than a 5 point harness, I would agree to
a point, but you didn't. There - I made your argument for you. The counter
point to that however would be that other technologies such as crumple zones
and controlled releases of energy are likely to be better alternatives than
the airbag. I'm not saying airbags will never appear in race cars, but I am
saying that right now they offer nothing that existing technologies do
already. No benefit, no point in making the investment.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, "Herman Family" <[email protected]/without_any_s/> wrote:
>The only injury I've seen from airbags is a burn or abrasion. One fellow
>had the reverse image of his car logo impressed into his arm from the airbag
>cover. I'll take that level of injury any day.
>
SWMBO and I saw a different type of airbag injury when we stopped to help
another motorist who had just hit a deer. He'd been holding the steering wheel
by the spokes instead of by the rim. When the airbag deployed, it threw his
right hand back into his face, giving him a fat lip and a cut on the back of
his hand (from his teeth). He had no other injuries, despite squarely hitting
a good-sized doe at about 70 mph. Neither the deer nor the car survived.
The real irony here is that we were on our way out to the forest to go deer
hunting -- and that was the only deer we saw all day. :-(
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Nobody would attend a 5 mph race with everybody driving bumper car
> protection. Too many safeguards and people would quickly lose interest in
> the racing scene.
Hey, I'd go. Providing they got rid of all that noise, the fumes and the
beer. It would be better each brand of car had the same color paint. It
would make for a much better experience. ;)
I think that they could do quite effectively by making a high quality saw
that is worth the price, then pointing out that the saw could save money in
the long run if health costs are considered.
I saw their site. I'm strongly considering getting one. It would be a
move up from my Ryobi, but I'm getting to the point where the added size,
accuracy, capabilities, and piece of mind are getting to be important.
Michael
"Old Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 21 Jun 2004 07:45:36 -0700, [email protected] (brian roth)
> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
>
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> >FWW had a short write up about the first pre-production sawstop cabnet
saw.
> >
> >More pictures at www.sawstop.com. I didn't like thier efforts to force
> >the technolgy on all saws, but applaud them building a better mousetrap.
>
>
> There was some simplistic prat who said "If you invent a better
> mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door." They forgot to
> include economics.
>
> IIRc the Saw Stop was a significant part of the cost of a saw.
> pphhptht!
>
> IME, WRT the sawstop, as with all "bright ideas" if they
> (a) take the long sales view
> (b) really care about safety
>
> and rather than trying to enforce their market, they then price the
> thing to _sell easily_, (rather than pay for development costs in 6
> months), then there is no _need_ for the "enforced view".
>
> Reality. X percent of the saw-using community suffer loss of a weener
> sausage during their career or hobby life. Cost your mousetrap at much
> more than this, and Govt intervention (insurance lobby groups) is your
> only hope.
>
> There are those that _succeed_ in their lobbies. There are those that
> fail.
>
> It's a BIG bet. Fail and you will NOT sell. "Ferget you, man!"
>
>
> If I was going to lobby for mandatory whatever, I would say "What
> votes
>
> !!!!!!!!!_use_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> this thing?"..............table saws? umm......... .....2%
>
> ....Looooser!
>
> Market forces apply. Get the price down.
>
> Airbags? 80+% _use_ the thing it "helps". Winner! Bullshit _or_ not.
>
> "Short people" it kills? 1%.......see stat on weener savers.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:P1DCc.25032>
installation. You obviously don't follow motor sports in order for you to
> make the assertion that safety does not fit the image of this dangerous
> sport. You'd be well served by doing a quick google search on safety
> improvements over the past 5 years in stock car racing alone. Your
> assertion that image prevails will fall under its own weight.
So, you're telling me that danger in the sport has no consideration? That's
a crock and you know it. I never said that safety doesn't fit motor sports,
what I said essentially is that there's a slowly changing limit to which
safety is incorporated in it, otherwise the sport loses it's thrill to a
great many people. Would you go to races where there was absolutely no
chance of injury or death? Many wouldn't.
Your assertion that air bags are impractical in race car driving is solely
based on the fact that it hasn't been done yet. Not a very reliable
viewpoint to base your argument on.
Upscale writes:
>Your assertion that air bags are impractical in race car driving is solely
>based on the fact that it hasn't been done yet. Not a very reliable
>viewpoint to base your argument on.
Sorry, but I've watched a couple NASCAR races, and the bumping and banging
would set off almost any airbag sensor you can dream up. An airbag in the face
at 190+ MPH has to be a cause of immediate loss of control, which is going to
be a real fun occasion when that driver is in the middle of a pack of cars.
Not a workable safety solution, it seems to me.
Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:25:57 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "A little rubbing"?????????
>
> With this sentence, two things become crystal clear:
> 1) You have never watched a NASCAR race. Ever. Not in person, not on TV.
> 2) You are not paying any attention to the people who *have*.
Uh, Doug? How many G's, in what direction, are needed to set off
an airbag in a passenger car? How often does that happen in racing?
You'll only see that if you hit something stationary, or going a
drastically different direction.
>
> Here's your sign.
You might want to hang onto it for a bit. Airbags are only going to
go off with enough force _and_ with that force in the right direction.
The damage to vehicles I've seen in racing, just from normal non-crash
driving, isn't anything like what I've seen as an EMT on scenes where
there have been airbags which deployed. Takes a lot of impact to set
those off. Obviously it'd be tweaked accordingly.
That having been said, the HANS device hasn't caught on real well,
or there'd still be a #3 car driving around. If a .5 ounce safety
device isn't being used, a 1 pound airbag hasn't got a chance.
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 04:44:14 GMT, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> That having been said, the HANS device hasn't caught on real well,
>> or there'd still be a #3 car driving around. If a .5 ounce safety
>> device isn't being used, a 1 pound airbag hasn't got a chance.
>
> HANS type devices have caught on very well. Dale Earnhardt didn't wear one
> and neither did the other 42 drivers that day. Since his death though, they
> have become mandatory. I'd say that's catching on pretty well.
Well, at least something came from it then.
> Shame they
> had to become mandatory and under those circumstances, but at least everyone
> is wearing them now.
I guess what I'm saying is that an airbag, while it could be engineered
to perform properly in a racecar, is a heavy complicated piece of
equipment, and I'm not sure it'd solve any problems that can't be solved
in less complicated, lighter ways.
How the heck did we get on this topic anyway?
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 01:47:45 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> You might want to hang onto it for a bit. Airbags are only going to
>> go off with enough force _and_ with that force in the right direction.
>
> I meant only to point out the absurdity of his characterization of the
> contact between NASCAR racers as "a little rubbing". Anyone who had ever
> seen a NASCAR race, even once, would know that it's a *lot* more than
> that. Which adds a little ironic humor to his characterization of the
> rest of us as a bunch of armchair quarterbacks or whatever it was.
Got it. OK, you can give him the sign now then.
Why would anyone put a passive restraint system in place where the much more
effective active type is mandatory?
Not to mention that the deployment time on the bag would either be too slow
to fully restrain at NASCAR speeds, or so fast that it would damage what it
was supposed to protect.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I agree that in the current racing climate, they're quite likely
> impractical, but unless someone comes forward who has actually researched
> such a device for racing purposes and can say different, don't tell me it
> can't be done. Man as invented many devices much more difficult than a
> working air bag for a race car.
>
>
Zero tolerance law? Blind obedience?
Oh yes, the five-point works only in conjunction with the roll cage and a
seat that can't compress the driver against the airbag (wheel) on
deceleration. I'd say think about it, but I'm sure you won't, or can't.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Why would anyone put a passive restraint system in place where the much
> more
> > effective active type is mandatory?
>
> Well, with a viewpoint like that, then why not mandate five point
harnesses
> in all cars and to hell with air bags anywhere?
>
> For the greatest part, most of you have a pretty closed minds. Just
because
> something hasn't been done before, you think it's inappropriate. I haven't
> seen a true racing engineer step forward to correct my thinking or comment
> on any part of this conversation so as far as I'm concerned, most of you
are
> armchair quarterbacks with inexperienced opinions.
>
>
It doesn't take an engineer realize the complexity of the situation.
What we expect a bag to do:
1) Deploy at such a rate as to cover a certain distance in less time than it
takes the driver to meet it.
2) Upon reaching the point of maximum deployment, so as not to become the
equivalent of a fixed object,begin deflating at a rate sufficient to cushion
the driver or occupant.
It's Newtonian physics all the way, so your HS stuff should work, but in
case you require a review http://physics.ucsd.edu/~cdpgrad/speed.html will
cover the basics. The last equation you'll need is E=mv(squared).
I'm not going to run down the numbers, but the basic bag is designed to
protect a certain mass traveling at a certain velocity over a fixed distance
less than the distance to the wheel, but greater than that required to
absorb the deceleration as it deflates. You can get a review of the
difficulties at http://www.roadandtravel.com/womensworkshop/ww_airbag.htm
in case you have missed the ongoing controversy over the bag becoming the
fixed object. The bag is good with minor injuries over a certain range
either side of the design point.
A quick non-engineer assessment says that 150 versus 50 mph makes the
problem about nine times as complex. And they're still trying to solve the
50.
Buckle up, so I don't have to lift your carcass out of a PIA in my county.
When so many bones are broken, handling a body is like trying to control
jell-o.
NOW I feel better.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Oh yes, the five-point works only in conjunction with the roll cage and
a
> > seat that can't compress the driver against the airbag (wheel) on
> > deceleration. I'd say think about it, but I'm sure you won't, or
can't.
>
> Feel better now? Don't hold back George, it's early in the morning. Let it
> ALL out.
>
>
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorry, but I've watched a couple NASCAR races, and the bumping and banging
> would set off almost any airbag sensor you can dream up. An airbag in the
face
> at 190+ MPH has to be a cause of immediate loss of control, which is going
to
> be a real fun occasion when that driver is in the middle of a pack of
cars.
Of course you wouldn't want one going off just because of a little rubbing.
Instead of a vibration control, it could just as easily be a switch that
goes off when a certain crush factor is reached. You're thinking of them in
regards to their operation in regular vehicles. A race car isn't a regular
vehicle, so it would need a different type of switch to set one off.
I agree that in the current racing climate, they're quite likely
impractical, but unless someone comes forward who has actually researched
such a device for racing purposes and can say different, don't tell me it
can't be done. Man as invented many devices much more difficult than a
working air bag for a race car.
Upscale responds:
>> Sorry, but I've watched a couple NASCAR races, and the bumping and banging
>> would set off almost any airbag sensor you can dream up. An airbag in the
>face
>> at 190+ MPH has to be a cause of immediate loss of control, which is going
>to
>> be a real fun occasion when that driver is in the middle of a pack of
>cars.
>
>Of course you wouldn't want one going off just because of a little rubbing.
>Instead of a vibration control, it could just as easily be a switch that
>goes off when a certain crush factor is reached. You're thinking of them in
>regards to their operation in regular vehicles. A race car isn't a regular
>vehicle, so it would need a different type of switch to set one off.
>
>I agree that in the current racing climate, they're quite likely
>impractical, but unless someone comes forward who has actually researched
>such a device for racing purposes and can say different, don't tell me it
>can't be done. Man as invented many devices much more difficult than a
>working air bag for a race car.
>
I didn't say it can't be done. I did say it was impractical. There is a
difference.
You write of them being impractical in the "current racing climate", but I
don't see much different from this racing climate than the one that obtained
when King Richard's dad was getting his start back in the '50s. Bumping and
banging is part of the game. I figure you'd have to work out a sensor that
would set the bag off only with a head-on impact with something other than the
rear of another car, say a side panel, or a wall. And, again, there is a loss
of control implicit in such a bag going off, with most drivers swearing that
having at least minimal control makes them able to avoid even worse
consequences during crashes. And they may well be right.
Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken
In article <[email protected]>, Todd Fatheree
<[email protected]> wrote:
> No harder than it already was.
Hm. What does a car have to do with getting any?
I had no car through college. I never felt frustrated getting any.
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:20:48 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If everyone in a passenger car was belted in and wearing a helmet,
> there would be no need for airbags in them either.
Well, no. I've seen plenty of steering wheels bent by the chests
of people who were fully seatbelted; an airbag would have been
softer. One guy had the imprint of the chevy bowtie bruised into
his chest, along with the seatbelt bruises. Also, side impact
and/or curtain airbags protect against directional forces that
the seatbelts just can't (unless we went to 5-point, which will
never happen).
It's a system, to be used one with the other, not one instead of
the other. Both together are drastically better than either alone.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I didn't say it can't be done. I did say it was impractical. There is a
> difference.
>
Practicality aside, is it needed? With the restraint systems the driver
wear, it may eliminate the need for air bags. I don't know the answer but
if you don't hit the steering wheel or dash you don't need the bag.
On the road, seat belt use is in the 40% to 50% range IIRC, on the track it
is 100% of a much more sophisticated system.. If granny won't wear a lap
belt on the way to the liquor store, doubt she will don a helmet and 5 point
restraint system.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > If everyone in a passenger car was belted in and wearing a helmet,
> > there would be no need for airbags in them either.
> >
>
> Yeahbut.... imagine how hard it would have been to get that first piece of
> as* back in your high school days...
No harder than it already was.
todd
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> If everyone in a passenger car was belted in and wearing a helmet,
> there would be no need for airbags in them either.
>
Yeahbut.... imagine how hard it would have been to get that first piece of
as* back in your high school days...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You write of them being impractical in the "current racing climate", but I
> don't see much different from this racing climate than the one that
obtained
> when King Richard's dad was getting his start back in the '50s. Bumping
and
> banging is part of the game. I figure you'd have to work out a sensor that
> would set the bag off only with a head-on impact with something other than
the
> rear of another car, say a side panel, or a wall. And, again, there is a
loss
> of control implicit in such a bag going off, with most drivers swearing
that
> having at least minimal control makes them able to avoid even worse
> consequences during crashes. And they may well be right.
>
As testified to by the fact that in the vast majority of racing accidents -
even the really brutal ones, the driver never stops driving the car until it
comes to rest. Imagine doing that while wrapped in a nylon cocoon.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> I didn't say it can't be done. I did say it was impractical. There is a
> difference.
Not only impractical, but of dubious utility. Race car drivers
wear 5-point harnesses, full-face helmets, and neck restraints.
What is the airbag going to protect them from? An airbag in
a passenger car is intended to keep your head from impacting
hard parts of the car, and to some extent from your chest
hitting the steering wheel, but all that is already being prevented
by the other safety measures in race cars. Race drivers pretty
routinely survive crashes at speeds well over 100 MPH.
If everyone in a passenger car was belted in and wearing a helmet,
there would be no need for airbags in them either.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
[email protected] wrote:
> Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I didn't say it can't be done. I did say it was impractical. There is a
>> difference.
>
> Not only impractical, but of dubious utility. Race car drivers
> wear 5-point harnesses, full-face helmets, and neck restraints.
> What is the airbag going to protect them from? An airbag in
> a passenger car is intended to keep your head from impacting
> hard parts of the car, and to some extent from your chest
> hitting the steering wheel, but all that is already being prevented
> by the other safety measures in race cars. Race drivers pretty
> routinely survive crashes at speeds well over 100 MPH.
>
> If everyone in a passenger car was belted in and wearing a helmet,
> there would be no need for airbags in them either.
lf airbags work so all fired well then why, with all new cars equipped with
airbags, are so many states all of a sudden passing seat belt laws?
>
> Bill Ranck
> Blacksburg, Va.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:21:03 -0400, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>
>> John wrote:>lf airbags work so all fired well then why, with all new cars
>> equipped with
>>>airbags, are so many states all of a sudden passing seat belt laws?
>>
>> Because, without the seat belt, you probably wouldn't be in the right
>> place for the airbag to help you. Tom
>
> But with the seat belt how much difference does the airbag really make?
Quite a bit. You can still hit the dashboard and/or the
steering wheel with seatbelts on. It's not always you moving
towards them, sometimes they move towards _you_. An airbag is
softer than either of these objects.
Tom wrote:
> John wrote:>lf airbags work so all fired well then why, with all new cars
> equipped with
>>airbags, are so many states all of a sudden passing seat belt laws?
>
> Because, without the seat belt, you probably wouldn't be in the right
> place for the airbag to help you. Tom
> Work at your leisure!
But with the seat belt how much difference does the airbag really make?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:20:48 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > If everyone in a passenger car was belted in and wearing a helmet,
> > there would be no need for airbags in them either.
> Well, no. I've seen plenty of steering wheels bent by the chests
> of people who were fully seatbelted; an airbag would have been
> and/or curtain airbags protect against directional forces that
> the seatbelts just can't (unless we went to 5-point, which will
> never happen).
I was suggesting if regular passenger car passengers and drivers
were using 5-point belts and helmets. I didn't specify the 5-point
harness, but I meant it. And, yes, I know it's never going to
happen. My point was that drivers in race cars already have
protection which works well enough that airbags would not be
terribly useful.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:20:48 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > If everyone in a passenger car was belted in and wearing a helmet,
> > there would be no need for airbags in them either.
>
> Well, no. I've seen plenty of steering wheels bent by the chests
> of people who were fully seatbelted; an airbag would have been
> softer. One guy had the imprint of the chevy bowtie bruised into
> his chest, along with the seatbelt bruises. Also, side impact
> and/or curtain airbags protect against directional forces that
> the seatbelts just can't (unless we went to 5-point, which will
> never happen).
I think the OP meant that if everyone was belted in with a 5 point harness
and a helmet there would be no need for an airbag. Not very fashionable so
I don't expect the wimmin to be jumping on board with that idea. The
devices they pass off as seatbelts/shoulder harnesses in private vehicles
fall really short of what they should provide in terms of safety. Somewhere
between a 5 point harness and the typical passenger car restraint system
lies a much better idea. But then again, we'd have to deal with all those
other issues like seats that offer no rigidity, doors that cave in to the
center of the car, etc., etc., etc.
>
> It's a system, to be used one with the other, not one instead of
> the other. Both together are drastically better than either alone.
>
Yup - for the passenger car, that's very true.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > I didn't say it can't be done. I did say it was impractical. There is a
> > difference.
> >
>
> Practicality aside, is it needed? With the restraint systems the driver
> wear, it may eliminate the need for air bags. I don't know the answer
but
> if you don't hit the steering wheel or dash you don't need the bag.
>
> On the road, seat belt use is in the 40% to 50% range IIRC, on the track
it
> is 100% of a much more sophisticated system.. If granny won't wear a lap
> belt on the way to the liquor store, doubt she will don a helmet and 5
point
> restraint system.
> Ed
> [email protected]
> http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
I looked up the seatbelt use statistics for an earlier response in this
thread. The figures on seat belt use are 79% now which is up from 61% in
1997.
todd
Todd Fatheree responds:
>> On the road, seat belt use is in the 40% to 50% range IIRC, on the track
>it
>> is 100% of a much more sophisticated system.. If granny won't wear a lap
>> belt on the way to the liquor store, doubt she will don a helmet and 5
>point
>> restraint system.
>> Ed
>> [email protected]
>> http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
>
>I looked up the seatbelt use statistics for an earlier response in this
>thread. The figures on seat belt use are 79% now which is up from 61% in
>1997.
I wonder how they check those figures. Is it just the routine of traffic stops,
counting how many of those stopped have belts hooked up. WV kept saying it had
87+% compliance in certain areas, while the previous week or month was supposed
to have been 85% or 89%. In 2-1/2 years there, I was never once stopped, in
town or out, by a cop while driving, yet the counts were always there. Sampling
works, or so the samplers tell us, but...how do they sample this particular
situation?
Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Todd Fatheree responds:
I wonder how they check those figures. Is it just the routine of traffic
stops,
> counting how many of those stopped have belts hooked up. WV kept saying it
had
> 87+% compliance in certain areas, while the previous week or month was
supposed
> to have been 85% or 89%. In 2-1/2 years there, I was never once stopped,
in
> town or out, by a cop while driving, yet the counts were always there.
Sampling
> works, or so the samplers tell us, but...how do they sample this
particular
> situation?
It's probably pretty easy for a cop to see if a belt is across the shoulder
or not. I can't imagine too many people bothering to put the shoulder part
across, but not fasten the belt.
Upscale responds:
>It's probably pretty easy for a cop to see if a belt is across the shoulder
>or not. I can't imagine too many people bothering to put the shoulder part
>across, but not fasten the belt.
>
I don't think so. With the newer height adjustable shoulder belts, they're
nearly invisible from outside on many cars.
Too, where would he get a count on which to base his 100%-85% figures?
If it's just an eyeball check of whatever comes by with a guesstimate of the 2
totals, it's exactly the same stuff that falls behind the male bovine.
Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Could be. Only thing I know is that a good friend of mine was a cop
>(sergeant) and he continually noticed obscure things that I'd never have
>seen if he didn't point them out to me. My only guess is that his job and
>the training he'd received forced him to see things most people would miss.
>
Or perhaps you're simply unobservant. :-)
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't think so. With the newer height adjustable shoulder belts, they're
> nearly invisible from outside on many cars.
>
> If it's just an eyeball check of whatever comes by with a guesstimate of
the 2
> totals, it's exactly the same stuff that falls behind the male bovine.
Could be. Only thing I know is that a good friend of mine was a cop
(sergeant) and he continually noticed obscure things that I'd never have
seen if he didn't point them out to me. My only guess is that his job and
the training he'd received forced him to see things most people would miss.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:ALXCc.1586
> >
> Or perhaps you're simply unobservant. :-)
Maybe so, but I'd see like you coming from a mile off. :)
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:250620042116045694%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>, Todd Fatheree
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > No harder than it already was.
>
> Hm. What does a car have to do with getting any?
>
> I had no car through college. I never felt frustrated getting any.
The post I responded to was talking about high school. Your opportunities
for location of amorous behavior in high school are more limited than in
college.
todd
In article <250620042116045694%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Todd Fatheree
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> No harder than it already was.
>
>Hm. What does a car have to do with getting any?
>
>I had no car through college. I never felt frustrated getting any.
That's odd, I felt frustrated from *not* getting any. :-)
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:25:57 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "A little rubbing"?????????
> >
> > With this sentence, two things become crystal clear:
> > 1) You have never watched a NASCAR race. Ever. Not in person, not on TV.
> > 2) You are not paying any attention to the people who *have*.
>
> Uh, Doug? How many G's, in what direction, are needed to set off
> an airbag in a passenger car? How often does that happen in racing?
> You'll only see that if you hit something stationary, or going a
> drastically different direction.
> >
> > Here's your sign.
>
> You might want to hang onto it for a bit. Airbags are only going to
> go off with enough force _and_ with that force in the right direction.
I meant only to point out the absurdity of his characterization of the
contact between NASCAR racers as "a little rubbing". Anyone who had ever
seen a NASCAR race, even once, would know that it's a *lot* more than
that. Which adds a little ironic humor to his characterization of the
rest of us as a bunch of armchair quarterbacks or whatever it was.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:5B4Dc.28713
>> seen a NASCAR race, even once, would know that it's a *lot* more than
>> that. Which adds a little ironic humor to his characterization of the
>> rest of us as a bunch of armchair quarterbacks or whatever it was.
>
>Not once did I claim to be knowledgeable in regards to Nascar racing.
Too bad that lack of knowledge didn't stop you from making comments on it. For
example:
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorry, but I've watched a couple NASCAR races, and the bumping and banging
> would set off almost any airbag sensor you can dream up. An airbag in the
> face at 190+ MPH has to be a cause of immediate loss of control, which is
> going to be a real fun occasion when that driver is in the middle of a pack
> of cars.
To which you replied:
"Of course you wouldn't want one going off just because of a little rubbing."
>I guess that doesn't make me the arrogant asshole you appear to be.
Perhaps not, but comments like that one certainly do.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I guess what I'm saying is that an airbag, while it could be engineered
> to perform properly in a racecar, is a heavy complicated piece of
> equipment, and I'm not sure it'd solve any problems that can't be solved
> in less complicated, lighter ways.
That's pretty much what I've been saying but this fellow Upscale seems a bit
miffed that his idea couldn't get off the ground. God bless him for
thinking and even for thinking out of the box, or wierdly, since that's
where all truly good idead really come from, but he sure does seem sensative
if his ideas aren't embraced by one and all.
>
> How the heck did we get on this topic anyway?
>
Ah-ha, it was just a matter of time before this question came up...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Why would anyone put a passive restraint system in place where the much
> more
> > effective active type is mandatory?
>
> Well, with a viewpoint like that, then why not mandate five point
harnesses
> in all cars and to hell with air bags anywhere?
>
> For the greatest part, most of you have a pretty closed minds. Just
because
> something hasn't been done before, you think it's inappropriate. I haven't
> seen a true racing engineer step forward to correct my thinking or comment
> on any part of this conversation so as far as I'm concerned, most of you
are
> armchair quarterbacks with inexperienced opinions.
>
>
And you sir are a what? It would be poor form in an argument to call the
ones you are arguing with names, while at the same time those same names
could be applied to you.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why would anyone put a passive restraint system in place where the much
more
> effective active type is mandatory?
Well, with a viewpoint like that, then why not mandate five point harnesses
in all cars and to hell with air bags anywhere?
For the greatest part, most of you have a pretty closed minds. Just because
something hasn't been done before, you think it's inappropriate. I haven't
seen a true racing engineer step forward to correct my thinking or comment
on any part of this conversation so as far as I'm concerned, most of you are
armchair quarterbacks with inexperienced opinions.
Upscale responds:
>"George" <george@least> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Why would anyone put a passive restraint system in place where the much
>more
>> effective active type is mandatory?
>
>Well, with a viewpoint like that, then why not mandate five point harnesses
>in all cars and to hell with air bags anywhere?
>
Sub-100 MPH speeds?
Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:25:57 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "A little rubbing"?????????
> >
> > With this sentence, two things become crystal clear:
> > 1) You have never watched a NASCAR race. Ever. Not in person, not on TV.
> > 2) You are not paying any attention to the people who *have*.
>
> Uh, Doug? How many G's, in what direction, are needed to set off
> an airbag in a passenger car? How often does that happen in racing?
> You'll only see that if you hit something stationary, or going a
> drastically different direction.
> >
> > Here's your sign.
>
> You might want to hang onto it for a bit. Airbags are only going to
> go off with enough force _and_ with that force in the right direction.
> The damage to vehicles I've seen in racing, just from normal non-crash
> driving, isn't anything like what I've seen as an EMT on scenes where
> there have been airbags which deployed. Takes a lot of impact to set
> those off. Obviously it'd be tweaked accordingly.
>
> That having been said, the HANS device hasn't caught on real well,
> or there'd still be a #3 car driving around. If a .5 ounce safety
> device isn't being used, a 1 pound airbag hasn't got a chance.
I actually don't think it's a matter of whether or not they would deploy in
the bumping around on the racetrack. I believe it's more of a matter of it
not being necessary. With the use of the 5-point harness and head and neck
restraint, I suspect the addition of an air bag would add very little to
overall safety. By the way, head and neck restraint devices have been
mandatory since October 2001 in NASCAR, so I'd say they've "caught on"
pretty well. I've looked and can't find a race death in NASCAR since then.
I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I can't seem to find it if it has.
todd
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Why would anyone put a passive restraint system in place where the much
> more
> > effective active type is mandatory?
>
> Well, with a viewpoint like that, then why not mandate five point
harnesses
> in all cars and to hell with air bags anywhere?
Gosh, I don't know, genius...because 90% of people wouldn't use them? What
is the rate of use in stock car racing? I'm guessing it's right around
100%. If passenger cars were equipped with 5-point restraints and people
used them 100% in conjunction with a HANS device, you could throw air bags
away.
> For the greatest part, most of you have a pretty closed minds. Just
because
> something hasn't been done before, you think it's inappropriate. I haven't
> seen a true racing engineer step forward to correct my thinking or comment
> on any part of this conversation so as far as I'm concerned, most of you
are
> armchair quarterbacks with inexperienced opinions.
I see. What race team do you work for? Is your opinion more experienced
than mine?
todd
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:piKCc.3746>
> With this sentence, two things become crystal clear:
> 1) You have never watched a NASCAR race. Ever. Not in person, not on TV.
> 2) You are not paying any attention to the people who *have*.
The closest I've been to racing is watching the Molson Indianapolis in
Toronto the past few years. A number of years ago, I regularly attended the
races up in Mosport and looked at it as a weekend of being with friends
while camping out in the infield.
If those two things don't qualify for watching racing, label me however you
want, but it still doesn't change you quarterback wizards from being exactly
that and nothing more.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:5B4Dc.28713
> seen a NASCAR race, even once, would know that it's a *lot* more than
> that. Which adds a little ironic humor to his characterization of the
> rest of us as a bunch of armchair quarterbacks or whatever it was.
Not once did I claim to be knowledgeable in regards to Nascar racing. I
guess that doesn't make me the arrogant asshole you appear to be.
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Oh yes, the five-point works only in conjunction with the roll cage and a
> seat that can't compress the driver against the airbag (wheel) on
> deceleration. I'd say think about it, but I'm sure you won't, or can't.
Feel better now? Don't hold back George, it's early in the morning. Let it
ALL out.
Upscale wrote:
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Why would anyone put a passive restraint system in place where the much
> more
>> effective active type is mandatory?
>
> Well, with a viewpoint like that, then why not mandate five point
> harnesses in all cars and to hell with air bags anywhere?
Race drivers _use_ their restraints--they get disqualified if they don't.
> For the greatest part, most of you have a pretty closed minds. Just
> because something hasn't been done before, you think it's inappropriate.
I don't have to sit on an exploding H-bomb to know that it's not a good
idea. Some things "haven't been done before" because they don't work.
> I
> haven't seen a true racing engineer step forward to correct my thinking or
> comment on any part of this conversation so as far as I'm concerned, most
> of you are armchair quarterbacks with inexperienced opinions.
As are you. The difference is that you give every evidence of being totally
clueless with regard to racing.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George wrote:
> It doesn't take an engineer realize the complexity of the situation.
>
> What we expect a bag to do:
> 1) Deploy at such a rate as to cover a certain distance in less time than
> it takes the driver to meet it.
> 2) Upon reaching the point of maximum deployment, so as not to become the
> equivalent of a fixed object,begin deflating at a rate sufficient to
> cushion the driver or occupant.
3) remain deployed long enough to absorb secondary impacts. This, I
suspect, is the one that would be a killer on the race course. I'm
envisioning one of those crashes where the car goes end over end several
times shedding parts the whole way. The airbag might help on the _first_
bounce but how about the second, third, fourth, etc? And those are the
ones where the driver needs all the help he can get.
And I remember looking at a wrecked Porsche in the garage at Brumos one
time. It was _flat_ from the firewall (or whatever you call the partition
between the trunk and the passenger compartment in a Porsche--with a front
engine it would have been the firewall) forward. The salesman's comment
was "That was a bad one. Peter (Gregg, who was the owner of the dealership
and a well known racing driver then) sprained his thumb in that one." That
was back in '69--my Dad and I were there looking at a used XK-E that I was
hoping would be my first car and the salesman was trying to steer him to a
new Porsche having despaired of selling him the 250GTO that they had on the
lot--fortunately my Dad was smarter than I was and so I ended up with mongo
Detroit sedan aka roadgoing battleship so I'm still alive. There have been
vast improvements in the safety features of racing cars since.
> It's Newtonian physics all the way, so your HS stuff should work, but in
> case you require a review http://physics.ucsd.edu/~cdpgrad/speed.html
> will
> cover the basics. The last equation you'll need is E=mv(squared).
>
> I'm not going to run down the numbers, but the basic bag is designed to
> protect a certain mass traveling at a certain velocity over a fixed
> distance less than the distance to the wheel, but greater than that
> required to
> absorb the deceleration as it deflates. You can get a review of the
> difficulties at http://www.roadandtravel.com/womensworkshop/ww_airbag.htm
> in case you have missed the ongoing controversy over the bag becoming the
> fixed object. The bag is good with minor injuries over a certain range
> either side of the design point.
>
> A quick non-engineer assessment says that 150 versus 50 mph makes the
> problem about nine times as complex. And they're still trying to solve
> the 50.
>
> Buckle up, so I don't have to lift your carcass out of a PIA in my county.
> When so many bones are broken, handling a body is like trying to control
> jell-o.
>
> NOW I feel better.
>
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Oh yes, the five-point works only in conjunction with the roll cage and
> a
>> > seat that can't compress the driver against the airbag (wheel) on
>> > deceleration. I'd say think about it, but I'm sure you won't, or
> can't.
>>
>> Feel better now? Don't hold back George, it's early in the morning. Let
>> it ALL out.
>>
>>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Upscale wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:9WZCc.13213
>
>> That's pretty much what I've been saying but this fellow Upscale seems a
> bit
>> miffed that his idea couldn't get off the ground. God bless him for
>> thinking and even for thinking out of the box, or wierdly, since that's
>> where all truly good idead really come from, but he sure does seem
> sensative
>> if his ideas aren't embraced by one and all.
>
> No, I'm not miffed in anyway, it's just that sometimes I get caught up in
> the heat of the discussion. Obviously, I'm lacking a certain amount of
> knowledge as to why an air bag wouldn't have some value in a race car, but
> only because I'm a true believer that just because something hasn't been
> done properly yet, doesn't mean that it's impossible.
It's possible to shoot yourself in the head but that doesn't mean it's a
good idea.
> I was the driver in an accident once that should have resulted in my
> death, but I came away with a simple cut on my hand and that was it. When
> I show a picture of the smashed vehicle to people, some refuse to believe
> that I was in it during the crash. A seatbelt saved my life so I'm all for
> the advancement of most all types of safety products for cars. But as many
> here have told me, we're discussing racing vehicles, not family cars.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Upscale wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > only because I'm a true believer that just because something hasn't
>> > been done properly yet, doesn't mean that it's impossible.
>>
>> It's possible to shoot yourself in the head but that doesn't mean it's a
>> good idea.
>
> Lousy comparison John.
It wasn't a "comparison". The point was making was that just because
something is _possible_ doesn't mean that it needs to be done.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:9WZCc.13213
> That's pretty much what I've been saying but this fellow Upscale seems a
bit
> miffed that his idea couldn't get off the ground. God bless him for
> thinking and even for thinking out of the box, or wierdly, since that's
> where all truly good idead really come from, but he sure does seem
sensative
> if his ideas aren't embraced by one and all.
No, I'm not miffed in anyway, it's just that sometimes I get caught up in
the heat of the discussion. Obviously, I'm lacking a certain amount of
knowledge as to why an air bag wouldn't have some value in a race car, but
only because I'm a true believer that just because something hasn't been
done properly yet, doesn't mean that it's impossible.
I was the driver in an accident once that should have resulted in my death,
but I came away with a simple cut on my hand and that was it. When I show a
picture of the smashed vehicle to people, some refuse to believe that I was
in it during the crash. A seatbelt saved my life so I'm all for the
advancement of most all types of safety products for cars. But as many here
have told me, we're discussing racing vehicles, not family cars.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > only because I'm a true believer that just because something hasn't been
> > done properly yet, doesn't mean that it's impossible.
>
> It's possible to shoot yourself in the head but that doesn't mean it's a
> good idea.
Lousy comparison John.
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:02:44 GMT, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"George" <george@least> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Why would anyone put a passive restraint system in place where the much
>more
>> effective active type is mandatory?
>
>Well, with a viewpoint like that, then why not mandate five point harnesses
>in all cars and to hell with air bags anywhere?
air bags are cheaper.
really.
>
>For the greatest part, most of you have a pretty closed minds.
yep. that's us, a bunch of non-critical-thinking kneejerk
reactionaries......
> Just because
>something hasn't been done before, you think it's inappropriate. I haven't
>seen a true racing engineer step forward to correct my thinking or comment
>on any part of this conversation so as far as I'm concerned, most of you are
>armchair quarterbacks with inexperienced opinions.
this is a woodworking group. try asking in a racing group or an
engineering group. how about you go do both. when you have a consensus
that airbags in race cars are a good idea, come back and let's talk.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Sorry, but I've watched a couple NASCAR races, and the bumping and banging
>> would set off almost any airbag sensor you can dream up. An airbag in the
>face
>> at 190+ MPH has to be a cause of immediate loss of control, which is going
>to
>> be a real fun occasion when that driver is in the middle of a pack of
>cars.
>
>Of course you wouldn't want one going off just because of a little rubbing.
"A little rubbing"?????????
With this sentence, two things become crystal clear:
1) You have never watched a NASCAR race. Ever. Not in person, not on TV.
2) You are not paying any attention to the people who *have*.
Here's your sign.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> That having been said, the HANS device hasn't caught on real well,
> or there'd still be a #3 car driving around. If a .5 ounce safety
> device isn't being used, a 1 pound airbag hasn't got a chance.
>
>
HANS type devices have caught on very well. Dale Earnhardt didn't wear one
and neither did the other 42 drivers that day. Since his death though, they
have become mandatory. I'd say that's catching on pretty well. Shame they
had to become mandatory and under those circumstances, but at least everyone
is wearing them now.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:01:58 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>
>Why not racing organizations? Pointless again. It's evidently escaped your
>notice that fatalities in auto racing are actually rather rare events; roll
>bars and five-point harnesses do a pretty good job of protecting the drivers.
>Furthermore, racing crashes tend mostly to be sideswipes, either with another
>car or with a retaining wall. It's difficult to see that airbags would provide
>any meaningful additional protection. Particularly in collisions at 200+ MPH.
and consider the consequences of a false deployment of that air bag at
200 MPH in a cluster of cars when one bumps into another....