Dan C wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:03:35 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> if that is truly a concern, wear a helmet. seriously. if transport
>>>> safety authorities were serious about safety, helmets and 5-point seat
>>>> belts would be mandatory.
>
>>> Will a helmet keep the steering column from piercing your chest?
>>>
>>> Will a helmet keep your neck and ribs from snapping when that SUV hits you
>>> directly on the driver's door at 60mph?
>>>
>>> The answer to both questions is "NO". An airbag likely would, though.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't drive, or let any member of my family drive, a vehicle without
>>> airbags. Yeah, we all used to do it "back in the day", but things change.
>>> There's just no good reason to not have them now. Not to mention the fact
>>> that the roads are crowded with inattentive morons talking on cell phones
>>> while driving 20+ MPH over the speed limit, and driving the biggest
>>> vehicle they (can't) afford. An airbag is a necessity.
>
>> untrue. there are no air bags in race cars. race cars can crash at
>> 150+ and the driver walks away because [s]he's properly restrained.
>> 5-point belts and helmets will save many more lives than airbags.
>
> Jesus, you really are clueless. There's more to it than belts and
> helmets. There are roll cages, kill switches, fuel cells, and more, in a
> race car. Can you see the normal citizen putting on a full-face helmet
> and attaching a 5-point harness every time they make a trip to the grocery
> store? Get real. Try to speak in relation to reality for a change.

i'm pointing out that if safety were the real objective, harnesses and
helmets are the way to go - because they are much more effective. what
you're exhibiting is personal dislike - but that's not engineering analysis.



>
>>>> 2. heavier cars are harder to stop, given that tire sizes are the same
>>>> and thus available braking traction is the same.
>
>>> Tire sizes are generally quite a bit wider now-a-days than they used to
>>> be,
>
>> that's a function of suspension, not desire to improve braking. you
>> need wider tires with macpherson strut to make up for its geometrical
>> shortcomings. the disadvantage of wider tires is more gas consumption
>> and more tendency to aquaplane in rain or slide on loose surfaces.
>
> Nice try at dodging the issue. Wider tires also assist braking due to
> more surface area contacting the road. Simple physics, man.

for dry clean road. but in the circumstances i outlined, wider tires
can be a problem because the larger contact area decreases the ground
pressure and thus ability to retain contact.


>
>> not to mention the existence of ABS. Today's cars can stop *MUCH*
>> better than a car of 15-20 years ago.
>
>> untrue. they can help a driver stop under certain conditions where
>> inexperience or lack of skill may be a problem, but in many situations,
>> anti-lock braking distances can be longer than stock brakes. check your
>> owners manual.
>
> Wrong again. You really don't understand much, do you?

i stated fact - check your owners manual.


>
>>>> 3. modern cars consume more resources in their manufacture.
>
>>> That's beyond our control,
>
>> if we make it, we control it. by definition.
>
> The point was that we as consumers, can't control that aspect.

yes we can - we absolutely control what we buy.


> If you
> want a new car, you buy a new car. You can't buy a "new" 1985 model just
> because you want something that was made with "less resources".

you can if you want to. i prefer older vehicles for the above reasons,
so i drive older vehicles. concept seems simple to me.

and the correct english is "fewer resources".

 

ahorsefly@yahoo.com wrote:
> Nothing is perfect is all situations. In this case the airbag did
> more harm than good, but would you agree that in many situations an
> airbag can protect you from serious injury; and that you are better
> off with it than without it?

if you're a small person with short arms that drives hunched over the
wheel, the airbag will be a benefit. but if you're a larger person that
sits back from the wheel, and who wears their belt, properly adjusted,
the airbag is of little or no value. the way to avoid injury is to
prevent the person colliding with the vehicle's interior. airbags kinda
sorta help with that, but not as effectively as a helmet and belts.
again, that's why race cars [that tend to crash at higher speeds than
normal road users] use the latter system.



>
>
>>> vehicle they (can't) afford. An airbag is a necessity.
>> I have to respectfully disagree with you on the airbag being a
>> necessity. I was properly restrained in my accident, and the damn
>> airbag did MORE damage to me than the accident did. Of course, I was
>> blowing my horn when the moron crossed the center line and hit me, but
>> nonetheless, the airbag sprained the hell out of my wrist and left me
>> with some scars that will probably never go away.
>>
>> This is what the car looked like post accident, as seen in another post:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/8891294@N04/2258118240/
>>
>> I will try to find a better picture of what my arm looked like post
>> accident.
>

 

On Feb 10, 2:56 pm, ahorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have a 1991 Honda Civic and it runs well, ...

Side curtain airbags can provide critical protection for your head in
a side collision. In a rear-ender, your seat is likely to break. As
you are aware, the overall structural integrity of your car is only
marginal (and may be further weakened by corrosion). Honda brakes of
that era kinda suck.

I keep a car of similar vintage around for in-town use but drive
something newer and larger on the highway. If I was restricted to a
single vehicle it wouldn't be the old one.

YMMV

 

jim beam wrote:
> ahorsefly@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Nothing is perfect is all situations. In this case the airbag did
>> more harm than good, but would you agree that in many situations an
>> airbag can protect you from serious injury; and that you are better
>> off with it than without it?
>
> if you're a small person with short arms that drives hunched over the
> wheel, the airbag will be a benefit. but if you're a larger person that
> sits back from the wheel, and who wears their belt, properly adjusted,
> the airbag is of little or no value. the way to avoid injury is to
> prevent the person colliding with the vehicle's interior. airbags kinda
> sorta help with that, but not as effectively as a helmet and belts.
> again, that's why race cars [that tend to crash at higher speeds than
> normal road users] use the latter system.

I am 5'11" and I work out. I was told that my wrist or arm should have
been broken by the airbag since I was blowing the horn when it deployed.
I was also told that the reason my wrist/arm was not broken was due to
the fact that I am a "big guy" even though I don't think of myself as
that big.

 

Newer cars are much safer. Particularly with side airbags.


<ahorsefly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5dcf3260-56c4-47e0-8c7d-7224a1bf9e2e@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>I have a 1991 Honda Civic and it runs well, but I feel like I should
> probably buy a newer car with airbags for more safety in a crash.
> Another reason I might want to buy another car is that mine is small.
> A larger car would probably provide additional protection. On the
> other hand, if I keep my current car I'd save money. Does anyone
> think it's not necessarily worthy spending the money for a bigger car
> with airbags?

 

My mother has been in the insurance industry for the last 30 years . She
has extensive experience in the claims division. She says she can't tell
enough people to wear their seatbelt. She's seen countless accidents
where the person in the car wearing a seatbelt walked away from the
crash. Whereas the other person in the vehicle is dead because they
chose not to wear a seatbelt. Airbags do make a HUGE difference,but
without a seatbelt they're pracically useless. Look at crash ratings to
see which car has better ratings. Smaller doesn't neccessarily mean less
safe. If a smaller car has better crumple zones than a bigger car does.
The smaller car will generally be more safe because the car is design to
'absorb' the impact. Google safety ratings for the model your interested
in.

 

On Feb 10, 2:56 pm, ahorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have a 1991 Honda Civic and it runs well, but I feel like I should
> probably buy a newer car with airbags for more safety in a crash.
> Another reason I might want to buy another car is that mine is small.
> A larger car would probably provide additional protection. On the
> other hand, if I keep my current car I'd save money. Does anyone
> think it's not necessarily worthy spending the money for a bigger car
> with airbags?

i suppose automobile airbags were developed after the emergency
inflatable slides that every airliners aircrafts nowadays are equipped
with. Those slides have saved lives, of course, but they are also
known to have killed and injured ground workers by accidental
deployments when the aircrafts were parked.

now imagine you're driving and, at the same time, sipping gourmet
coffee from a steel can

and the airbag deploys for no reason at all.. bwahahahaha... hello!!
are you alright? bwahahaha...

well... it's just that the airbags are designed upon the premises that
you always assume an appropriate driving posture and keep a safe
distance to the steering wheel.

but doing so is essential to a safe driving, in big cars, in small
cars, with airbags, with trash bags...

what do i have to say? keep your current car and save money, just wear
your seatbelt and be alert, turn off your radio, CD and cell phone, no
food and drink, anticipate foul moves, and you'll be driving like a
devil in the our murderous freeways and get home in one piece.

cheers

 

On Feb 10, 2:56 pm, ahorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have a 1991 Honda Civic and it runs well, but I feel like I should
> probably buy a newer car with airbags for more safety in a crash.
> Another reason I might want to buy another car is that mine is small.
> A larger car would probably provide additional protection. On the
> other hand, if I keep my current car I'd save money. Does anyone
> think it's not necessarily worthy spending the money for a bigger car
> with airbags?

i'm not big on buying a bigger car for safety, but i would certainly
be more than happy if my car had not just airbags, but side impact
airbags. that definitely seems to make a difference with the current
crop of cars.

 

On Feb 10, 11:00 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> ahorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I have a 1991 Honda Civic and it runs well,
>
> great car.
>
> > but I feel like I should
> > probably buy a newer car with airbags for more safety in a crash.
>
> if that is truly a concern, wear a helmet. seriously. if transport
> safety authorities were serious about safety, helmets and 5-point seat
> belts would be mandatory.
>
> > Another reason I might want to buy another car is that mine is small.
> > A larger car would probably provide additional protection. On the
> > other hand, if I keep my current car I'd save money. Does anyone
> > think it's not necessarily worthy spending the money for a bigger car
> > with airbags?
>
> these are not airbag issues, but they are "should i buy a more modern
> car or look at the big picture" issues:
>
> 1. paradoxically, the gas savings of more efficient modern engines are
> offset by much heavier modern cars, so no benefit there.
>
> 2. heavier cars are harder to stop, given that tire sizes are the same
> and thus available braking traction is the same.
>
> 3. modern cars consume more resources in their manufacture.

yeah, i was looking at a civic si yesterday; 190 hp, but 2900 lbs. and
that still makes it one of the lighter cars out there, even at its
size range. but that compares to 2400 lbs for my 92.
weirdly, the other car i was looking at was an acura rx, only 2800
lbs. when did hondas get heavier than acuras? and 201 hp.

 

On Feb 16, 1:35 am, KS...@webtv.net (Private Private) wrote:
> My mother has been in the insurance industry for the last 30 years . She
> has extensive experience in the claims division. She says she can't tell
> enough people to wear their seatbelt. She's seen countless accidents
> where the person in the car wearing a seatbelt walked away from the
> crash. Whereas the other person in the vehicle is dead because they
> chose not to wear a seatbelt. Airbags do make a HUGE difference,but
> without a seatbelt they're pracically useless. Look at crash ratings to
> see which car has better ratings. Smaller doesn't neccessarily mean less
> safe. If a smaller car has better crumple zones than a bigger car does.
> The smaller car will generally be more safe because the car is design to
> 'absorb' the impact. Google safety ratings for the model your interested
> in.

every weekend there's some fatal crash reported in the paper here. at
least half the time, the victim is thrown from the vehicle. i figure
that means they're not wearing their belts.