On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Patrick Washburn wrote:
> Yeah, but that is the trick isn't it? The numbers/risk game. If your
> accident had been one of those "very small minority" type, you would be
> singing a different tune. (The fact that you would be singing at all would
> be reward enough.)
No, it wouldn't, that's the point. It is not acceptable to kill ( not
"not save", but kill ) one person for every dozen or so saved.
> No one ever claimed air bags will keep you safe at all times, coddling
> you in comfy softness at the nearest hint of danger every minute of you
This is water under the bridge now, but yes they did. Joan Claybrook,
for one, has claimed that ( first generation ) airbags are the best
protection for *unbelted* children.
"I don't think there is any question in my mind that there is any
better restraint device put on the unrestrained child".
That kind of negligence is criminal, unless you are a government
> What they do is save lives in those small percentage
> situations. Besides, how can you so sure that your air bag did'nt prevent
> serious injury or death in your accident? Just because it was low speed?
I didn't even stretch the belts. I've also been in a very similar
crash without an airbag. I was fine, and the car was fixed. You figure
> Just something to think about. I personally will accept the risk for the
And you should have that right. But I should have the right not to
play that particular lottery.
D a v i d H i l l m a n
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to firstname.lastname@example.org or try
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive