About kids and car air bags

Factual Questions
21

In order, first off the plural of personal experience is not data. Secondly is a small nit to pick, the 3 point belt was invented by Mr. Nils Bolin in 1958. It was available in the 1959 Volvos as an standard equipment.
Let’s do an apples to apples comparison here. In 1992 USA today did some research of accidents from 1986-1991. They compared death rates of each model car, and published their results. Seat belt laws came started coming in mid 88-1989 so this comparison is a level playing field since it is looking by car model and everyone is subject to the same laws at the same time. So if your theory is correct the top dog safest car should be some land yacht of a Buick/LTD/Caddy/Impala/Oldsmobubble, with a body on a separate frame, right? You might guess that, but you would be wrong. The only car in their survey that had a zero death rate was the Volvo 240.* That is correct no one riding in a 240 died as a result of an auto accident between 1986-1991 in the US.
You know the controlled crush special that was so revolutionary that when it was introduced in 1975, the US government bought a bunch of them so that they could study it.** Not that it matters, the worst car in the survey was the body on frame, no controlled crush Corvette.
Look, my company (Volvo) spends a lot of time and effort every year in order to build a safer car. We have teams that are called by the Swedish police to help investigate accidents involving our cars. We can and do recreate these accidents in the lab, and many changes to our cars have been made from these investigations. My point is, if a body on frame land yacht was the safest type of car, then my company would be producing them, since we pride ourselves on building the safest car we can. We don’t build a body on frame cars (and haven’t in over 40 years) because they are not as safe.

  • Cite, a poster in my training center that shows the car and a reproduction of the USA today story, with the headline Safest Car in the USA Today.
    **Cite, Volvo print ad from the mid 1970 stating that the US government was one of our biggest customers.
22

Uh, Rick, though I completely concur with your conclusion, and especially your last paragraph, I gotta say:

a. Statistics that come from an advertisement are highly suspect.
b. The study is not available for analysis; only a very biased ad that quotes a small subset of said survey is. Many questions come to mind, especially:
c. The notion that the Volvo 240 had the safest car and the Corvette had the least safest: hmm. Could this in any way be attributed to the type of driver who purchases these sorts of cars, and the manner they choose to drive them (i.e. a mother with two kids vs. a flashy speed demon)? Is it possible the whole of the result isn’t purely from body styles? Honestly, in this particular comparison, I can’t help but wonder if body style even enters into the equation in any significant way.

23

There’s a NHTSA website that gives a useful and current summary of advice at this address. NHTSA is (if you didn’t know) the US government’s vehicle safety agency’s official advice. To quote:

"NHTSA also recognizes that there are occasions when a parent or caregiver has no other option than to place a child other than an infant in a rear-facing child safety seat in the right front seat (for example, in a pickup truck with insufficient or no available rear seat, or when a parent is transporting more children than available rear seating positions).

In the event there is no available rear seat and parents have no other option than to place a child other than an infant in a rear-facing child safety seat in a front passenger seating position, take these steps:

Ensure the child* is properly restrained,
Move the seat as far back as possible,
Make sure the child is not leaning out of position, and
Set the air bag ON-OFF switch, if available, to the OFF position.
This applies to all children 12 and under: an infant riding in a rear-facing infant seat, a child riding in a forward-facing child restraint, an older child riding in a booster seat and children large enough to wear a safety belt. "

A general bit of background here is that airbags introduced under North American legislation can be divided into three phases.

Phase 1. Until 1997, they were governed by a relatively simple 30 mph crash test, and data collected for the period before then led to concerns about a relatively small risk of injury CAUSED by airbags (there is no significant dispute about the ability of even these early airbags to save life and injury).

Phase 2. As an interim response, the regulation changed to require “DEPOWERED” airbags from 1997. This was in advance of a final rulemaking (and the necessary technology) to introduce

Phase 3. Advanced Airbags, introduced progressively from 2003. “What are advanced frontal air bags?
Advanced frontal air bags are designed to meet the needs of the occupant in a variety of specific crash situations. Depending on design, advanced frontal air bag systems automatically determine if and with what level of power the driver frontal air bag and the passenger frontal air bag will inflate. The appropriate level of power is based upon sensor inputs that can typically detect: 1) occupant size, 2) seat position, 3) seat belt use of the occupant, and 4) crash severity.”

24

Airbags really do suck. When I was in a car accident for the first time in my life two years ago I got an airbag right in the face. It was like being punched in the face with a big rough pillow. The impact felt about as hard as being punched square in the head by a very strong man.

But amazingly it happened so fast I have little direct memory of the “impact” just the way my face felt after I stepped out of the car.

As much as I cursed the airbag and the way it left my face raw and bruised, I know it was a hell of a lot better than my head going through the steering wheel ;).

25

This is the real problem with anecdotal evidence: by-and-large, people don’t have the anecdotal experience of the same accident with NO airbag to compare with. Hats off to Martin for pointing this out!

26

Good Input Martin Hyde and you know Jasonh300 has a good point!
If you take a 1967 Coup De Vile and ram it into any portion of any modern day auto, that modern day auto is going to crumple like an accordion. Good – that’s what that modern day car is supposed to do. But just think about the physics alone – the Caddy MIGHT get a deformed bumper out of the deal, the driver will be josseled a good bit but in the end, the driver of the Caddy is more likely to walk away – Like wise, if you rear end that land yacht with – sheesh – a modern Chevy Suburban – at say freeway stopping speeds – oh 45mph?
The caddy will get slammed – the driver will have a lump on their head from the steering wheel - BUT – wouldn’t die. The Chevy would be totaled. The Caddy would be able to be driven away. Problem being 2 point belts in that Caddy. But any way Look at the OP. Can I let my kid ride up front? Probably not such a good Idea at this stage of the game – though it is an SUV and not an econo box. The Q was “can the air bag kill him” the answer is – maybe. Fine. He sits in the back. Thank you. Question answered. Give it a rest.

27

I know you said let it rest, but then, damn it all, I didn’t.

Your argument applies to impacts with other vehicles (leaving aside issues with spine and neck whiplash injuries in rear impacts, where a modern car may still be better). Yes: two colliding cars will have equal and opposite forces throughout the impact, but the more massive car will change velocity by less: a lower impact “pulse”, which ought to be a good thing.

BUT it’s also important to remember that other cars are only one of the things that you can hit. To quote NHTSA again, "fifty-seven percent of fatal crashes involved only one vehicle … collisions with fixed objects and noncollisions accounted for only 19 percent of all crashes, but they accounted for 44 percent of fatal crashes. ". Even your De Vile (?) is out-massed by lamp post concreted to the earth.

Finally, although your basic assumption that heavier-is- better is born out by recent studies of impacts between cars and SUVs (“Death rates were 59 percent higher for car occupants than for SUV occupants in crashes involving the lightest SUVS. In the heaviest SUVs, the death rates for car occupants were nine times as high as those of SUV occupants.”) the gap is closing due to better car design, improved safety systems and more consistent use of fitted systems. On the assumption that there will always be someone out there in a heavier vehicle than yours, your better choice ought STILL to include decent, modern safety equipment.

Data from here and here.

28

I know you said let it rest, but then, damn it all, I didn’t.

Your argument applies to impacts with other vehicles (leaving aside issues with spine and neck whiplash injuries in rear impacts, where a modern car may still be better). Yes: two colliding cars will have equal and opposite forces throughout the impact, but the more massive car will change velocity by less: a lower impact “pulse”, which ought to be a good thing.

BUT it’s also important to remember that other cars are only one of the things that you can hit. To quote NHTSA again, "fifty-seven percent of fatal crashes involved only one vehicle … collisions with fixed objects and noncollisions accounted for only 19 percent of all crashes, but they accounted for 44 percent of fatal crashes. ". Even your De Vile (?) is out-massed by lamp post concreted to the earth.

Finally, although your basic assumption that heavier-is- better is born out by recent studies of impacts between cars and SUVs (“Death rates were 59 percent higher for car occupants than for SUV occupants in crashes involving the lightest SUVS. In the heaviest SUVs, the death rates for car occupants were nine times as high as those of SUV occupants.”) the gap is closing due to better car design, improved safety systems and more consistent use of fitted systems. On the assumption that there will always be someone out there in a heavier vehicle than yours, your better choice ought STILL to include decent, modern safety equipment.

Data from here and here.

29

I know you said let it rest, but then, damn it all, I didn’t.

Your argument applies to impacts with other vehicles (leaving aside issues with spine and neck whiplash injuries in rear impacts, where a modern car may still be better). Yes: two colliding cars will have equal and opposite forces throughout the impact, but the more massive car will change velocity by less: a lower impact “pulse”, which ought to be a good thing.

BUT it’s also important to remember that other cars are only one of the things that you can hit. To quote NHTSA again, "fifty-seven percent of fatal crashes involved only one vehicle … collisions with fixed objects and noncollisions accounted for only 19 percent of all crashes, but they accounted for 44 percent of fatal crashes. ". Even your De Vile (?) is out-massed by lamp post concreted to the earth.

Finally, although your basic assumption that heavier-is- better is born out by recent studies of impacts between cars and SUVs (“Death rates were 59 percent higher for car occupants than for SUV occupants in crashes involving the lightest SUVS. In the heaviest SUVs, the death rates for car occupants were nine times as high as those of SUV occupants.”) the gap is closing due to better car design, improved safety systems and more consistent use of fitted systems. On the assumption that there will always be someone out there in a heavier vehicle than yours, your better choice ought STILL to include decent, modern safety equipment.

Data from here and here.

30

I know you said let it rest, but then, damn it all, I didn’t.

Your argument applies to impacts with other vehicles (leaving aside issues with spine and neck whiplash injuries in rear impacts, where a modern car may still be better). Yes: two colliding cars will have equal and opposite forces throughout the impact, but the more massive car will change velocity by less: a lower impact “pulse”, which ought to be a good thing.

BUT it’s also important to remember that other cars are only one of the things that you can hit. To quote NHTSA again, "fifty-seven percent of fatal crashes involved only one vehicle … collisions with fixed objects and noncollisions accounted for only 19 percent of all crashes, but they accounted for 44 percent of fatal crashes. ". Even your De Vile (?) is out-massed by lamp post concreted to the earth.

Finally, although your basic assumption that heavier-is- better is born out by recent studies of impacts between cars and SUVs (“Death rates were 59 percent higher for car occupants than for SUV occupants in crashes involving the lightest SUVS. In the heaviest SUVs, the death rates for car occupants were nine times as high as those of SUV occupants.”) the gap is closing due to better car design, improved safety systems and more consistent use of fitted systems. On the assumption that there will always be someone out there in a heavier vehicle than yours, your better choice ought STILL to include decent, modern safety equipment.

Data from here and here.

31

:smack: Oops sorry - how did that happen?

32

I know you said let it rest, but then, damn it all, he didn’t.

I mean, he really didn’t. :slight_smile:

33

Thanks for answering my question, Rick. I appreciate it.