Do airbag test take into account human behavior?

[Joey_P]

@garygnu

I could have sworn the Mythbusters did a test where they put a dummy’s hand(s) in the way of an airbag. Searching only shows results of a not-Adam & Jamie revival show testing feet on the dash. Yeah, don’t do that.

This was one of the (many) episodes that I had an issue. One of the myths they tested was that a woman was holding the steering wheel ‘vulcan style’. They tried a few times and gave up saying no one would hold a steering wheel like that…personally, I know I do sometimes.
I was going to bring that up before I even saw the mythbusters comment to related it to the OP in that they’re never going to be able to test all these scenarios since there’s simply too many. They can’t test what happens when you’re looking over at your passenger and when you have your arm hanging out the window and and and etc. So they just test the way you should be sitting.

However, they probably should do tests where the dummy is holding a cell phone and looking down at it.
I was talking to the owner of a body shop and I mentioned that he must like all the ice on the road (accidents mean business for him). He commented that it can be the dead of winter or the middle of summer, as long as people use their cell phones while driving, they’ll crash their cars.

@bob_2

For years we have all been told that the way to hold a steering wheel is at ‘ten and two’. Since airbags, the advice is ‘nine and three’. Placing your hands on the wheel at the nine and three position is far safer as you do not obstruct the driver’s airbag in the event of a collision.

I’d be surprised if you could obstruct the airbag with your hands even if you tried. My understanding was that you don’t want them near the airbag so they don’t get slammed into your face.

@CookingWithGas

I wonder if they have ever done an airbag test of a dummy with glasses and a lit cigarette hanging out of its mouth.

I’m sure they don’t test for it, but I’ve always wondered about secondary injuries. That is, injuries that are caused by things other than your body hitting part of the car. Burns from a dropped cigarette starting a fire, a pin in your mouth getting jammed into your head, choking on something you were eating. Even things that might not happen in stripped down cars used for those crashes. If they take everything unnecessary out, they’ll never notice that, say, in a head on crash the radio comes loose and hits the person the back seat.

My kids are 21 and 23 and when they took driver’s ed the suggestion was 8 and 4, for the same reason. I think it’s a terrible idea to modify your driving technique to something suboptimal for 100% of your driving to mitigate the risk of an event that has a very small chance of occurring. I have always used 9 and 3 just because I think that’s most effective for driving.

It might be suboptimal for you, but that doesn’t mean it is for everything, especially if it’s the only way you’ve ever done it.

[Hermitian]

@Joey_P

I’d be surprised if you could obstruct the airbag with your hands even if you tried. My understanding was that you don’t want them near the airbag so they don’t get slammed into your face.

Yes, you cannot obstruct the airbag with your hands.

That airbag is coming through like a train. Choo-Choo! It will ever-so-not-gently push your hands aside or push them toward you.

[WildaBeast]

@Broomstick

But yes, it’s a problem that the results from airbags may be, shall we say, less than optimal or satisfactory when occupants of a vehicle are “out of position”. Yet none of us sit rigidly in the seats at all times.

I don’t have a cite, but I have heard that one of the reasons most if not all modern vehicles has a giant console between the front seats (And thus why you never have bench seats up front anymore, even in pickups) is to force you to sit in the proper position so the air bags can work as designed.

[Tired_and_Cranky]

@Joey_P

I’m sure they don’t test for it, but I’ve always wondered about secondary injuries. That is, injuries that are caused by things other than your body hitting part of the car. Burns from a dropped cigarette starting a fire, a pin in your mouth getting jammed into your head, choking on something you were eating. Even things that might not happen in stripped down cars used for those crashes. If they take everything unnecessary out, they’ll never notice that, say, in a head on crash the radio comes loose and hits the person the back seat.

Cite for the proposition that cars are “stripped down” for crash tests? So far as I know, they are complete.

@WildaBeast

I don’t have a cite, but I have heard that one of the reasons most if not all modern vehicles has a giant console between the front seats (And thus why you never have bench seats up front anymore, even in pickups) is to force you to sit in the proper position so the air bags can work as designed.

That’s interesting. If you’d asked me why bench seats went away, I would guess that they were just unpopular. If you told me it was a safety-related reason, I’d have guessed it was because it was hard to design an airbag that worked well for a center passenger.

[EdelweissPirate]

@CookingWithGas

My kids are 21 and 23 and when they took driver’s ed the suggestion was 8 and 4, for the same reason. I think it’s a terrible idea to modify your driving technique to something suboptimal for 100% of your driving to mitigate the risk of an event that has a very small chance of occurring. I have always used 9 and 3 just because I think that’s most effective for driving.

“The suggestion” comes from whom, exactly? The driver’s ed instructor? Where did the instructor get that info? Why give that claim any credence at all?

I don’t see a single cite supporting this claim in-thread; if I’ve missed it or if someone has a yet-unposted cite, I’m all ears.

This “10-and-2/9-and-3/8-and-4” debate is moot because none of those hand positions poses a greater risk than the others, at least as far as I can tell.

Driving with one hand at 12:00 seems like a bad idea, but I’d love to hear someone articulate why one of the hands-at-X:00 is the bane of thumbs everywhere.

[Patch]

@Tired_and_Cranky

That’s interesting. If you’d asked me why bench seats went away, I would guess that they were just unpopular. If you told me it was a safety-related reason, I’d have guessed it was because it was hard to design an airbag that worked well for a center passenger.

I would think the difficulty in getting an anchor point for a shoulder belt would be more of an issue.

[carrps]

@Patch

Regarding air bags and kids, I know that some modern cars have weight sensors in the seats, and use a weight range as part of the calculation to determine whether or not to deploy a bag. If it’s low, it will assume a child is sitting in the seat and may not deploy an airbag, depending on the severity of the collision.

It must be a fairly small weight because my 17 pound dog would trigger the “Fasten Seat belt” warning light when I didn’t fasten his harness into the seat belt.

[jz78817]

@Joey_P

Even things that might not happen in stripped down cars used for those crashes. If they take everything unnecessary out, they’ll never notice that, say, in a head on crash the radio comes loose and hits the person the back seat.

This is absolute, 100% nonsense. the vehicles used for crash testing are complete and in running order. things like head impact against dash hardware (e.g. radio knobs) is accounted for in the design, and if the radio’s going to break free in a crash they damn sure want to know about it*. If they did something so dumb as to remove things like radios for the test, then find out in the field they’re breaking free, that is now a very expensive safety recall. the only non-real-world change they make is to fill the fuel system with Stoddard solvent instead of gasoline to minimize the chance of leaking fuel igniting during or after the test.

[ftg]

@WildaBeast

I don’t have a cite, but I have heard that one of the reasons most if not all modern vehicles has a giant console between the front seats (And thus why you never have bench seats up front anymore, even in pickups) is to force you to sit in the proper position so the air bags can work as designed.

Some pickups and a few SUVs still have a bench seat as an option.

[jz78817]

@Tired_and_Cranky

That’s interesting. If you’d asked me why bench seats went away, I would guess that they were just unpopular. If you told me it was a safety-related reason, I’d have guessed it was because it was hard to design an airbag that worked well for a center passenger.

you can still get a front bench seat in pickups, usually on the lower trim levels. The shoulder belt is integrated into the seat back.

[Joey_P]

@jz78817

This is absolute, 100% nonsense. the vehicles used for crash testing are complete and in running order. things like head impact against dash hardware (e.g. radio knobs) is accounted for in the design, and if the radio’s going to break free in a crash they damn sure want to know about it*. If they did something so dumb as to remove things like radios for the test, then find out in the field they’re breaking free, that is now a very expensive safety recall. the only non-real-world change they make is to fill the fuel system with Stoddard solvent instead of gasoline to minimize the chance of leaking fuel igniting during or after the test.

Take a breath man, I didn’t know.

[Joey_P]

ETA, in addition to removing the fuel, they also remove the oil, transmission fluid, power steering fluid and coolant, the brake lines are cut (and controlled from their computers), the battery is removed, the passenger side door panel is removed, the hubcaps/wheel covers are removed, several holes are drilled through the roof, part of the headliner is cut away and two (probably not structural, but still there) rails are mounted from side to side in the trunk to which they attach all their equipment. I’m sure there’s a handful of other mods that I missed.

Yes, the car is pretty close to stock, I just always assumed it was stripped down, but they do a whole lot more than just replace the gas with a different liquid.

[Dinsdale]

@jz78817

in a way they do, as federal/NHTSA standards require airbag systems to be able to protect unbelted occupants. EU and countries who follow EU regulations don’t.

This has always struck me as problematic. Requiring that the bags deploy in a manner to retrain an unbelted adult male. Causing danger and inconvenience to the many (seriously - HOW old is a kid now supposed to be in the back seat?) because in this day and age some idiots still don’t use seat belts? :smack: Hell, if only we could identify those morons, we could install ejector seats for them!