Why are people so polarized on airbag safety?

[fleabag]

I mean it is so frustrating to have a conversation with anyone when it comes to car safety, you either have a person who is a staunch opponent of airbags or staunch supporter of airbags, never in between. Some guys I talk to, all they can talk about is how airbags improperly deploy and others can only talk about how many fucking airbags a car has, like as if having 90 airbags is going to make you any safer driving that Smartfortwo into a speeding semi-truck.. My dad is a perfect example of the staunch supporter of airbags, I try to get him to understand that a car can get a perfect 5 star rating without airbags and that having 6 airbags is more of a luxury than a necessity and he completely blows up. Has anyone ever had to try and convince someone not to be so polarized about an issue and to be more middle ground? I want him to understand that if you're going to design a safe car, you need to work on everything else first and then for the final touch add an airbag, but that even without that airbag, the car can still be safe. What's most annoying is that airbags are being used by marketing to tout safety just like hybrids are being used to market fuel efficiency..

Airbags are to safety as hybrids are to fuel efficiency...

This well has run dry. You're all going to have to get your jollies somewhere else.

Apparently this got unlocked in the forum upgrade. Re-locking.

Zenmervolt - AnandTech Garage Moderator

 

[Jumpem]

You're an idiot.

 

[daw123]

I would rather have the airbag(s) in a crash than not have it / them. Also, most cars nowadays are fitted with airbags as standard.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: daw123
I would rather have the airbag(s) in a crash than not have it / them. Also, most cars nowadays are fitted with airbags as standard.

ALL cars have airbags as standard, due to the FMVSS rules, and soon VSC, ABS etc. will too be mandatory.

Originally posted by: daw123
I would rather have the airbag(s) in a crash than not have it / them. Also, most cars nowadays are fitted with airbags as standard.

Would you rather crash in a 1 star rated car with airbags or a 5 star rated car without airbags?

 

[sandorski]

Really? Back when Seatbelts became mandatory, there was a divide between people about them, Compliers vs Freedumbites, but at least the Naysayers of that time had something to argue. Arguing against Airbags, I suppose, could have something to do about added Cost, but given the way People oppose all sorts of changes in this Age, I suspect there's a lot of Ludditism going on.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: daw123
I would rather have the airbag(s) in a crash than not have it / them. Also, most cars nowadays are fitted with airbags as standard.

ALL cars have airbags as standard, due to the FMVSS rules, and soon VSC, ABS etc. will too be mandatory.

Originally posted by: daw123
I would rather have the airbag(s) in a crash than not have it / them. Also, most cars nowadays are fitted with airbags as standard.

Would you rather crash in a 1 star rated car with airbags or a 5 star rated car without airbags?

I'd rather not Crash a 3 star rated car.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: daw123
I would rather have the airbag(s) in a crash than not have it / them. Also, most cars nowadays are fitted with airbags as standard.

ALL cars have airbags as standard, due to the FMVSS rules, and soon VSC, ABS etc. will too be mandatory.

Originally posted by: daw123
I would rather have the airbag(s) in a crash than not have it / them. Also, most cars nowadays are fitted with airbags as standard.

Would you rather crash in a 1 star rated car with airbags or a 5 star rated car without airbags?

Your argument is stupid, because all cars have airbags, as you mentioned above.

So you CAN'T crash a car without airbags, unless it's an old car. And I'll take a newer car if that's the choice.

Personally, I'll take a 4 or 5 star car WITH airbags. You're much safer with them than without them.

 

[daw123]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: daw123
I would rather have the airbag(s) in a crash than not have it / them. Also, most cars nowadays are fitted with airbags as standard.

ALL cars have airbags as standard, due to the FMVSS rules, and soon VSC, ABS etc. will too be mandatory.

I live in the UK, not the US. Airbags are not mandatory in the UK.

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: daw123
I would rather have the airbag(s) in a crash than not have it / them. Also, most cars nowadays are fitted with airbags as standard.

Would you rather crash in a 1 star rated car with airbags or a 5 star rated car without airbags?

Okay, hypothetical scenario ignoring star ratings; if car A and car B are identical except for car A, which has airbags, which car would you choose to drive?

It also depends on how the car is rated (I admit that I don't know that much about it); if it is a contrived series of tests, which don't represent all types of crash, then the rating is meaningless. For example, if the car is tested with a head on collision at 30mph, then the rating counts for shit when your car gets hit side on at 50mph. Or involved in an offset front end collision at 40mph or rear-ended at 70mph.

Edit: I suppose it depends on what you're in, what you hit (or what hits you), your speed and speed of the thing that you hit / hits you, road conditions and many other factors, which cannot be all encompassed by a rating system.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Is it even possible to have 5 star crash rating without airbags?
I doubt it since airbags are mandatory now IIRC.

The airbag in the wheel I'm fine with. I don't really feel like slamming my forehead into the steering wheel. However, I think it is crazy that we have airbags on every pillar of the cars now it seems. How long until you get in a fender bender and your whole car gets engulfed in a pile of airbags?

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: daw123
I would rather have the airbag(s) in a crash than not have it / them. Also, most cars nowadays are fitted with airbags as standard.

ALL cars have airbags as standard, due to the FMVSS rules, and soon VSC, ABS etc. will too be mandatory.

Originally posted by: daw123
I would rather have the airbag(s) in a crash than not have it / them. Also, most cars nowadays are fitted with airbags as standard.

Would you rather crash in a 1 star rated car with airbags or a 5 star rated car without airbags?

Your argument is stupid, because all cars have airbags, as you mentioned above.

So you CAN'T crash a car without airbags, unless it's an old car. And I'll take a newer car if that's the choice.

Personally, I'll take a 4 or 5 star car WITH airbags. You're much safer with them than without them.

No no no, you can't do that.. Yes I'm talking about a newer vs. an older car. I'm going to ask it again. Would you take a car with a 1 star rating but with airbags or a 5 star rated car but without airbags. The point I'm trying to make is that airbags aren't the end all be all to safety; they can help but they're the finishing touch, not the ultimate solution.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: daw123
I would rather have the airbag(s) in a crash than not have it / them. Also, most cars nowadays are fitted with airbags as standard.

ALL cars have airbags as standard, due to the FMVSS rules, and soon VSC, ABS etc. will too be mandatory.

Originally posted by: daw123
I would rather have the airbag(s) in a crash than not have it / them. Also, most cars nowadays are fitted with airbags as standard.

Would you rather crash in a 1 star rated car with airbags or a 5 star rated car without airbags?

Your argument is stupid, because all cars have airbags, as you mentioned above.

So you CAN'T crash a car without airbags, unless it's an old car. And I'll take a newer car if that's the choice.

Personally, I'll take a 4 or 5 star car WITH airbags. You're much safer with them than without them.

No no no, you can't do that.. Yes I'm talking about a newer vs. an older car. I'm going to ask it again. Would you take a car with a 1 star rating but with airbags or a 5 star rated car but without airbags. The point I'm trying to make is that airbags aren't the end all be all to safety; they can help but they're the finishing touch, not the ultimate solution.

Agree that airbags aren't the only thing you need, but they are more than just a "finishing touch".

To answer the question, I wouldn't be caught dead in any car that was a 1-star, airbags or not, because it's probably a piece of crap. If a manufacturer can't build a car any better than that, they won't be getting any business from me.

So if the older, higher-rated car is one is great condition, l'd likely be driving that rather than some pile of crap newer car with a 1-star rating. But the airbags wouldn't be the deciding factor.

For example, a 1990 Hyundai Excel has a 4-star driver and a 5-star passenger rating. I couldn't find a newer car that was a 1-star, or even a 2-star. Didn't check trucks, SUV's, etc.

I can guarantee you I'd rather be in a current car with a 3-star rating than that old Hyundai with a 4-5 star rating and no airbags. Plus, the older cars weren't even rated in side impacts and all the different ways they are tested now. At least they didn't show it on the gov't website.

 

[Strk]

A car can't receive top crash scores without side airbags. Maybe it can on a frontal crash test, but not on a side-impact test.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Agree that airbags aren't the only thing you need, but they are more than just a "finishing touch".

To answer the question, I wouldn't be caught dead in any car that was a 1-star, airbags or not, because it's probably a piece of crap. If a manufacturer can't build a car any better than that, they won't be getting any business from me.

So if the older, higher-rated car is one is great condition, l'd likely be driving that rather than some pile of crap newer car with a 1-star rating. But the airbags wouldn't be the deciding factor.

For example, a 1990 Hyundai Excel has a 4-star driver and a 5-star passenger rating. I couldn't find a newer car that was a 1-star, or even a 2-star. Didn't check trucks, SUV's, etc.

I can guarantee you I'd rather be in a current car with a 3-star rating than that old Hyundai with a 4-5 star rating and no airbags. Plus, the older cars weren't even rated in side impacts and all the different ways they are tested now. At least they didn't show it on the gov't website.

Here is the thing, with side airbags aside, are you sure you would rather be in a current car that was 3 star rated and has airbags than a 5 star or 4 star rated car w/o airbags?? (Please, don't add other factors like "but what if..". Because I have to tell you, a three star car from 1977 is the same as a 3 star car from 2008; that's right, the NHTSA has NOT changed their rating system all this time which makes comparisons that much more simple and clear cut. A 1984 Toyota Corolla is much safer than a 1990 Toyota Corolla and a 1996 Toyota Corolla, if you can believe that! Just look at the ratings below:

Legend:
Star, HIC, Chest: Driver | Passenger, D | P, D | P
Femur load
Driver: R-Leg | L-Leg
Passenger: R-Leg | L-Leg


1984 2 door Corolla
5 Star | 4 Star, HIC 432 | 602, Chest 37 | 47
Femur Load (not factored into star test but still important IMO!):
Driver: 450 | 1100
Passenger: 300 | 580

1990 Corolla
3 Star | 2 Star, HIC 1030 | 1141 , Chest 47 | 53,
Femur Load
Driver: 1341 | 1549
Passenger: 455 | 447

1996 Corolla
4 Star | 4 Star, HIC 384 | 433, Chest 54 | 49,
Femur load
Driver:1246 | 1414
Passenger: 574 | 975

Airbags weren't introduced into the Corollas until a Driver side in 1993 and D+P in 1994 and for the sake of simplicity, I choose the mature 1996 model opposed to the 1993 model.

Originally posted by: Strk
A car can't receive top crash scores without side airbags. Maybe it can on a frontal crash test, but not on a side-impact test.

Eh, there are two problems with side impacts, similar to front impacts, but far more problematic.
1. If you're tall, there is a good chance the airbag won't protect you at all!
2. In a car without side airbags, you'll do much better you're tall than if you're short because you hit the soft interior (it does vary) than if you're short where you bust through the glass and could end up hitting the hood of the other car.

I do know there are cars with 3 stars in side impact w/o airbags and that's quite comparable to some that DO have those airbags.

The key really to a good crash rating w/o airbags is a car with a large crumple zone relative to its size. This is why SUVs perform so poorly in crash tests compared to something like an S2000 or a Supra which would explain why an '84 corolla would do better than an '88/'92 corolla with the former being RWD with the latter being FWD.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: fleabag
Would you rather crash in a 1 star rated car with airbags or a 5 star rated car without airbags?

ALL cars have airbags as standard, due to the FMVSS rules, and soon VSC, ABS etc. will too be mandatory.

Since it isn't an option why worry about it :roll:

The Euro NCAP tests have changed over the years, so I would rather go for a higher modern rating.

Test - Renault Espace MPV (5 star rating with air bags) vs Land Rover Discovery 4x4 (4 star without airbags). Who wins?*.

* Bear in mind this is not a fair test - the MPV weighs 1890 kg (~4150 lb) and the 4x4 weighs 2637 kg (~5800 lb).

Place your bets!

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb

Originally posted by: fleabag
Would you rather crash in a 1 star rated car with airbags or a 5 star rated car without airbags?

ALL cars have airbags as standard, due to the FMVSS rules, and soon VSC, ABS etc. will too be mandatory.

Since it isn't an option why worry about it :roll:

The Euro NCAP tests have changed over the years, so I would rather go for a higher modern rating.

Test - Renault Espace MPV (5 star rating with air bags) vs Land Rover Discovery 4x4 (4 star without airbags). Who wins?*.

* Bear in mind this is not a fair test - the MPV weighs 1890 kg (~4150 lb) and the 4x4 weighs 2637 kg (~5800 lb).

Place your bets!

As for the one Star vehicle with airbags....here you go:
http://www.safercar.gov/portal...nVCM1000002fd17898RCRD

And for those in the future that find this thread but the link to be dead, here are the results:

1997 Toyota Tacoma Extended Cab
1 Star | 3 Star, HIC 1411 | 962, Chest 68 | 50
Femur Load (not factored into star test but still important IMO!):
Driver: 1217 | 435
Passenger: 724 | 873

 

[DivideBYZero]

Pointless thread.

 

[Bignate603]

While airbags aren't the only thing that goes into crash safety they can make a decent amount of difference. A crappy car that has airbags just thrown in there for the sake of having airbags won't be that safe. A car where they put some serious effort into getting the most out of the airbags can be made measurably safer than the same car without airbags.

 

[avash]

You can build a car with only so much crumple zones and safety cages (to maintain the passenger compartment integrity) but at the end of the day, your body's deceleration during a crash is slowed down by the seat belt and absorbed by the airbag.

I'd pick a side/curtain airbag setup over the "soft" B-pillar trim any day! The whole point about how a side airbag won't help a tall person is absurd. Most vehicles come with combination side and curtain airbags so height shouldn't be an issue. If you pick a vehicle with the right dimensions, the side airbag will be at the right place. If you drive such that you have to bend your head because it's hitting the roof, that is NOT the correct car for you. Or if you're 7' tall and sit in a convertible such that your head sticks over 6", the reinforced A-pillars and rollover bars won't save you in a roll-over.

This reminds me of a coworker who refuses to wear a seat belt because he once got in to an accident decades ago (and wasn't wearing his seat belt) and claims that he would have died if he had it on. Is he telling the truth ... possibly. Will it benefit him statistically ... probably not? Some minds cannot be changed, so I leave it at that.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb

Originally posted by: fleabag
Would you rather crash in a 1 star rated car with airbags or a 5 star rated car without airbags?

ALL cars have airbags as standard, due to the FMVSS rules, and soon VSC, ABS etc. will too be mandatory.

Since it isn't an option why worry about it :roll:

The Euro NCAP tests have changed over the years, so I would rather go for a higher modern rating.

Test - Renault Espace MPV (5 star rating with air bags) vs Land Rover Discovery 4x4 (4 star without airbags). Who wins?*.

* Bear in mind this is not a fair test - the MPV weighs 1890 kg (~4150 lb) and the 4x4 weighs 2637 kg (~5800 lb).

Place your bets!

As for the one Star vehicle with airbags....here you go:
http://www.safercar.gov/portal...nVCM1000002fd17898RCRD

And for those in the future that find this thread but the link to be dead, here are the results:

1997 Toyota Tacoma Extended Cab
1 Star | 3 Star, HIC 1411 | 962, Chest 68 | 50
Femur Load (not factored into star test but still important IMO!):
Driver: 1217 | 435
Passenger: 724 | 873

The point was if you are interested in safety newer car with higher NCAP > older car, even in an unfair (4x4 vs MPV) test.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

"Why are people so polarized on airbag safety?"

i can see why half of those polarized are so - because airbags make a car safer.

the other half, the same ones that oppose seat belts and ABS, are morons.

 

[Pacfanweb]

I'll say this: Bigger cars are typically safer, so I'll take my 99 Tahoe's 4-star rating over an Accord or Camry that might be rated at 5-stars.

And you hit it, Dangler, probably exactly. Anyone who thinks airbags and seat belts don't make a car safer is just ignorant.

Plus, the NHTSA ratings are not really indicative of a real accident. They only measure how well the occupants are restrained, but fail to account for intrusion into the passenger compartment. I'd say the newer cars with crumple zones are much better than an older one.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: avash
You can build a car with only so much crumple zones and safety cages (to maintain the passenger compartment integrity) but at the end of the day, your body's deceleration during a crash is slowed down by the seat belt and absorbed by the airbag.

I'd pick a side/curtain airbag setup over the "soft" B-pillar trim any day! The whole point about how a side airbag won't help a tall person is absurd. Most vehicles come with combination side and curtain airbags so height shouldn't be an issue. If you pick a vehicle with the right dimensions, the side airbag will be at the right place. If you drive such that you have to bend your head because it's hitting the roof, that is NOT the correct car for you. Or if you're 7' tall and sit in a convertible such that your head sticks over 6", the reinforced A-pillars and rollover bars won't save you in a roll-over.

This reminds me of a coworker who refuses to wear a seat belt because he once got in to an accident decades ago (and wasn't wearing his seat belt) and claims that he would have died if he had it on. Is he telling the truth ... possibly. Will it benefit him statistically ... probably not? Some minds cannot be changed, so I leave it at that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS41W9a4qY8

If you look in that car, the airbag deploys below the handle up on the roof line....THAT is where my head is when I'm sitting.. In case you're not aware, when they do crash tests, they're using 50th percentile males, so the tests are not applicable at ALL for taller and shorter people since they not only sit further/closer to the steering wheel, but they sit taller or shorter as well. They COULD test with 95th percentile males (6'2, 225lbs) or 5th percentile females but they don't have to so they don't. Furthermore, the rear passenger in this car gets the same 3 star rating as a 90s civic that doesn't have the side airbag.

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
I'll say this: Bigger cars are typically safer, so I'll take my 99 Tahoe's 4-star rating over an Accord or Camry that might be rated at 5-stars.

And you hit it, Dangler, probably exactly. Anyone who thinks airbags and seat belts don't make a car safer is just ignorant.

Plus, the NHTSA ratings are not really indicative of a real accident. They only measure how well the occupants are restrained, but fail to account for intrusion into the passenger compartment. I'd say the newer cars with crumple zones are much better than an older one.

Well in a real accident, if you get hit at an angle, the airbag does nothing! If you get into a single vehicle collision, then the vehicle with the 5 star rating would be better.

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
"Why are people so polarized on airbag safety?"

i can see why half of those polarized are so - because airbags make a car safer.

the other half, the same ones that oppose seat belts and ABS, are morons.

ABS doesn't work on snow or gravel... Airbags don't necessarily make a car safer especially if you're in a group that it would be detrimental to, such as very small people.

Also, why does not seeing the necessity for an airbag vs a good crumple zone automatically equate to not wearing a seatbelt?? My biggest problem with this emphasis on airbags is that it's causing us to transition away from good crumple zones and more airbags which doesn't help you if you're in a Yaris that crashes into a Camry. Had the Yaris had the same sized engine bay as the corolla did in the 90s, it probably would have fared a lot better in the offset test with the Camry.


www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv18/CD/Files/18ESV-000500.pdf (Lives saved by seatbelts vs. by airbags)

www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4404.pdf (Tests between large and small cars)

 

[thescreensavers]

No car can be rated 5 stars and not have an air bag.

btw I rather hit an Airbag then hit a Piller in a side crash.


Side Crash Test 1998 Honda Civic 4-DR.
Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI)
Front Occupant 83
Rear Occupant 81
Pelvis Deceleration (G's)
Front Occupant 107
Rear Occupant 131


Side Crash Test 2005 Volvo S60 4-DR
Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI)
Front Occupant 49
Rear Occupant 57
Pelvis Deceleration (G's)
Front Occupant 67
Rear Occupant 73



So um your saying they are the same? pfft yea right. The Volvo has a much better suvivale rate. Also MY head is slamming into a airbag were as in the civic it is not. They dont rate that. I think your Brain is a bit more important then your pelvis.

 

[KentState]

Personally when looking at a car, I find the one with the best government ratings and IIHS ratings in the class I'm looking in.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
No car can be rated 5 stars and not have an air bag.

btw I rather hit an Airbag then hit a Piller in a side crash.


Side Crash Test 1998 Honda Civic 4-DR.
Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI)
Front Occupant 83
Rear Occupant 81
Pelvis Deceleration (G's)
Front Occupant 107
Rear Occupant 131


Side Crash Test 2005 Volvo S60 4-DR
Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI)
Front Occupant 49
Rear Occupant 57
Pelvis Deceleration (G's)
Front Occupant 67
Rear Occupant 73



So um your saying they are the same? pfft yea right. The Volvo has a much better suvivale rate. Also MY head is slamming into a airbag were as in the civic it is not. They dont rate that. I think your Brain is a bit more important then your pelvis.

What are you talking about? Did you even read my posts? I specifically listed an example of a car that was 5 star rated and did NOT have an airbag, and I also listed a vehicle that had 1 star and DID have an airbag. Where do you come up with the idea that the civic side impact test doesn't rate the head but they do in the Volvo? Conjecture? The Geo Metro 1995 was the first subcompact and I think even car that was designed with the 1997 Side impact tests in mind which were something that was planned in advanced. The 1997 Model Year side impact tests are what is used today, just like the frontal crash tests the NHTSA did in the 70s is the basis for scoring of today. Do you even understand the requirements necessary to attain a 5 star crash test rating?