16 ms·

Minority view: I dislike airbags. If it were legal - which it is not where I live - I would have them out of my car today. The rest of you are welcome to the d

Minority view: I dislike airbags. If it were legal - which it is not where I live - I would have them out of my car today. The rest of you are welcome to the damned things and the undoubtedly enhanced security they provide. Me, I shall never be thoroughly comfortable with a giant armed boxing glove pointed at my head. [Edit: typo]

yellowapple 9y ago
I agree, to an extent. In some crash scenarios, an airbag is useful. In others, it's actually more harmful than good. I reckon what's more useful than an airbag in all situations, though, is a good restraint system.
- nradov 9y ago
  That's why airbag control systems are programmed to only activate in crash scenarios where they do more good than harm. It's not as if all 10 airbags will instantly inflate in every possible crash.
- manigandham 9y ago
  > I reckon... Good thing we have solid engineering and scientific studies proving the safety then.
  - yellowapple 9y ago
    And do any of those studies contradict what I wrote? I reckon not, though I'd be happy to stand corrected and be reassured that the airbag sitting in front of me when I'm driving will always be perfectly safe to use/deploy. An airbag is a supplementary restraint system. It does not replace or take precedence over the primary restraint system (a.k.a. the seat belt). That's what I meant when I reckoned it to be less critical; the airbag does you little good (and in fact is a heck of a lot more dangerous) if you're not wearing a seat belt. Now, if this truck didn't even have seatbelts, then I'd be a lot more worried.
  - Neliquat 9y ago
    Way to be bigoted against a regional expression.
bbarn 9y ago
I agree. They also are the reason most cars now involved in an collision where one goes off are totaled. We're a lot safer, with respect to potential fatality level crashes, but minor collisions that used to be a few hundred bucks at the body shop are now vehicle ending affairs.
- flamedoge 9y ago
  why does it need to be totaled?
  - otterley 9y ago
    "Totaled" is just a term of art in the insurance industry. It means that the cost to restore the vehicle is greater than its as-repaired street value. It doesn't mean that the vehicle has to be destroyed; it just means the insurer will only give you the fair market value of the vehicle as though you sold it used immediately before the accident, instead of paying for it to be repaired. The problem, though, is that when an insurance company does that, it colors the title of the vehicle (e.g. "salvage title"), which makes it harder to sell and reduces its resale value.
    - ssambros 9y ago
      But doesn't the vehicle become the property of the insurance company after the payout?
      - ams6110 9y ago
        No, you generally can buy it back for the scrap value.
        macintux 9y ago
        But that means the answer to the question as posed is "yes".
      - mcguire 9y ago
javiramos 9y ago
My family had a car that was once very lightly rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light. No major marks or scuffing on the back bumper so my mom just drove away. Three months later, while driving on the highway, she drove into a pot hole that triggered the airbags. The airbags exploded (yes they explode) completely unexpectedly while driving at 70 mph. Thankfully she was not hurt but the experience definitely shook her. Apparently the airbags' trigger had been triggered halfway when the car had been rear-ended.
- j_s 9y ago
  Is there any way this can be checked as a part of routine maintenance at a mechanic? It sounds like it should be a standard part of the various state inspections.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    Most independent shops won't touch airbags. Too much liability. Generally only dealer will service them.
- olyjohn 9y ago
  I just have to ask, how do you know that the two incidents are related? The airbags may have deployed when she hit that pothole regardless of the rear-ender. Especially considering that a rear-ender would not trigger an airbag deployment, because that force is in the opposite direction of what an airbag is designed to protect you from.
mywittyname 9y ago
Really? Seat belts without airbags are dangerous. At best you risk smashing your face on something hard, at worst, you're looking at orthopedic decapitation in relatively minor accidents.
- justadeveloper2 9y ago
  I drove cars without airbags for most of my life. I even still have a car without airbags. Whether it's a good idea or not is debatable, but your statement that it's dangerous doesn't resonate with me. Airbags are a false sense of security and may or may not help you and were originally devised as a way to help drivers who don't use their seat belts. Airbags certainly do run the cost and complexity of cars way up, however. In the past, airbags have injured drivers and can go off unexpectedly (and even killed people when doing so).
  - allannienhuis 9y ago
    survivorship bias. Yes, airbags can have faults that can cause injury. But having them is still safer than not having them. Just because you survived in a car without airbags and some other individual (even many) got injured or killed by an airbag is not evidence that people in general are safer without airbags. You need to assess risk/benefit based on a statistically valid sample size. The statistics are pretty easily google-able so I'll only bother linking one article here: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5410761/ns/us_news/t/around-saved-air-bags-last-years/#.WXtdcH4rJhE http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5410761/ns/us_news/t/around-saved-... That's not to say we shouldn't work on safer airbags, especially for children, or hold manufacturers accountable for faults/failures; of course we should. But saying cars are somehow safer without airbags flies in the face of the available evidence. [edit] I realize you didn't explicitly say that airbags are not safe ('good idea or not is debatable', 'may or may not'), but you strongly imply that with 'Airbags are a false sense of security'.
    - gehwartzen 9y ago
      "To get the rule, which was opposed by the auto industry because it would add cost to vehicles, Dole promised it would be rescinded if states that accounted for two-thirds of the population passed laws requiring seat belt use." First time I had ever heard of the last part of that quote. A quick check shows 30 states have primary seatbelt laws. As these include all the big states (NY, CA, TX, FL,...) I would have to think we are at 2/3 of the population.
manigandham 9y ago
Do you realize that it's your face that crashes into the airbag? It doesn't launch into you. Also your car's engine is a series of constant explosions connected to a giant tank of gas.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  The airbag significantly reduced the distance between your face and anything else. In all but the most serious crashes your face will not hit anything if the seat-belt fits well. I'd rather have a sore neck from driving into a wall at 35mph than have a concussion from bouncing my face off of a bag full of high pressure gas. Side curtain airbags are a much more useful technology than frontal ones. Edit: Fire needs three things, fuel, oxygen and ignition. The atmosphere has oxygen. A gasoline vehicle keeps the fuel and ignition relatively far from each other. A battery contains both fuel and a source of ignition in close proximity. A punctured gas tank will not cause a fire every time. A punctured battery pack will cause a fire basically every time. In many cases a rusted out or leaking fuel system is noticed well before it starts a fire. There isn't much opportunity to notice a high-amperage short before it's a problem. Putting out a fire is even harder on electric vehicles. You can't throw foam and water on an internal short. There are many advantages of electric vehicles. Fire safety is not one of them.
  - manigandham 9y ago
    > In all but the most serious crashes your face will not hit anything if the seat-belt fits well. Great, then there's nothing to worry about... but if it is a serious crash, you'll wish you had an airbag to bounce off of rather than a hard steering column, dashboard and windshield.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      Most people will never be in an airbag deploying crash in their lives. Of the minority that will very few will be in the kind of crash where a (frontal) airbag is what prevents them from serious harm. If OEMs would just be less trigger happy with frontal airbag deployment then I'd be satisfied but the problem with that is that then you get the Concerned Mothers Association(TM) complaining about OEMs not doing everything they can to "save lives" and publicizing a few edge cases.
mikeash 9y ago
You seem to acknowledge that they increase safety, so why would you remove them? Are you that willing to let your emotions overpower your logic?
- interfixus 9y ago
  Actually, I said security, not safety. They are not quite the same. But yes, I certainly do not always discount emotive decisions. None of us do. I always drive with a certain slight feeling of unease because of that explosively triggerable thing in front of me. I'd rather not. In no way do I wish to stop anybody else from having these devices in their vehicles - I just wish I weren't forced into having them myself. For the record, I don't like the forced use of seatbelts either, even though personally, I wouldn't dream of ever driving one meter without them.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    What's the difference between security and safety here? I assumed that was a typo/thinko because "security" in the context of cars would mean, to me, things like alarms and other anti-theft devices. I just can't understand preferring an actual increased risk of death to a known-irrational feeling of unease.

yellowapple 9y ago

I agree, to an extent. In some crash scenarios, an airbag is useful. In others, it's actually more harmful than good. I reckon what's more useful than an airbag in all situations, though, is a good restraint system.

nradov 9y ago
That's why airbag control systems are programmed to only activate in crash scenarios where they do more good than harm. It's not as if all 10 airbags will instantly inflate in every possible crash.
manigandham 9y ago
> I reckon... Good thing we have solid engineering and scientific studies proving the safety then.
- yellowapple 9y ago
  And do any of those studies contradict what I wrote? I reckon not, though I'd be happy to stand corrected and be reassured that the airbag sitting in front of me when I'm driving will always be perfectly safe to use/deploy. An airbag is a supplementary restraint system. It does not replace or take precedence over the primary restraint system (a.k.a. the seat belt). That's what I meant when I reckoned it to be less critical; the airbag does you little good (and in fact is a heck of a lot more dangerous) if you're not wearing a seat belt. Now, if this truck didn't even have seatbelts, then I'd be a lot more worried.
- Neliquat 9y ago
  Way to be bigoted against a regional expression.

bbarn 9y ago

I agree. They also are the reason most cars now involved in an collision where one goes off are totaled. We're a lot safer, with respect to potential fatality level crashes, but minor collisions that used to be a few hundred bucks at the body shop are now vehicle ending affairs.

flamedoge 9y ago
why does it need to be totaled?
- otterley 9y ago
  "Totaled" is just a term of art in the insurance industry. It means that the cost to restore the vehicle is greater than its as-repaired street value. It doesn't mean that the vehicle has to be destroyed; it just means the insurer will only give you the fair market value of the vehicle as though you sold it used immediately before the accident, instead of paying for it to be repaired. The problem, though, is that when an insurance company does that, it colors the title of the vehicle (e.g. "salvage title"), which makes it harder to sell and reduces its resale value.
  - ssambros 9y ago
    But doesn't the vehicle become the property of the insurance company after the payout?
    - ams6110 9y ago
      No, you generally can buy it back for the scrap value.
      - macintux 9y ago
        But that means the answer to the question as posed is "yes".
    - mcguire 9y ago

javiramos 9y ago

My family had a car that was once very lightly rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light. No major marks or scuffing on the back bumper so my mom just drove away. Three months later, while driving on the highway, she drove into a pot hole that triggered the airbags. The airbags exploded (yes they explode) completely unexpectedly while driving at 70 mph. Thankfully she was not hurt but the experience definitely shook her. Apparently the airbags' trigger had been triggered halfway when the car had been rear-ended.

j_s 9y ago
Is there any way this can be checked as a part of routine maintenance at a mechanic? It sounds like it should be a standard part of the various state inspections.
- ams6110 9y ago
  Most independent shops won't touch airbags. Too much liability. Generally only dealer will service them.
olyjohn 9y ago
I just have to ask, how do you know that the two incidents are related? The airbags may have deployed when she hit that pothole regardless of the rear-ender. Especially considering that a rear-ender would not trigger an airbag deployment, because that force is in the opposite direction of what an airbag is designed to protect you from.

mywittyname 9y ago

Really? Seat belts without airbags are dangerous. At best you risk smashing your face on something hard, at worst, you're looking at orthopedic decapitation in relatively minor accidents.

justadeveloper2 9y ago
I drove cars without airbags for most of my life. I even still have a car without airbags. Whether it's a good idea or not is debatable, but your statement that it's dangerous doesn't resonate with me. Airbags are a false sense of security and may or may not help you and were originally devised as a way to help drivers who don't use their seat belts. Airbags certainly do run the cost and complexity of cars way up, however. In the past, airbags have injured drivers and can go off unexpectedly (and even killed people when doing so).
- allannienhuis 9y ago
  survivorship bias. Yes, airbags can have faults that can cause injury. But having them is still safer than not having them. Just because you survived in a car without airbags and some other individual (even many) got injured or killed by an airbag is not evidence that people in general are safer without airbags. You need to assess risk/benefit based on a statistically valid sample size. The statistics are pretty easily google-able so I'll only bother linking one article here: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5410761/ns/us_news/t/around-saved-air-bags-last-years/#.WXtdcH4rJhE http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5410761/ns/us_news/t/around-saved-... That's not to say we shouldn't work on safer airbags, especially for children, or hold manufacturers accountable for faults/failures; of course we should. But saying cars are somehow safer without airbags flies in the face of the available evidence. [edit] I realize you didn't explicitly say that airbags are not safe ('good idea or not is debatable', 'may or may not'), but you strongly imply that with 'Airbags are a false sense of security'.
  - gehwartzen 9y ago
    "To get the rule, which was opposed by the auto industry because it would add cost to vehicles, Dole promised it would be rescinded if states that accounted for two-thirds of the population passed laws requiring seat belt use." First time I had ever heard of the last part of that quote. A quick check shows 30 states have primary seatbelt laws. As these include all the big states (NY, CA, TX, FL,...) I would have to think we are at 2/3 of the population.

manigandham 9y ago

Do you realize that it's your face that crashes into the airbag? It doesn't launch into you. Also your car's engine is a series of constant explosions connected to a giant tank of gas.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
The airbag significantly reduced the distance between your face and anything else. In all but the most serious crashes your face will not hit anything if the seat-belt fits well. I'd rather have a sore neck from driving into a wall at 35mph than have a concussion from bouncing my face off of a bag full of high pressure gas. Side curtain airbags are a much more useful technology than frontal ones. Edit: Fire needs three things, fuel, oxygen and ignition. The atmosphere has oxygen. A gasoline vehicle keeps the fuel and ignition relatively far from each other. A battery contains both fuel and a source of ignition in close proximity. A punctured gas tank will not cause a fire every time. A punctured battery pack will cause a fire basically every time. In many cases a rusted out or leaking fuel system is noticed well before it starts a fire. There isn't much opportunity to notice a high-amperage short before it's a problem. Putting out a fire is even harder on electric vehicles. You can't throw foam and water on an internal short. There are many advantages of electric vehicles. Fire safety is not one of them.
- manigandham 9y ago
  > In all but the most serious crashes your face will not hit anything if the seat-belt fits well. Great, then there's nothing to worry about... but if it is a serious crash, you'll wish you had an airbag to bounce off of rather than a hard steering column, dashboard and windshield.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    Most people will never be in an airbag deploying crash in their lives. Of the minority that will very few will be in the kind of crash where a (frontal) airbag is what prevents them from serious harm. If OEMs would just be less trigger happy with frontal airbag deployment then I'd be satisfied but the problem with that is that then you get the Concerned Mothers Association(TM) complaining about OEMs not doing everything they can to "save lives" and publicizing a few edge cases.

mikeash 9y ago

You seem to acknowledge that they increase safety, so why would you remove them? Are you that willing to let your emotions overpower your logic?

interfixus 9y ago
Actually, I said security, not safety. They are not quite the same. But yes, I certainly do not always discount emotive decisions. None of us do. I always drive with a certain slight feeling of unease because of that explosively triggerable thing in front of me. I'd rather not. In no way do I wish to stop anybody else from having these devices in their vehicles - I just wish I weren't forced into having them myself. For the record, I don't like the forced use of seatbelts either, even though personally, I wouldn't dream of ever driving one meter without them.
- mikeash 9y ago
  What's the difference between security and safety here? I assumed that was a typo/thinko because "security" in the context of cars would mean, to me, things like alarms and other anti-theft devices. I just can't understand preferring an actual increased risk of death to a known-irrational feeling of unease.