3 ms·
I think you may have gotten that wrong. Airbags are worse if the seatbelt is not worn. The timing for it firing takes into account that a seatbelt restrains the
by climb_stealth 4y ago
I think you may have gotten that wrong. Airbags are worse if the seatbelt is not worn. The timing for it firing takes into account that a seatbelt restrains the forward movement of the person. No seatbelt means moving forward quicker which means getting the full brunt of the airbag. Best case whiplash, otherwise a broken neck or similar.
At least that is what I have learned and which sounds reasonable.
- bdsa 4y agoI don't think your point and their point are mutually exclusive: - no seatbelt, you want the airbag to catch you (better than no airbag) - with a seatbelt, ideally the airbag doesn't (need to?) go off, but if it is necessary you'll be glad of it
- iggldiggl 4y agoI dimly seem to remember that there might be differing strategies in place in some parts of the world (maybe something like US vs. Europe?): In some places seatbelts aren't assumed in determining the airbag timings, whereas elsewhere the timing and triggering level are optimised based on the assumption that seatbelts are being used.