Sawstop--the wrong marketing approach?

Page 5 of 13  


That makes sense. But a fair number of the objections here boiled down to I've never been hurt and I never will get hurt; only careless people have accidents; and exaggerating the negatives, such as you have to ship your saw back if the safety device "fires."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe I missed those responses. The ones I've been reading seem to center around "Don't force us to use someting you can't make work".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One of the most telling things to come out of the recent (post-1997) debate on air bags was the safety mavens unflinching opposition to installing an 'off' switch so people could turn them off if they desired.
They much preferred trying to work around the fact that air bags can kill or injure you to allowing you the choice of not using them.
--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:20:12 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@TAKEOUTmindspring.com

One of the biggest forces fighting that is the automakers...something about liability, lawyers, all that...

Yes, dozens of people a year vs. thousands saved. Or are you one of these people who base your opinions on the exception rather than the rule?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm talking about the response of the 'consumer advocates' such as Consumers Union and government agencies like the NHTSA. You know, the people who supposedly exist as advocates for us or to improve our well-being.
It's the first time I've ever heard CU, Ralph Nader and NHTSA accused of shilling for the automakers.

little positive effect on your safety.

I'm one of those people who prefer to have the choice. These other folks who are supposedly so interested in my well-being are admantly opposed to my having any choice at all. Which is what I find so interesting.
This is especially significant since the risk of injury from airbags goes way up for certain classes of drivers. I'm sure my five-foot-nothing mother-in-law woud love to be able to switch off the airbags in her car. The last time she was in an accident the air bag skinned her face. She spent several days in the hospital solely because of the airbags and the same thing -- or worse -- is probably going to happen to her if she's in another accident where the airbags deploy.
--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:40:06 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@TAKEOUTmindspring.com

Remember, just because you keep repeating a falsehood, that doesn't make it true. The engineers of European cars had airbags in place _long_ before the US required them, and they certainly didn't do it for cost reduction reasons. Apparently those who work with automotive safety systems as part of their job know more about it than, say, you.

OK, so you'd rather go face-first into a dashboard than an airbag? You prefer hitting a steering wheel with your chest, rather than an air-filled pillow? You can still get _serious_ chest trauma wearing a seatbelt, by hitting the steering wheel. Been there, done that, read the bruise on the guy's chest that had "droF" pressed into it.

Some choices are poor ones. A basic understanding of the statistics involved would show that to any rational person.

Yes, up to something like 1:1000 per life saved, instead of 1:5000. Still safer with than without.

Waaah. A bit of bag rash on the face. Beats eating the dashboard.

Right, because obviously the airbag is going to hit her harder than she'll hit the harder parts of the car...sheesh.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hinz wrote:

This assertion is refuted by data...

I don't know the actual ratioes here (and am too lazy to look them up) but it is recommended to not use airbag in front w/ passengers under given weight/height.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And I also did not write it. Please take care with attribution lines, because you're making it look like something I disagree with strongly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:56:19 -0600, Duane Bozarth

Not according to the NHTSA report referenced in another message. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.dcee64704e76eeabbf30811060008a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst <0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a_viewIDtail_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID5200d2a0cbff00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard
The data in another study previously cited shows that for most categories of injury severity, air bags actually increased injury rated. The only categories that wasn't true for was very severe injuries.

--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about. Between their introduction in the 1980s and 1997, the NHTSB reported about 2600 lives saved by air bags. Almost all of those people were otherwise unsecured, which means almost all of them would have also been saved by seat belts.
This is a far cry from your 'thousands' saved every year. Meanwhile, 87 people were killed by air bags in that same period. Studies clearly show that air bags increase the possibility and severity of injury see: http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/pdf/airbags.pdf
Note that below 52 Km/H a woman is more likely to be injured than protected by an air bag.
And more children have been killed by air bags than saved by them: http://www.musc.edu/catalyst/archive/1997/co11-7passenger.htm
(See also the NHTSA report referenced below)

Just because you have a preconception doesn't make it true. Seat belts reduce fatalities among drivers and front-seat passengers by about 45 percent. Air bags add, at most about an additional 9 percent protection. In my book that's 'very little' additional protection. As far as injury reduction is concerned, air bags added 7 percent protection to seat belts, an amount the NHTSA declared not statistically significant. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.dcee64704e76eeabbf30811060008a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst <0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a_viewIDtail_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID5200d2a0cbff00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard

And your source for this statement? I can't find any. The earliest mention I can find for air bags in Europe is in 1992, years after the airbags first appeared on American cars.
As to why the Europeans did it -- Most of them did it because they wanted to be able to sell their cars in the United States, at least orignally.

Of myself, I know very little. But unlike, say, you. I'm willing to go out and to the research to discover if what I do know is accurate.
The people who know automotive safety systems are unanamious that seat belts work better than air bags. You'll notice none of them recommend using air bags alone and all the literature refers to air bags as 'supplemental devices'.

That only happens if you're not wearing a properly adjusted seatbelt. Or did you miss that part of my comment?
I don't know if you're deliberately attempting to set up a straw man here or if you just don't read very carefully.

And air bags increase the risk of injury to drivers and occupants in most categories on the injury scale. See above.
Besides, if your seat belt is properly adjusted you won't hit the steering wheel.

significant risk of medium-level injury for a relatively small degree of protection in the event of a major crash? Especially when I know that if I am a member of certain classes the risk of injury is much higher than for most people?
This is, at worst, not a clear cut decision and I should be able to make it on my own. However the 'consumer advocates' among us were nearly hysterical to prevent me from making a choice.
This is the part I find so interesting, not the relatively mundane statistical details. It is interesting for the light it throws on these people and their thinking. As a philosophical matter it says some pretty ugly things about the way these people think and perhaps what their real motives are. As a practical matter it gives us guidance on how much credence to place on their continuing campaigns for laws to make us 'safer.'
(This is reinforced, btw, by their track record with their arguments and data in this case. For example their wild overestimate of how many lives air bags would save. Their careful blurring of air bags as supplements rather than replacements for seat belts, and so on. However those are matters for another tirade.)

Sorry, you're wrong. The statistics don't support your claims.

You have not the least little idea what the facts are, do you? And apparently you can't even be bothered to find out. So you support your preconceptions with made-up numbers.

That 'bag rash' damn near required skin grafts over most of her face. It has caused corneal tears (severe eye damage) in others.

Since she was wearing a seat belt that wouldn't have happened. Reading comprehension again.

Straw man/reading comprehension again. If you're wearing a seat belt and it is properly adjusted you don't hit the harder parts of the car.
--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
rcook5 resonds:

I've always felt that, as an example, Ralph Nader had some psychological problem that made him want to fix my--and your--life. Back when I was much younger and he was killing the Corvair, a big thing was made by the press that he was sacrificing a lot to do in a car that he felt--wrongly, IMO--was more dangerous than the norm. IIRC, he was drawing only $100 a week in salary, etc. This was in the mid-'60s when such a salary was a living wage, if only barely (minimum wage at the time, I seem to recall, was around $1.25 or $1.50). He also didn't have a wife or girlfriend, no family life, was a workaholic, all seemingly admirable qualities to too many journalists of the time because he was taking on GM...and winning.
I never have been able to determine if the guy was a power freak or had some other head problem, but he has been a bug on the windshield of U.S. life for decades now, obscuring vision and screwing up elections.
I wonder if he has upped his draw from 100 bucks a week.
Charlie Self "It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable." Eric Hoffer
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Did my heart good when he tried to Corvair the Beetle. While attacking GM was OK with a lot of people, attacking the Beetle was sacrilege at that time, and that was pretty much the end of his widespread support. Note his success in the Presidential elections. Barely got on the ballot in a few states.
Funny thing though, he never won anything against GM in the courtroom-his battles were won in the press.
There's gotta be a special place reserved in Hell for him.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21 Dec 2004 10:04:40 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

I'm not sure I'd call lust for power and attention a 'psychological problem', but that's my reading on Nader. He is just as corrupt, just as dishonest and just and self-interested as the worst of the tobacco company executives. The difference is he isn't after money.

A classic case. One of the problems with the American media is that they assume that because someone isn't making money off their position they must be alturistic. This is massively untrue, but in general the media hasn't caught on. (I say this as a former editor and reporter.)
Nader doesn't care about worldly goods any more than a medieval inqusitor.

Yep. His campaigns for president are the epitome of what Ralph Nader is all about.

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
By the time Ralph Nader was killing the Corvair, the design flaws had been addressed. The Corvair was really a decent car. My high school english teacher had one of the sport models. (I think he still has it!) That car really had some get-gone!
Grant
Charlie Self wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 06:02:15 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@TAKEOUTmindspring.com

Based on...what, exactly?

Any particular part of that report, or would you like me to read the whole 4-point type article to guess what you mean?

Well then.

You're saying that because only 9% additional _deaths_ were prevented, that that's only "very little" additional protection? Not everyone injured in a crash is killed, I probably go to 50 injury accidents for each fatality I go to. But, by your logic, those injuries don't count because a death didn't happen? My argument would be that not only are those 9% of people not dead, but _more_ additional protection was provided to people who were injured less severely _and_ didn't die.

Right, 7% (on top of 9% reduction in fatalities) matters to hardly anyone. Except, I suppose, for people in those 7 and 9 percent.

Engineers _OF_ European cars. Didn't say those cars were _in_ europe, but that they are _from_ europe.

Maybe safety was their motivation. Things other than greed do get factored into designs sometimes, y'know.

Yeah, according to you, 9% + 7% is "very little improvement".

I've made that point. In this thread.

My personal experience as an EMT/Firefighter for a dozen years is at odds with that statement. Mister "ford-shaped bruise" was most decidedly wearing his seat belt in that frontal crash. Sometimes the wheel comes _to you_, y'see, so all the restraint in the world isn't gonna stop it from coming up to meet you when the dash rolls in on you.
Have you ever _been to_ a severe car crash?

I see blatantly wrong statements like your "only happens if" above, and point out the obvious problems. There are quite likely more subtle problems with your point of view that I am missing, but they are masked by things like "7+9=insignificant", y'see.

Did you get your 7% better, and 9% better, backwards then?

Wrong. Absolutely and unquestionably wrong.

Because you're making your decision on a flawed assumption.

Those 9% and 7% of people alive and/or less badly injured would probably disagree with your statement.

Just think of how bad it would have been without the pillow of air and fabric, had she hit the wheel.

And again, you haven't been to many crashes, have you. Google for extrication photos and get back to me on what doesn't move to where.

Keep on repeating it, maybe someone will believe you. Why don't you go off to a firefighting group and tell 'em that you'll never get hit by the wheel or dash if you're wearing a seatbelt, and tell us how that goes for you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The evidence cited below, plus a lot of other confirming evidence.

Good grief! You're not even willing to do the research when someone spoon feeds you the references. I guess this is all pretty useless.

Compared to the 45 percent offered by seat belts, yes that's very little additional protection. Plus you have to factor in the increased risk of injury at lower levels of severity.

Not hardly. However the statistics show that you are more likely to suffer lesser degrees of injury if air bags deploy than if they do not deploy.

Untrue, according to the numbers. If you are involved in a crash you are more likely to suffer injury if you have an air bag and it deploys in all but crashes that produce the most severe (Level 6 -- almost certainly non-survivable) injuries.

Well, no. The term 'statisticaly insignifcant' means that it is simply too close to call. Within the margin of error for the sample. It could well be statistical noise. You can't draw any conclusions from it.
However if you break it down the picture becomes even worse.

The 7 percent may not exist at all. That's the point of 'statistically insignificant.' Note also that the 9 percent includes the people in higher risk categories, such as very short people and children. Since I don't fall into those categories, I am at even lower risk.

Okay. But your implication is still incorrect. American manufacturers (GM) started putting air bags in cars in 1985, years before they were formally required. So the Europeans were not ahead of the Americans.

Their primary motivation was more likely the same as the GM's -- They knew air bags were probably coming and they needed to get experience with them. The usual way to do this is to phase it in on high-end cars as an option.
Or are you seriously going to suggest that big auto manufacturers are more alturistic if their headquarters are in other countries? I haven't noticed an upsurge in corporate citizenship since Dailmer bought Chrysler.

Nope. 9 percent for all drivers in fatalities -- traded off for a greater risk of lesser injuries. And a statistically insignificant 'improvement' -- which may or may not be a statistical artifact in injuries in all categories.

Yet you seem to be ignoring it. In this thread.

In fact it was my EMT instructor (IIRC) who first pointed this phenomenon out to me. He stressed the fact that even though belted drivers didn't hit the wheel or the dash, it was important to handle them as if they had suffered internal injuries because a lot of them had.
However I don't propose to match my long-expired Level 1 EMT certificate against your experience. My instructor's point was confirmed by a search of the literature.
While there is a lot on seat belt injuries, I was unable to find a single reference to steering wheel or dashboard injuries to drivers wearing the now-standard 3-point harness.

I don't doubt your story, but again the research indicates that this is extremely rare.
And again, you're more likely to suffer Level 5 or below trauma if your air bag deploys than if you're simply using a seat belt.

Okay, so you're not talking about a crash where the driver is thrown forward into the steering wheel. You're talking about an accident where the entire structure of the car is deformed and the passenger compartment collapses. That wasn't clear from your original statement.
However judging from the literature this is a tiny percentage of accidents. Again, there's nothing I could find on seat belt injuries from contact with the dash or steering wheel.
It also seems to me that an air bag isn't going to do a lot for you in that case. It may prevent the initial violent impact, but you're still going to get crushed as the structure (and the air bag) collapses.
But unlike the hard data, that's just my opinion.

Dozens of them. I was a police reporter. As a court reporter I also sat through the lawsuits that followed, including reconstructions of crashes and crah injuries.

Again, your position isn't supported by the evidence.

If someone can point these problems out to me I'd be very interested. Since you can't even be bothered to read the references and your grasp the concept of 'statistical insignificance' is non-existant, any such problems that might exist are pretty obviously beyond you.

Nope. The 7 percent may well be a statistical artifact. But when you break injuries down by category, you find a higher percentage of injuries for airbag versus belted drives at every category but level 6.

Not according to the evidence. If this happens there's no refererence to it in the literature.
Also, if I understand you, in the cases you're talking about the driver didn't hit the steering wheel, the steering wheel hit the driver.

I'm making my decision based on the facts as I know them, buttessed by the research I have done.

And the people injured by air bags might differ from your opinion.

Since she was belted in, she would not have hit the wheel. That's the point of 3-point restraints and they're very effective.

Wrong.
Google for 'seat belt injuries' 'steering wheel' and 'dashboard' and see what you find.

I keep repeating it because it is true.

Again, you're talking about the dash or wheel hitting the occupants, not vice-versa.
And since it's such an obvious proposition, how about some references to how air bags prevent injuries in such cases? If you're correct, that should be a no-brainer. Except I can't find anything like that. And I have looked.
--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:08:37 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@TAKEOUTmindspring.com

Yeah, because a vague statement like you made could or could not be based on anywhere in that report. I was hoping you could, you know, indicate what page or something.

No response?

Seems to me it takes 45% up to 54%.

You're saying what I've been saying and not what you've been saying. You're right this time, if the airbags deploy, you'll get hurt less.

So, it can save your life in really really bad crashes, it can decrease your serious injuries in merely "really bad" crashes, but it might give you a scrape in a minor injury? The balance seems obviously tilted towards "use 'em".

It's all the data that's available. We're not doing a presidential poll here where the data gathered is a subset of the whole population, we're comparing raw numbers of the actual results. 16% having a dramatically better outcome is significant, I'm sorry if you disagree.

Oh, well, _that_ clears it all up.

You said before short people and children were _harmed_ more than helped. Now you cite (twice) that it's actually a 9% net positive for them. You're contradicting yourself.

Companies like Mercedes and Saab (and, to a lesser extent Volvo) actually give a shit about safety, and make changes to their cars that aren't mandatory. The first two at least, have allowed anyone to use their safety patents, rather than greedily keeping them to themselves.

Yes, I'm seriously suggesting that, for instance, Saab has designed around safety features since their inception. I'm seriously suggesting that Mercedes invented the concept of "crumple zones", and allows everyone to use their technology. I could go on and on with details (more for Saab than Mercedes as that's where my direct knowledge is), but you'd probably choose to disregard each example in turn.

If they live, the scrapes can heal. You're not really suggesting that a bit of pain is comparable to a death, are you?

If this was a subset, I could see this being sampling error. I don't see anything to suggest this is anythign other than the raw statistics.

I have never said airbags should be used by themselves.

Close. It's more like "even if you don't _know if_ they hit the wheel or dash, since you don't want to be sued for someone becoming paralyzed, you handle the c-spine as if it was damaged". In other words, everyone gets a collar, everyone gets boarded. Some states allow EMTs to clear spinal concerns in the field, and happily I am not in one of those states. You apparently misinterpreted the intention of what the EMT instructor told you.

Yes, of course, because why actually talk about real accident scenes when you can post another link. Or not.

Well, I can talk to ford-guy. He's the dad of a friend of mine. Maybe he's got pictures.

You said "never". Now you're improving to "extremely rare".

If you say so. I'll trade the chance of minor trauma for a chance at not dying, thanks all the same.

Yes, for instance.

Didn't need to be. You said, unequivically, that a patient who is belted will not hit the steering wheel or dashboard, ever.

"seat belt injuries from contact with the dash or steering wheel" is a nonsensical phrase. If you mean "belted passengers injured by car structure impingement" or something, well, maybe it's your google technique.

Depends on how close it gets, dunnit? Your body _does_ come off the seat when you're stopping very fast, even with belts which do stretch.

And you haven't seen dashboards roll?

You keep saying that, and yet...

Look. I'm trying to see if your point of view has _any_ merit, and so far all I get is "it's in the article somewhere", "an EMT instructor friend of mine (I think) said", and "you don't understand stats".

...where people get really, really hurt, or not. Yes, I understand. In other words, they do the most good at the most severe crashes. Go figure.

You're backpedaling from your backpedal above.

Yeah, 'cuz that makes _all_ the difference in the world, injury-wise. Sheesh.

I'll take minor injury over "dead" any day.

Good thing it wasn't a more severe crash then, eh?

I'll amend that to "you haven't paid attention to the dynamics at many crashes, have you".

Maybe in your world seat belts don't stretch at impact. If I thought I could change your mind, I'd bother to google for seat belt dynamics in a crash.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A whole lot of stuff -- which is well beyond the point of diminishing returns. Since he won't look at the evidence and doesn't even understand such elementary concepts as statistical insignificance, and since he can't provide any documented support for his position this whole conversation is pretty much useless.
He's had his say and I've had mine. Anyone who's interested in the truth can follow the references I've posted or do their own research.
--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 07:03:39 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@TAKEOUTmindspring.com

You gave me a many-page report as your 'evidence', and will not say what in there you are talking about.

The statistical error -you- are talking about is in a sample which is a subset of all the data. However, the report which you cite seems to _be_ all of the data, not just a sampling. Therefore the 7 and 9 percent are real percents of the total population of data.

You're the one making the statement that airbags do more harm than good, while citing a study showing they reduce deaths by 9% and serious injuries by 7% (or is it the other way around? Whatever). And you say that _I_ don't understand the topic? Sheesh.

I notice you completely evade my questions. One last one. Let's say there is a device which may give you a mild injury where you wouldn't have had any, in a mild crash, but gives you a double-digit better chance of a better outcome in a severe crash. Would you trade a bit of bag-rash for a saved life?
Somehow, I think I know you won't be able to answer that in a meaningful way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.