Sawstop--the wrong marketing approach?

[Tim Douglass]

Well, I'm certainly not going to visit St. Louis, then!

Tim Douglass

[Dave Hinz]

Yes, _and_ you're still top-posting.

[Dave Hinz]

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".

[rcook5]

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

[Dave Hinz]

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?

[rcook5]

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

[rcook5]

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.

Remember, if you use your seat belt (which I do) an air bag has very little positive effect on your safety.

the rule?

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

[Dave Hinz]

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.

the rule?

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.

[Duane Bozarth]

...

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.

[GregP]

I don't like legislated seatbelt use and would prefer to have "off" switches for air bags - kinda help Darwin along - but the choice is *not* betw airbags causing harm vs not using them.

[Dave Hinz]

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.

[J]

Sawstop, airbags... sawstop... airbags.... hmmm.... Am I the first to suggest that tablesaws be fitted with airbags which go off whenever a body part touches the blade? Boom! Your insert sprouts a big puffy bag and pushes your hand out of harms way in milliseconds. Don't forget to wear your face shield!

-j

[tzipple]

And you are still evading anything that looks like an actual response to my post. No surprise that you clip my post as well as a part of the dodge. Sneaky!

[Mike Marlow]

Well... if you're wearing your full face helmet, your leather apron and your hearing protection, you don't need a face shield.

[rcook5]

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: 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:

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.

The engineers of European cars had airbags in place _long_ before

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'.

the rule?

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.

In this case the choice is not at all poor. Why should I trade a 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.)

person.

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

[rcook5]

Not according to the NHTSA report referenced in another message.

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

[Charlie Self]

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

[J. Clarke]

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.

[Dave Hinz]

Based on...what, exactly?

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.

person.

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.

[rcook5]

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