Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:01:16 GMT From: th <someguynospamwhere.se> Subject: Re: Do You Have A Glove Box?
Fred W. wrote: > "Fred W." <Fred.Willsnospamove this to reply to' myrealbox.com> wrote in > message news:4p6dnch0D5d_RBrcRVn-2gnospamphia.com... > >>"Colin Stamp" <colinnospamp.plus.com> wrote in message >>news:qsedo0teqpo20ouiirm3vt43k8vapojvr1nospamcom... >> >>>>A casual Google gives me no sites that say otherwise. Please provide a >>>>link >>>>to any credible site that does. >>> >>>I already have. On this very thread even. >>>http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=cu48o058iilai36cc3oq1mkndnlfvrhnsb%404ax.com >>> >>>or there's this, which mentions legislation. >>>http://www.cars.com/carsapp/kentucky/?srv=parser&act=display&tf=/advice/safety/airbags/airbags_switch.tmpl >>> >>>or how about this. >>>http://www.dotars.gov.au/transreg/str_airbag.htm >>> >>>*One thing I haven't come across, is anything to say that the >>>legislation is still current. >> >>Funny that there are more foreign (non-US based) web sites that make this >>claim about the US situation that there are sites within the US. It does >>seem to cast some doubt about the credidability of such claims. >> >>I think more digging is in order. Perhaps as you say, this was the >>intention at one time, but I'm pretty sure it is not any longer. I'll see >>if I can find out more from NHTSA. >> >>-Fred W > > > My apologies; It appears that I have been incorrect in my assertion that > the US airbags were designed to be effective only with seatbelt use. I was > always under that impression and find it ludicrous that it would be anything > different. But alas, it seems that the NHTSA, under prompting from consumer > groups including one "Ralph Nader" have made the manufacturers certify the > frontal airbags for protection of the 50th percentile unbelted male. It > appears that trhis design requirement is still in place today. > > I do not know that the European airbags are actually any different, but it > would certainly appear that their mandated requirements are different. I > suppose I should not be all that surprised. It certainly is not the first > instance of the NHTSA getting things such as this farkled up... > It's the same with child seats. The NHTSA recommendations are to have the child rear faced seated only up to 12 months of age while almost all medical expertise recommends rear facing at least up to three years of age when the neck has grown strong enough to support the relatively large head of the child in case of a frontal collision. Yet again I would like everybody to read the recommendations from Swedish traffic safety researchers that recommend rear faced seating even up to the age of 5. To be able to do this when the child is that grown up the use of the passenger seat is almost necessary since there is more room in the front seat. Here NHTSA end up in another problem since they recommend children to be located in the rear seat only. Only if you have no rear seat or if you frequently drive around with many children in your car you are allowed to disconnect the passenger seat airbag! We had a similar discussion about this topic last year IIRC, where I tried to show that traffic accident statistics clearly indicate that the Swedish model leads to significantly lower fatal accident rates. Both Saab and Volvo live in this climate of what we call "zero vision", i.e. there shall be no persons killed in traffic accidents. This vision affects both the design of roads as well as the design of the cars. In real traffic situations the Saab 9-5 is the safest car all categories (maybe except for those driving around in a tank or something similar). NHTSA doesn't seem to care very much about the US public as several of their recommendations are clearly influenced by strong industrial and political interests, instead of what seems to be best from a scientific point of view. Maybe this statement is somewhat strong, but it is strange to see how obviously incorrect recommendations appear from a public department. It is a big difference in having "the goal of reducing fatalities and injuries on our nationís roads and highways" (from NHTSA web site, quite difficult to find a clear vision somewhere) compared with "Sweden¥s long-term road safety goal is that there should be no fatalities or serious injuries in road traffic. This goal was approved by the Swedish Parliament in 1997 and is based on the 'Vision Zero' program" (from the Swedish Road Administration web site) -- th
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
