The reason your government removed the seatbelt restrictions were either the auto industry lobbied, or they were just as annoying as hell and cut into your neck.
Really though, the stats (this from memory, not very accurate, but you'll get the idea) that shows the effectiveness of the safety restraints from a high speed collision are like this:
air bag only: 11%
seatbelt only (shoulder and lap): 41%
seatbelt and frontal air bag: 45%
Unfortunately, I don't know where I can get a printed copy of it, but I vividly remember seeing the stats.
Remember, folks, that the lap belt is just as important, it keeps you from submarining below the shoulder belt and turning your knees and/or other body parts into jelly.
My 1.3 cents worth.
VK
Quote:
Originally posted by calmone
i am anti air bag big time. first, it's unnecessary if you wear a shoulder belt. my recollection was that the govt. (YOUR pal) manadted that every car have self activting upper torso restraint. so, some cars don't have bags, but have the auto shoulder belt. subaru installed both. then the maunfacturers all went to air bags (ever have to replace one afer an accident? i have, add a grand to the repair bill). then no need for the automatic shoulder belts. bottom line is that the govt. studies obviously showed there was little difference between a shoulder belt and the air bag. then there's the safty factor for short or younger passangers/drivers. and finally, ever been in an accident in which the air bag deployed thus blocking your vision and ability to see where to possibly steer the car? my pal's daughter was, she ended up in a worse situation becuase she could not see to avoid a tree. imho, the public has been brain washed into believing in these things. now, side impact bags, that's a differnt story.
|