People call me up and ask how
many air bags a particular model of
car has, as though that was the only criteria
by which a
new car should be chosen.
The real question is how many
seat belts does the car have, because
all the responsibility for your safety lies
with the belts
and not with the air bags.
For instance and in confirmation
of this, when New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine
was critically injured in an SUV crash last
year,
investigators now concede that the SUV was
doing 91 mph in a 65 mph zone with its emergency
lights flashing.
Corzine – who was in critical
condition – was on his way to a meeting between radio
personality Don Imus
and the Rutgers University women’s basketball team,
and was reportedly running late.
The SUV crashed into a guard-rail
and Corzine, who wasn’t wearing a
seat belt at the time, suffered multiple
broken bones.
The trooper behind the wheel was wearing his seat
belt and had minor injuries.
Corzine broke a thigh bone, ribs, his breastbone and collarbone. Ddoctors
say it could be six months before he
regains the use
of his leg.
My question is:
Where were the air bags in all of this and what
were they doing? They undoubtedly deployed, but as
long has been the case, they
were absolutely useless without the primary protection
provided by the seat belts.
Air bags were initially designed to protect an unbelted adult male in
a 30 mph crash. But do air bags protect
a child passenger?
And are air bags really effective in protecting unrestrained
adults?
Air bags are said to reduce the overall risk of passenger death
in all crashes by 12 percent, but for
some passengers
- including young children - air bags may increase
the overall risk of death.
While air bags reduced the risk of death by 15 percent for restrained
passengers in crashes, air bags afforded no protection
against death or serious injury for those passengers
who weren't wearing seat belts.
Air bags are associated with a net increase in the risk of death among children ages 12 and under.
Because the effect of air bags may be related to passenger age, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
ruled in
1997 that vehicle owners could have a switch installed
to deactivate a passenger air bag and I wonder what
that tells us
- exactly? Probably that the air bag is not considered
to be vital to the survival of passengers in a crash.
The agency also advised that children younger than 13 years old should
ride in the rear seat and that, of-course,
is a no brainer.
Children do NOT belong in the front seats of a vehicle, although I think
that the specified age of thirteen is
probably a bit restrictive
and over zealous.
Although air bags were intended to offer protection to passengers who
aren't restrained, they are a hazard to unrestrained children
and offer little benefit to unrestrained adults.
This unfortunate accident last week once again supports
the conclusion that the theory
of "no seat belt, no protection" really holds true.
Sometimes it isn't possible to put a child in the rear seat because the
vehicle may lack a rear seat or that
seat is already filled with
other children, in which case, a bigger vehicle may
be needed, or if the transportation of children is
a regular occurrence,
a seat belt switch may be installed, with a special
release from the DoT.
A lot of pick up trucks already have passengers side air bag switches for this very reason..