From: michael@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Michael of Nebadon)
Newsgroups: rec.autos,misc.consumers,misc.kids,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med
Subject: Re: Seat Belts Releasing in Crashes: Institute for Injury Reduction
Date: 23 Nov 92 03:19:16 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <1992Nov22.181541.21373@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
>In article <28504@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>>The problem is not the noise level.  It is a pressure difference
>>sustained for longer than the lowest perceptible frequency which will
>>perforate a drum, in conditions when there is some impediment in the
>>Eustachian tubes, such as catarrh due to a cold. For example, it is
>>possible to suffer eardrum perforation when descending in an
>>aeroplane. I hope most airbag designers know more than you do about
>>what is involved in ear damage.
>
>I had been planning to stay out of this one.  So much for one's plans.
>IMO, you're all missing the point here.  Whether or not my eardrums
>are at risk due to airbag inflation is not an interesting issue to me.
>Whether or not my face impacts the steering wheel at N mph IS.

I understand your concerns only too well, but please don't allow
discussions like these to degenerate into either/or ultimatums like
the one you set above... at least until there is some proof that
we are facing an either/or decision. No one here has presented any
evidence which would indicate that an airbag system *can't* be
designed in such a way as to provide your ears protection, as well.
Once someone says something like they'd "gladly trade [not having
my eardums perforated] for saving my facial structure" they are
basically telling designers not to "waste time" trying to do both.
It worries me that someone who *is* in a position to make some real
decision concerning airbag implementation (unlike us :-) ) might,
like yourself, be allowing one important factor (like keeping your
face from impacting the steering wheel) to override all other
important factors (like having functioning eardrums, and gosh knows
what else).

The only reason I bother to post this is that I feel that sort
of tunnel-vision was part of the "passive restraint" implementation
process. The basic concept of the passive restraint (the idea that
everyone could easily and automatically be protected by seat
belts) is fine, but it should have been immediately obvious from
looking at the proposals that none of them would come anywhere
close to this goal. For example, the implementations which are
generally considered safest (frame-mounted) almost always consist
of an easily defeatable automatic shoulder restraint, and a manual
lap belt (which by default is defeated). People who don't "like
the feeling" of wearing a seatbelt defeat it (disconnect the
shoulder belt), while those who don't care one way or the other don't
bother with the lap belt (and, as a result receive a dubious level
of protection, _at_best_), while people who always buckled their
manual belts now occasionally catch themselves forgetting to buckle
their lap belts because the shoulder belt is in place. On top
of all that you've got mechanism zipping by your head catching
hair, earrings, ears, etc. I, for one, would have felt a lot safer
if the manual three-points had been replaced with manual
four-points, but that's a whole other discussion... ;-)

>And to the guy who thinks that unsafe cars promote safer driving -
>you're seriously deluded.  Me, I've seen people after car accidents.
>I bought the safest car in my budget range.

Let's not forget his original point, which was that we need to
stress the importance of better driving skills. He may say we
should forgo more safety features in favor of better education
so that we can cut down the number of accidents, and you may say
concentrate on more safety features so that we can survive the
accidents we do have. Once again, though, I don't see why we have
to choose between the two. Education is an area where there is
*lots* of room for improvement (if the accident rate is any
indication) and I have no problem with safety features as long
as they really result in a greater level of protection (and not
just look good on your Congressional voting resume).

Bleh. I was trying to keep from posting, too...

michael@afterlife.ncsc.mil
Newsgroups: rec.autos,misc.consumers,misc.kids,talk.politics.medicine,sci.med