Airbags kill more kids than school shootings.---PATRICK BEDARD

dZ

New member
Airbags kill more kids than school shootings.
PATRICK BEDARD http://www.caranddriver.com/Article/print/display/0,1835,2073,00.html

Life with airbags has turned out very differently from the one promised by
Joan Claybrook back in 1977. That's when she told Congress that those
friendly balloons in every car would pillow away 40 percent of crash deaths
each year.

Last year, Dwight Childs, 29, of Broadview Heights, Ohio, screwed up. He ran
a red light, resulting in a 10-mph crash. It was exactly the sort of mistake
airbag supporters have always said "you shouldn't have to die for." Childs's
two-month-old son, Jacob Andrew, strapped into a rear-facing child seat on the
passenger side of a 1997 Ford F-150 pickup, was killed by the airbag, and
Childs himself was charged with vehicular homicide.

The man's crime? He didn't switch off the airbag.

Judge Kenneth Spanagel piled on the punishment: 180 days in jail, suspended
except for two cruel and unusual days; Childs must check in to jail on Jacob's
first birthday and on the first anniversary of the crash. Childs was ordered to
make radio and TV ads about airbag safety for the Ohio Department of Public
Safety. He was also placed on probation for three years, his license was
suspended, and he had to pay $500 in fines and court costs.

I'll boil it down for you. First, government forced this man to buy airbags,
because bureaucrats in Washington know better than he what's needed for his
well-being. Then, when he failed to deactivate the safety feature he was
compelled to buy, it sent him to jail. Airbags have turned America's sense of
justice on its head.

Judge Spanagel and the rest of society are groping now that we've bought fully
into Claybrook's promise—about $40 billion worth of airbags on the
road—only to discover that it defies common sense. Remember that airbags
were sold as "passive restraints" for Beavis and Butt-head, that layer of society
so brain dead it runs red lights and can't be bothered to buckle up.

We always knew whom we were dealing with; Beavis and Butt-head are the
type who just don't get it, and they still don't. So we're making things better for
them now by killing their kids?

Of course, you and I and the folks who listen to NPR and read the
Washington Post all know that kids are supposed to go in the back seat, or if
you're driving a Miata or an F-150 with no back seat, then switch off the
airbag. But why are we expecting Beavis and Butt-head to get it when they
never got the far simpler buckle-up message?

Dwight Childs is no Butt-head. He did almost perfectly what caring parents
are supposed to do. His son was in a child seat. That seat was properly
buckled into the only spot available; the truck had no back seat. His killer
mistake was leaving Claybrook's friendly pillow switched on, and for that
small omission, he lost his son in a low-speed crash that would have been
easily survivable without an airbag. The Cleveland Plain Dealer account of
the trial said Childs "was visibly upset" and "unable to speak when prompted
by the judge."

"I think they sentenced the wrong person," says Sam Kazman, general counsel
at the Competitive Enterprise Institute whose first case, back in Reagan times,
tried to overturn the airbag mandate then being pushed by Transportation
Secretary Elizabeth Dole. But blaming the victim is the only defense left for a
government that insists these child killers be standard equipment in every car
and truck.

Doesn't anyone notice the irony here? We live in an era in which the lowest
political hacks grab for sainthood by pushing programs for "our children." In
his state-of-the-union address this year, President Clinton hauled out the
C-word 22 times to show how caring he is. "In memory of all the children
who lost their lives to school violence, I ask you to strengthen the Safe and
Drug-Free School Act, to pass legislation to require child trigger locks, to do
everything possible to keep our children safe."

Just a few months later, the massacre at Columbine High School pushed to the
redline our national anxiety about guns. Never mind that at least 17
weapons-control laws were broken by the cold-blooded killers—anti-gunners
called for still more laws. I understand their alarm. Since 1993, 82 students
have been murdered in shootings at schools, according to the National School
Safety Center.

But here's a greater tragedy. During that same period, 99 children have been
killed by airbag deployments, including 21 yet to be "confirmed" by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (one of the unconfirmed is
Jacob Andrew Childs).

You'd think a President eager "to do everything possible to keep our children
safe" would have noticed this looming body count from a child killer more
lethal than guns. Unless, that is, our society has done the unspeakable and
made a deal with itself to trade off the lives of these kids to save a few adults.

Will future generations look back at this airbag deal in embarrassment, just as
President Clinton two years ago looked back from the White House at the
Tuskegee Syphilis Study, which ran for 40 years starting in 1932? Black men
with syphilis, 399 of them, were left untreated so that medical observations
about the disease could benefit the rest of society.

"We can look at you in the eye," Clinton said in a formal apology to survivors,
"and finally say on behalf of the American people, what the United States
government did was shameful, and I am sorry."

How many black men should society trade off to gain a syphilis cure for the
rest of us? That's the shame of Tuskegee.

How many children should we trade off so that a few adults can escape crash
deaths? That's the shame of airbags.

In his apology, Clinton made a point of saying that the Tuskegee men were
used "without their knowledge and consent."

NHTSA and the safety establishment have never leveled with us about airbags,
either, and they're not coming clean in the case of Jacob Andrew Childs. As
part of his sentence, Dwight Childs must do airbag-safety ads on radio and
TV. The script thrust on him by the Ohio Department of Public Safety has
him saying, "I made the fatal mistake of strapping my son's car seat,
rear-faced, in the front seat of a vehicle equipped with a passenger-side airbag .
. . don't make my mistake."

No, that's not his mistake. His truck had no other seat. The trial clearly
establishes not switching off the airbag as his mistake. But the script never
mentions switching off. That would crack open the door to choice. Why have
an airbag in the first place if it makes that seat too dangerous? No, the airbag
deal has already been made by our government, and it doesn't want Beavis,
Butt-head, and the rest of us to be thinking about opting out.
 
Yet another example of what happens when the government forgets that its only reason for being is to protect the rights of its citizens.

The airbag figures have been used before, but they need wider circulation. Let's keep mentioning them.
 
dz;

Thanks for the info. I did some research on this last year, comparing it to various categories of shooting deaths. I couldn't come up with any impressive numbers. Never thought of the school death angle.
 
Here's what no one seems to get in the lala land world of the Liberal mind. There are acceptable deaths and unacceptable deaths.

Acceptable deaths are those deaths which gain no mention by the powers that be and there is no outcry for their reduction. These would be those deaths that result from air bags, swimming pools, straight-sided buckets, automobile crashes, iron poisoning, caustic ingestion, bathtub drownings, hangings from crib posts and venitian blinds, plastic bag suffocation, choking on foreign objects, bicycles, etc.

Unacceptable deaths are those deaths which are mentioned incessantly by the powers that be and there is an incessant outcry for their reduction. These would be firearms murders, firearms accidents, etc.

These are the rules for Liberals. Their mantra: Learn them. Live them. Love them.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited April 19, 2000).]
 
Sorry, folks. This is one train I can not board.

As a fanatic lunatic who believes in the Second Amendment, I would love to use these statistics to further our goals. However, as an EMT I have seen too many lives saved by airbags to blame the airbags.

Leave a loaded handgun on your kid's bed so he can get hurt? That's not the gun's fault. You knew it was a gun when you left it there.

Leave the airbag switch on so your backward facing infant can get hurt? That's not the air bag's fault. You knew it was an air bag when you left the switch on.

The punishment above was obscene, but it achieved the judge's intended goal of creating public awareness of our responsibility to care for and protect children.

Airbags SAVE lives - many more than the 99 killed by parental ignorance or negligence.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited April 19, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dennis:
The punishment above was obscene, but it achieved the judge's intended goal of creating public awareness of our responsibility to care for and protect children.[/quote]

Dennis, in what way does handing down an obscene punishment to create public awareness promote the cause of justice?

This not about blaming the airbag. Should the guy have turned the airbag off? Sure. But the point of Bedard's article is that this guy was punished for not disarming a life-threatening device that he was forced by the government to purchase.
 
Dennis --

What's your position on airbags for women under 5'2? I've heard differing opinions on whether or not I should switch them off.


------------------
*quack*
 
Duck Hunt: The wife of a buddy of mine is 4'-11". She had a wreck; the airbag deployment was to her forehead, and she has permanent neck-injury problems.

One solution would be to re-mount the seat to a higher position so the bag would then center-hit the upper-chest area. Extensions can be added to the pedals as necessary.

I'm always amazed that people will buy cars and then not make the car fit the person. A person cannot be remade to fit a car...

Art
 
Choice
Why should I have to buy an air bag if I don't want one?

Air bags save lives, so do seat belts, but the three worst accidents in the history of my family, were survived because the drivers were NOT wearing seat belts. (Hiway Patrol said so in all three cases)

Ever been working under the dash of a car with an air bag, short the wrong wires with a wrench, kaboom instant explosion in your face. After all it is a relatively controled explosion that is used to inflate an air bag.

I dont doubt that Air bags are better than the current seat belts but I would prefer a full 5 point restraint system over both.

Didn't I just read a story about a grandmother who routinely let her 6 year old grandson sit on her lap and drive her car up her driveway kill him when he drove into a wall at 5mph and the Air bag deployed? There was no dammage to the car.

Wasn't there another story of a boy being decapitated when a side air bag deployed wrong in the front seat killing the child in the back seat?

It seems to me that air bags are another invention by the nanny state to save us from our selves.

The kit to disable rider side air bags in Ford cars built before the current system which lets users disable them, will not be avaiable until late this year. Not to mention you have to get permission from the Government, and the automaker to install it. Then the auto makers Dealers "will NOT" install the system, someone else has to do it.

Come to think of it, airbags and seat belts really did a lot of good for that little boy in Independance MO.

Personally I vote aginst having two live Bombs in the front seat.
 
Dennis,

I have to respectfully disagree with you in this case, while not disputing your opinion on airbags in general.

This father, apparently a caring one, made a mistake. No punishment the court can impose will ever exceed the pain and guilt he will have to endure for the rest of his life. I consider the judge's mandate that he spend the night in jail on his dead child's birthday to be malicious and cruel. The public safety announcements are productive to society.

He made a mistake which, were it not for the airbag, would not have been fatal to the child, or possibly even injurious. Parents make mistakes all the time, not from negligence, but because it's an imperfect world and accidents happen. As a father of a 20 month old, something like this is my worst nightmare. I'm not sure I could endure the pain. I think we as a society need more compassion in cases like this.
 
“Severity” of punishment does not deter crime as much as “certainty” of
punishment. For many reasons, I disagree with the punishment
imposed
.

However, the judge’s apparent goal of increasing public awareness (of airbag
threat) is being served - even here on TFL.

Appropriate airbag usage will increase and more parents will turn off the
airbag (in similar situations) because of:
- increased awareness of the threat to infants, children and small
adults, and/or
- increased awareness of the threat of punishment.

More parents will put their kids in the back seat (when available) and the
center of the back seat is the statistically safest place in a sedan. (Yes I
know regular cab pickups don’t have a back seat. Turn the airbag off or
have it disconnected - an option available since the inception of
passenger-side airbags.)

Therefore public awareness and increased fear of punishment hopefully
result in reduced danger of similar needless deaths. I agree with the goal
but despise the method used.

As for being required to purchase the device, it saves lives when used
properly. Guns, knives, vehicles, stairways, etc. all are useful and may
save lives when used properly. The key is “used properly”. He did not
use the device properly. It is not the fault of the device as we agree.

He was forced to buy a vehicle:
- with a catalytic converter that could start a grass fire if the vehicle is
parked improperly,
- a lap belt that could disembowel the wearer if adjusted improperly,
- a fan belt that could injure him if he stuck his fingers in it while the
motor was running,
- a radiator that could spew boiling “coolant” on him if he removed the
radiator cap after driving the vehicle,
- tires that could fail - especially if damaged due to abuse (over/under
inflation, neglect, wear, etc.).

The government may force you to purchase a vehicle with many items which
can be mis-used and result in injury or death - “life-threatening” devices one
and all. Use these devices appropriately and the benefits outweighs the
risks.
-----

For small-statured people, I believe the recommendation is to:
- adjust the seating (power seats, booster seats, cushions, etc.) so the
safety belts and airbags can work properly,
- adjust the steering wheel so the airbag is aimed at the chest rather than
the face,
- adjust your position so you are (?ten inches or more?) away from the
airbag,
- shut the airbag off if it endangers the rider. (Right on, Art!)

To save replies, the mere presence of an airbag does NOT endanger the rider
greater than the absence of an airbag.
-----

Alan,

Local law enforcement officers declared ABS (anti-lock braking systems) to be
a danger because it took SO much longer to stop. Measured testing
showed the same LEOs stopped their patrol cars quicker with ABS brakes.
What misled the LEOs was the lack of screeching, smoking tires and black
streaks on the highway. Somewhat shorter braking distances and vehicle
control during panic breaking saves lives.

I prefer to take the results of controlled tests than bystanders who frequently
shoot from the hip or merely enjoy controversy.

I won’t dispute your stated experiences but I sure would call them “unique”.
----
As for inept maintenance workers hurting themselves with airbags:
- assuredly possible (I’ve heard nothing either way),
- also applies to re-loading ammunition and a host of everyday occurrences.
----
“I don’t doubt that Air bags are better than the current seat belts but I would
prefer a full 5 point restraint system over both.”
Me too! But most people wouldn’t use them - especially people wearing
dresses and skirts! A major benefit of airbags is they are passive, in use
permanently.
-----

As for the other stories, I’d like to read the entire document before
commenting on more than the negligence of holding a child in front of you in
ANY vehicle - especially if equipped with airbags.

-----
As for the nanny state trying to save us from ourselves by requiring us to buy
unwanted airbags, the same question applies to seat belts, power steering,
power brakes, sprinklers and multiple exits in public buildings, paved roads,
road signs and signals, street lights, eyeglasses, etc. etc.
-----

All,
TFLers have loudly and nastily condemned me for leaving loaded handguns
where my children could (possibly) find and misuse them. I was accused of
stupidity, negligence, hurting the RKBA movement, etc. (I partially agree.)

TFLers repeatedly state it is inappropriate to accuse the potentially deadly
handgun. Blame is put correctly on the ignorance and/or negligence of the
user. (I wholeheartedly agree.)

It is NOT appropriate to condemn a handgun because of the ignorance or
negligence of the user. Properly used, handguns save many, many more
lives than they take.


Now go back and substitute “airbag” for “handgun” and the facts remain the
same.

Ride with EMS for a week and you will advocate airbags at least as strongly
as I do. Like guns, airbags require responsibility of the user but save many
more lives than negligent abusers take.

Use your search engine for confirmation. Here’s a couple quickies.

www.eecs.umich.edu/mathscience/funexperiments/agesubject/lessons/newton/airbags.html

http://www.highwaysafety.org/safety_facts/airbags/kids_airbags.html

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/magazine/1996/960819/rea.html



[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited April 20, 2000).]
 
Back
Top