On 6/4/2019 11:02 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:

snip

My recollection is that it really was a regulatory issue. Back in the
80s there were a number of attempts at no-user-volition safety devices,
such as shoulder belts that closed with the door. These were literally
worse than useless, because they did not secure the lap belt. Airbags
won because they do at least sometimes work, and they're money makers
for dealer maintenance shops. Also, who doesn't love explosive devices?

Those shoulder belts were really annoying. As were the motorized
shoulder belts.

Airbags protect the occupants in certain kinds of crashes where seat
belts are not very effective. When you see someone claim that seatbelts
save x number of lives, but airbags save only y number of lives it's
important to realize that those two numbers don't really overlap by much.

Be wary of those that always demand more evidence than could possibly
ever be available. You can't do a double-blind study of fatalities of
seat belts-only versus airbags-only versus both combined. It's like the
tobacco companies always insisting that "more research is needed," or
the climate change deniers claiming that until the last 0.3% of
scientists are satisfied that you really can't know whether human
activity is contributing to it or not.

At some point you just have to accept the peer-reviewed scientific and
statistical evidence that's available and add in some common sense. But
when you have a specific agenda that you're desperately trying to
promote then statements like "too soon to tell" are all you have to
support your position.