billy3esq wrote:Jensenman wrote:And you reinforce my point. So the insurers infer from current actuarial data that airbags do help. Okay, i conced the point. There are no actuarial studies or data (at least that I am aware of) comparing cars with better reinforced bodies to those without. So there's a huge hole in the actuarial data. Bzzt.
(JM trimmed the long winded lawyerly response to what seems to be the salient point of the wordstorm)
I understand your point to be that more rigid passenger compartments would be of greater safety benefit than airbags. I further understand that you base this conclusion on some combination of your experience with a Sawzall and the absence of actuarial evidence to the contrary. While I will concede your substantial Sawzall prowess, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Whoo, do you get paid by the word?
I'm saying that in the real world airbags are of no real good if the car crumples around you due to a weak passenger compartment. Like my daddy sez about doing stupid stuff like going on through an intersection when there is someone obviously running the red light and coming at you, or passing when you have the dashed lines and there's someone passing on a solid line coming at you, or a host of other things: you might be in the right but you wind up just as dead. 
I might as well toss this out: if airbags are so great, why do none of the sanctioning bodies require them in race cars?
