@article{ref1,
title="Commentary on "Another look at Meyer and Finney's 'Who wants airbags?'"",
journal="Chance",
year="2007",
author="Meyer, MC",
volume="20",
number="3",
pages="45-47",
abstract="It is ironic that while the original motivation for air bags was “passive protection” for occupants who would not wear their seat belts, we are now told that we must wear our seat belts in order for the air bags to be protective, rather than dangerous. Further, we must be responsible enough to sit at least 10 inches from the steering wheel and always put children in the rear seats. Unfortunately, recent studies show a substantial proportion of children ages 8–12 are still allowed to sit in the front seat, in spite of warnings posted in the vehicles.  Seat belt compliance is now over 80% in states with mandatory seat belt laws, and the newest NHTSA fatality reduction estimates for air bags are low compared to original claims. Further, air bags cause numerous serious injuries (such as permanent eye and limb damage, thoracic damage, and quadriplegia) that are not represented in the fatality counts. Even if the NHTSA fatality reduction estimates are correct, it’s time to admit that air bags are not the safety device for which we had hoped. Let’s at least go back to air bags as options, rather than as mandatory equipment. Devices known to kill children should not be required in all automobiles. Older people who drive only to church and the grocery store at low speeds should not be required to have airbags that might hurt them in a fender-bender. The old arguments for air bags no longer apply. If we knew then what we know now, the mandate would not have been enacted. The original proponents of air bags meant well, but air bags don’t perform as promised. Let’s re-evaluate.",
language="",
issn="0933-2480",
doi="",
url="http://dx.doi.org/"
}