Which is safer?

[Milford Cubicle II]

No its more along the lines that they (often enough) wont deploy on impact, they usually deploy right as you are unbuckling your seatbelt with your head turned to the side.

When they do deploy on impact its still not an ideal situation. How often are your arms at the perfect 10 and 2 positions? If you hold the wheel with one hand like 99% of people out there your arm is very likely to be broken at the same time it either breaks your nose.

In 4 years of being a Fire Fighter I have seen way to many injuries from the airbags in accidents where people would have been uninjured if there were no airbags. I have not disabled the new jeeps airbags yet but I will when I get the time.

Do you really want this blowing up in your face?

Seatbelts are a completely different matter where IMHO it depends on the situation whether or not they help/hurt.

Sorry this is gunna come out harsh, but that's one of the dumbest thing's I've ever heard. Air bags have been proven through extensive testing to increase the likelihood of surviving accidents. I'd rather walk away with a broken arm or nose then be rolled away either in a bag or strapped to a gurney with a broken spine.

 

[Allof75]

So before this becomes an airbag debate, it sounds like you guys prefer the 97+ despite the lower safety rating?

 

[93xjcowboy]

Sorry this is gunna come out harsh, but that's one of the dumbest thing's I've ever heard. Air bags have been proven through extensive testing to increase the likelihood of surviving accidents. I'd rather walk away with a broken arm or nose then be rolled away either in a bag or strapped to a gurney with a broken spine.

And now wood dust has been proven to cause cancer in California. I don't care about testing I care about real life results.

I don't know how you would break your spine by bouncing off the steering wheel (assuming front end crash) but that goes back to seat belts more than airbags. If your talking side impact then an airbag does nothing for you (Cherokee style air bags). I have (in real life) seen more injuries caused by airbags than not. That includes a person who was getting out of their vehicle to check on the other vehicle and the airbag deployed while his head was turned and leaned forward (unbuckling his seat belt) which gave him serious whiplash.

Call it as you will as I know we all have our own opinions but I dont like airbags.



ps Here is the link to wood dust cancer
http://www.hpva.org/node/941

 

[93xjcowboy]

So before this becomes an airbag debate, it sounds like you guys prefer the 97+ despite the lower safety rating?

Im sorry for the hijack. I love my 99 more than my 5 other jeeps (86-93), for safety and for looks/interior/comfort.

Ill make this my last post here.

 

[bjoehandley]

I understand not getting into an accident is a priority but, it's not me I'm worried about, it's other people hitting me. (running a red-light for instance) Thanks thus far!

That comes down to defensive and paying attention to the idiots around you, which includes some cops sadly. In about 6 weeks this spring I dodged 3 wrecks with inattentive drives (1 was in a school bus) and 1 with a senile woman (that I followed for 45 min. before 911 could get a cop to stop her) just by watching for others stupid moves.

 

[5-90]

I'm pretty sure they did reinforce the sides in '94 and in '95 with the drivers airbag.
Here:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1990-to-1996-jeep-cherokee-7.htm

I understand not getting into an accident is a priority but, it's not me I'm worried about, it's other people hitting me. (running a red-light for instance)

Thanks thus far!

Which is why I have a problem with the whole "crash-safety improvement" programme.

After all, if you knew that there was a real possibility you could get killed due to a lapse of attention, you wouldn't lapse, right? Notice that most of the jackwagons who insist on DWY (especially out here, where they likely can't drive in the first place) are driving newer vehicles with four- or five-star crash safety ratings.

(This doesn't negate other foolishment - I often see yoyos on bicycles while on the 'phone as well, and people walking about while yapping and blithely ignoring everything else around them. I've had people on the 'phone walk into me - and I'm difficult to not see! - and then have the temerity to get annoyed with me because I should have seen them coming and gotten out of the way because they were on the 'phone! True story! Apparently, I have an increased duty to pay attention because they're tuning out...)

People who are cited for DWY should not only get points and a huge fine, but they should have to drive some little tin can (like a Yugo GV) with a no-star crash safety rating, if they're allowed to drive afterwards (I think putting them on transit for a year or so is a better solution.) I've seen so many roads incidents caused by one or both parties on the 'phone that I think this solution is hardly Draconian.

The problem - as you've probably already noted - is not the vehicles. It's the people - who shouldn't have been checked off to operate a motor vehicle in the first place, and the closest they should get to being in control is putting a dollar in the farebox as they go back to their seat...

 

[hubs97xj]

So before this becomes an airbag debate, it sounds like you guys prefer the 97+ despite the lower safety rating?

I like the 97+ exterior changes, the interior, the one piece front windows, and most importantly, decent cupholders. I don't consider crash test ratings when buying cars.
Safer drivers > safer cars.

 

[FlexdXJ]

97 has stupid wiring problems though

They do?

The only issues i had were the power windows on my first 97. This one has manual doors! As for safety, I hit a Mercedes c class at 50 damn near head on and it fared pretty well. Could have been the ARB bumper though!

 

[FlexdXJ]

No its more along the lines that they (often enough) wont deploy on impact, they usually deploy right as you are unbuckling your seatbelt with your head turned to the side.

When they do deploy on impact its still not an ideal situation. How often are your arms at the perfect 10 and 2 positions? If you hold the wheel with one hand like 99% of people out there your arm is very likely to be broken at the same time it either breaks your nose.

In 4 years of being a Fire Fighter I have seen way to many injuries from the airbags in accidents where people would have been uninjured if there were no airbags. I have not disabled the new jeeps airbags yet but I will when I get the time.

Do you really want this blowing up in your face?



Seatbelts are a completely different matter where IMHO it depends on the situation whether or not they help/hurt.

Eat an Airbag and eat a steering wheel, tell me which one is better......

 

[93xjcowboy]

Eat an Airbag and eat a steering wheel, tell me which one is better......

Ive eaten a steering wheel and got a headache from it. Ill do that again given the choice.

 

[FlexdXJ]

Ive eaten a steering wheel and got a headache from it. Ill do that again given the choice.

I've eaten an airbag, I'll take that! :dunno: Airbag dust sucks though!

 

[tbburg]

The '97 "wiring issue" is more a "one-off" thing then known problems. There seem to be more then a few one-year-only items on the '97s. No, I can't name any, but they come up regularly on the forum. I can ignore them 'cause the wagon's a '00 and the truck's an '88.

I'm not hot on air bags, but I wasn't trying to put them down. Most of what a front air bag does is accomplished by they seat belt. In a high speed front impact, they're nice to have, as there is some safety improvement.
On the other hand, there's a youtube video of a jeep(quick search didn't turn it up) coming down off a rock, bottoms out, ant the driver takes a hard hit from the bag. I'm not real comfortable 'wheeling around that.(or eating it in ANY low speed impact for that matter, As far as I'm concerned, if the A-pillar/roof didn't deform, and I'm wearing the belt, the air bag should stay OFF)

As far as safety, as I said, regardless of crash rating, I don't think there's a huge difference between the 96-down and the '97-up.

 

[bjoehandley]

In all honesty, after watching videos of what air bags can do in the hands of people who like to blow stuff up (look up Dave's Farm and airbags on YouTube:shocked: ) as well as reading of the people injured or killed by them, then ask yourself if you really want that aimed at your face and chest. I'm not sure how much I trust the things in comparison to just a good seatbelt and a solid body structure, especially considering my XJ is a '98 with the higher powered first gen bags

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

In all honesty, after watching videos of what air bags can do in the hands of people who like to blow stuff up (look up Dave's Farm and airbags on YouTube:shocked: ) as well as reading of the people injured or killed by them, then ask yourself if you really want that aimed at your face and chest. I'm not sure how much I trust the things in comparison to just a good seatbelt and a solid body structure, especially considering my XJ is a '98 with the higher powered first gen bags

No airbag deployment is fun by anyone's standard, but the fact is, to put it in laymen's terms, they slow down the very same impact that kills and injures you. However, taking them out of context and using them to destroy things could very well mislead someone who doesn't understand the actual physics involved in an accident.

And I always "hear" about people being killed by airbags but I've never actually seen one documented case, have you?

Also, a "solid" body structure will kill you faster than anything else. Crumple zones are implemented for a reason - because they work.

It's just sad that so many people are so mislead by BS myths like these. Though there weren't nearly as many auto accidents in the 60's and 70's, the fatality rate of higher speed accidents were astronomical compared to what they are now, yet I hear a lot of mislead people reminisce about how cars just "aren't built like they used to be." Yea, they're not - thank God!

:soapbox:

 

[bjoehandley]

I take you aren't old enough to remember stories about kids getting their necks broke by the early airbag systems, or the old ladies that got hit in the chest so hard by the bags they they caused the same kind of heart attack that getting hit by a fast ball in chest would cause? Small stature people tended to be affected in the same manner as well. There have been improvements in body structure, the addition of good seat belts, steering assemblies that don't spear you chest in a frontal collision (ala GM), improved handling and braking, ect, but I'm not convinced on airbags or many of the electronic nannies yet either. When you have to limit who you place where in a vehicle, have to legally jump through hoops to disable a "safety feature" to keep it from killing somebody who is too small to be safely restrained by it, or receive injuries from said device in a wreck that you would not have received any injuries from otherwise, is that truly a safety feature? Some of what these "safety features" are supposed to protect against could be fixed just by making people behave like they're driving a 2 ton weapon, even if that means raising the punishment for distracted/intoxicated driving, having a real driving course at schools taught by competent instructors who actually understand car control and teach situational awareness (IE pay attention to what's going on around you and look as far down the road ahead of you as possible), maybe go so far as making the instructor take professional driving classes from someplace like Bob Bondurant, Roy Hill, Skip Barber, SCCA/NASA, the State Police, ect and making a national standard for drivers education programs too.

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

Oh don't get me wrong, the driver is definitely the number 1 way to make roads safer.

But kids small enough to be maimed by airbags shouldn't be sitting in the front anyways right? And no, I don't remember hearing stories about "the old ladies that got hit in the chest so hard by the bags they they caused the same kind of heart attack that getting hit by a fast ball in chest would cause," probably because it only actually happened once and the media sensationalized it. And the old lady probably would have been fine, had she not been driving with her seat in the forward most position, leaving three inches between her and the airbag like the manufacturer says explicitly not to do

 

[ericfx1984]

I did, and walked away from it. my XJ did not



jeep3 by John_Morris1, on Flickr

that will buff right out

 

[Darky]

Oh don't get me wrong, the driver is definitely the number 1 way to make roads safer.

But kids small enough to be maimed by airbags shouldn't be sitting in the front anyways right? And no, I don't remember hearing stories about "the old ladies that got hit in the chest so hard by the bags they they caused the same kind of heart attack that getting hit by a fast ball in chest would cause," probably because it only actually happened once and the media sensationalized it. And the old lady probably would have been fine, had she not been driving with her seat in the forward most position, leaving three inches between her and the airbag like the manufacturer says explicitly not to do

So, would it be better for the little old lady to have been far enough away to not be injured by the bag, but not be able to easily or safely reach the controls?

I was in 2 accidents in my 94 Geo Tracker. One where I was rear ended by a much larger car, one where I rear ended a slightly larger car. First accident, an 84 Olds Cutlass hit me at a stop light doing about 15-20. No airbags, the only injury was a girl in the back seat had a torn neck muscle because the back seat of the Tracker didn't have headrests. The second one, I rear ended someone at 1am who stopped at a flashing yellow light. I had glanced off for a moment (literally, 1-2 seconds tops) but at 70 mph, the vehicle covers a lot of ground, and I hit them at about 55ish. My hand came off the wheel and hit the dash, and I got two broken bones in my hand. The other driver (an 03 Kia Spectra) received a laceration to the back of the head somehow. Again, no airbags for me, and probably didn't make a huge impact for them since they were shoved backwards into the seat anyways. My uncle was in a minor wreck and was injured by the airbag in his car, as he was getting out.

For a certain range, the airbag can be very good, but outside of the realm it ranges from just an extra $3000 on the repair bill to dangerous.

 

[Matthew Currie]

I was reading something somewhere recently, and now don't remember where, but what it said was that the problem with airbags in the US is partly that they are mandated to give maximum protection to an unbelted occupant. If the standards were instead designed to supplement the protection of a belt, they would not have to duplicate the very good job that belts do to prevent ejection, and their action could be less drastic.

My take on the original question here would be to buy the nicest Jeep you can get, of whatever year. Don't sweat the subtleties of crash tests. They're all good, and they're all reasonably safe if you drive safely and wear your seat belt.

 

[coldoath]

If airbags posed a real threat they would not be in vehicles and they would not continue researching them and developing them. I think the people with all the correct research equipment and physics degrees probably know what they are doing.