Re: Airbags - only last 10 years ?

Ian Johnston wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:36:30 UTC, Adrian <toomany2cvs@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> Fire one that's 20-25 years old, and see what happens. Ooops. You
>> can't.
>
> I'd be more worried about false activations than non activations
> myself. I am very happy to drive around in a simple 28 year old car,
> but there is no way I would ever wish to do so sitting behind a
> significant and unreliable explosive device.
>
> Old Johnston's Motoring Prophecy Number One: This is going to be a Big
> Problem.
>

It is only a problem in that regard if the devices do not 'fail-safe' In
fact they might not fail at all within the useful life of 99% of cars and
then fail-safe with a warning light.

Huw


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Airbags - only last 10 years ?
    ... >> I'd be more worried about false activations than non activations ... I am very happy to drive around in a simple 28 year old car, ... >> significant and unreliable explosive device. ... > cars and then fail-safe with a warning light. ...
    (uk.rec.cars.maintenance)
  • Re: Airbags - only last 10 years ?
    ... >>> I'd be more worried about false activations than non activations ... >>> significant and unreliable explosive device. ... >> cars and then fail-safe with a warning light. ... I'll put a fiver on the system working as ...
    (uk.rec.cars.maintenance)
  • Re: Airbags - only last 10 years ?
    ... >:> I'd be more worried about false activations than non activations ... >:> significant and unreliable explosive device. ... *Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them * ... Prev by Date: ...
    (uk.rec.cars.maintenance)
  • Re: Airbags - only last 10 years ?
    ... > I'd be more worried about false activations than non activations ... I am very happy to drive around in a simple 28 year old car, ... Fine - but statistics simply show you to be wrong. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (uk.rec.cars.maintenance)