Evidence following the suggestions for age-appropriate restraints as well as stern seat locations for kids travelling in the motor vehicles has been fine established. Though, evidence for the age-based suggestions regarding air bags as well as kids is lacking. Even though the NHTSA course of action for kids as well as air bags have been circulated extensively, the age (or body size) that finest describe when a child’s additional danger of the injury or death from an air bag is replaced by benefit is unknown. Two initial studies suggested a link between air bags as well as childhood fatalities (defining kids as 0-12 years as well as 0-9 years of the age), but both analyses were limited by relatively small numbers of the fatalities, yielding statistically inconclusive results. Subsequent studies defined kids as 12 years of the age as well as provided more conclusive evidence for the link between air bags as well as death among right front seat passengers within this age range. Allison (2001) suggested that the increased mortality danger from air bags was most pronounced among right front seat passengers through age 10, becoming less pronounced from 11 to 14 years as well as turning to a net benefit for passengers 15 years of the age, but the results did not reach statistical significance. A more recent study examining differences in the air-bag effectiveness according to age as well as restraint use suggested a net increase in the danger of the death among child passengers 12 years of the age, but sample size limitations prevented definitive statements regarding the childhood age at net danger might change to no effect (or benefit) as well as the study did not assess markers of the body size. Durbin et al demonstrated that the danger of the injury (rather than death) among restrained kids 3 to 15 years of the age exposed to passenger air-bag deployment was twice that among front-seated kids not exposed to an air bag, with the danger of the injury being relatively constant among kids 3 to 8, 9 to 12, as well as 13 to 15 years of the age.
We hypothesized that specific cut-off points in the age, height, as well as/or weight among kids used to define when the danger of the serious injury from the presence of a passenger air-bag changes from harmful to no effect (or beneficial), after adjustment for crash severity as well as other important crash factors. We tested this hypothesis with age, height, as well as weight as effect modifiers (interaction terms) of the link between the presence of a passenger air bag as well as serious injury among right front seat passengers 0 to 18 years of the age that is involved in the motor vehicle crashes (MVCs).
In light of the 121 deaths credited to the air bag deployments, considerably to children as well as adults of the small stature, recent policy debate has purposeful on altering present Federal automotive air bag regulations. A problem definition point of view is employ to identify the nature of this debate. (Ai & Norton 2003) Utilizing a content analysis of the executive record of the one U.S. House as well as two U. S. Senate hearings, it is quarrel that four problem definitions exemplify the debate over air bag safety: behavioural, regulatory, technological, as well as corporate greed. (Allison 2001)Furthermore, it is argued that a problem definition perspective offers a better illustration of the recent changes to Federal air bag regulations than do pluralist, elitist, as well as principal-agent models. (Association for the Advancement Automotive Medicine 2001)
Political discussion on policy issues are frequently portrayed as a disagreement over competing definitions of the social condition. (Braver & Ferguson 1997)A problem definition offers the frame through that present conditions are supposed to be in the conflict with treasured social values. In this way, policy issues are socially constructed as well as communicated through the articulation of the shared definitions. (Braver, Whitfield & Ferguson 1997)
Problem definitions are significant to policy theory in the two ways. First, they pressure that issues rise to the public agenda. Definitions delivers a frame through that social conditions are perceived to be problematic as well as in the need of the government action. (Braver & Whitfield 1998) Thus, the issues that are actively considered by government officials are in the part illustrated by the success of the definition competing for attention on a crowded agenda. (Barnard 1997)
Further than illumination that concern is on the public agenda, the problem definition viewpoint also can assist in illustrating the outcome of the policy process. "As political dialogue, the purpose of the problem definition is at once to give particulars, to explain, to advocate, as well as to persuade".(Berg 2000) Actors participate to have their definition of the social state frame the nature of the policy discussion. (Cummings 2001) A problem definition clears the survival of the public problem as well as the causes that it exists. The usefulness of the specific solution reasonably flows from the espoused set of the causes. In this manner, policy entrepreneurs utilize problem definitions to taper the variety of the options under consideration as well as to espouse a particular solution. (Calvert & McCubbins 1989)
Therefore, problem definition "is often at the heart of the action itself," argues Allison (2001). "A great deal of policymaking, in the fact, is preoccupied with whose definition would prevail" (p. 98).
Scholars have recognized a range of the characteristics that assist to illustrate the utility of the definition for structuring policy debate. In the hands of the accomplished policy entrepreneur, a problem definition, has possible solutions, as well as is well-matched with other definitions is a influential tool for influencing policy formation. Though, this position of the problem definitions has yet to be completely explored. (Cobb 1983)
The concern of the air bag security offers an opportunity to look at the role of the problem definitions in the policy procedure as well as to test propositions implicit in the previous research. Deaths that have been accredited to air bag deployments have purposeful attention on the dangers linked with air bags as well as have resulted in the challenge to the wisdom of the Federal regulation necessitate that they be fixed in the motor vehicles. (Corneli 2000) A number of problem definitions have emerged in the debate in the effort to influence Federal policy.
What are the mechanisms of the complete problem definition? What explanations are being used by policy entrepreneurs to persuade the substance of the government set of laws on air bags? Those definitions have been the most effective in the shaping new policy? Those definitions are likely to shape policy in the future? To deal with these questions we carry out a content analysis of the bureaucrat record of the three congressional hearings (two Senate, one House) held on the question of the air bag safety during 1996 as well as 1997. (Damsgaard 2001) The official statements as well as verbal remarks of the each contributor in the hearings were examined for the manner that the entity described (framed) the problem of the air bag safety. Also, present rules propagated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) give out as the policy answer to this concern. (Allison 2001) To test hypotheses about the influence of the problem definitions on policy formulation, the content of NHTSA rules will be compared with the dominant problem definitions articulated in the debate as carried out in the congressional hearings. (Coughlin 1994)
Complete problem definitions have several key components. First, definitions recognize a societal state that needs to be remedied through government act. (Dahl 1967)Second, key statistics as well as descriptions of the relevant events are offered as evidence to empirically demonstrate the perceived condition. In offering specific empirical evidence a problem definition draws attention to certain aspects of the condition while strategically ignoring others. This evidence also has the effect of the demonstrating that the condition being described is not an isolated event. (Dahl 1982)The definition provides a frame through that the information is interpreted as well as may lead to a very different interpretation of the data gleaned from a different problem definition. Third, the causes of this condition are identified to allocate blame or provide an illustration. It is this open causal theory which frequently distinguishes a number of definitions. Fourth, a complete definition clears a set of the results that would answer the supposed condition. (Damsgaard 2001)
The solutions that are adopted reasonably follow from the articulated causal theory. Fifth, implicit in the reposed solutions is an acceptance of the key values or a desired end state. These values indicate what the condition should look like in the society. They also provide normative justification for the articulated causal theory as well as solutions. Sixth, to carry to life these values, symbols are used to perform the social condition that needs to be lectured. Symbols are substance that is gifted with importance that is not inbuilt in the entity itself that individuals use to sum up, condense, as well as simplify complex phenomena. (Decker 1984) Symbols not only help to converse other than it also builds understanding for a specific perspective. Entrepreneurs use symbols to persuade others to accept the basic assumptions of the problem definition. As Braver (1997) suggests, "symbolic representation is the essence of the problem definition in the politics" (p. 137).
In 1984, the U.S. Department of the Transportation needed that front seats in the motor vehicles be capable of with automatic occupant safety devices (i.e air bags) in its place of the, or in the accumulation to, physical lap as well as shoulder belts. In 1991, Congress focussed the NHTSA to adjust this standard to necessitate "an inflatable restraint" (i.e., air bag) when it passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) (P.L. 102-240). The Act required that air bags be put in the 95% of the cars by model year 1997 as well as in the 100% by model year 1998. Also, installation of the air bags was essential in the 80% of the light trucks in the model year 1998 as well as in the 100% by model year 1999. (Epidemiology 2002)
Earlier than air bags were completely installed in the automobile fleet as focussed under the ISTEA, deaths to small children as well as women of the small stature focused attention on the dangers associated with air bag use. The NHTSA has announced 121 deaths attributable to the deployment of the air bags since 1990. In some cases, these crashes happened at speeds so low that only slight injuries would have resulted had an air bag not deployed. (Glass 2000)In reaction, Congress held three hearings to deal with the dangers of the air bags, as well as the NHTSA has concerned four modifications to its regulations in an effort to overcome the probability of the future air bag deaths. Thus, current policy debate has focused on modifying present Federal air bag guidelines even before the ISTEA’s directive was completely put into practice. (Grisoni 2000)
Manufacturers have installed some of the advanced technologies that is needed to comply with the advanced air bag rule in certain vehicles that are on the market today. (See table 1.) Manufacturers and companies that produce air bags are working on the development of other needed advanced technologies, with the aim of having them ready for installation in vehicles by September 2003, as required.
Advanced air bag systems installed in future vehicles that are much more sophisticated than the conventional air bag systems in today’s vehicles, because they will be capable of tailoring air bag deployment to characteristics of the front seat occupants as well as crash severity. Conventional frontal air bag systems deploy the air bags with a single level of inflation output for all crashes that exceed a predetermined severity threshold. (Ai & Norton 2003)These systems generally consist of separate components designed to work together: crash sensors, a control module, and a driver and passenger inflator and air bag. The crash sensors and control module are typically located in one unit within the passenger compartment; the unit is often mounted within the floor between the driver and the passenger. (Allison 2001) The crash sensors detect the occurrence and severity of crashes and provide this input to the control module. The control module evaluates inputs from the sensors. If the control module determines that a crash has occurred that exceeds the severity threshold, it then sends a triggering signal to the inflators to deploy the air bags. (Association for the Advancement Automotive Medicine 2001)The inflators and air bags are packaged together in air bag modules, which are located in the steering wheel on the driver side and in the instrument panel on the passenger side. Upon receiving a triggering signal from the control module, inflators generate or release gases that rapidly fill the air bags, generally within 1/20 of a second after impact. The purpose of the inflated air bags is to provide protective cushioning between the occupants and the steering wheel, instrument panel, and windshield. However, the "single stage" inflators in most vehicles today, in some cases, provide more inflation power than necessary because they fill the air bags with one level of output when deployed, regardless of the types of occupants requiring protection or the degree of severity of the crash. (Braver & Ferguson 1997)
Future frontal air bag systems designed to meet the performance requirements of NHTSA’s advanced air bag rule may have additional features that will allow the deployment of the air bags to adapt to characteristics of the front seat occupants as well as different crash situations. Auto manufacturers anticipate that two new components may be needed to meet the rule’s requirements: occupant classification sensors and multistage inflators. (Braver 1998) Occupant classification sensors may provide an additional input to the control module to detect different types of occupants and whether or not they are belted. (Braver, Whitfield & Ferguson 1997) For example, manufacturers anticipate installing sensors that is able to identify whether the front passenger seat is occupied by an infant in a rear-facing child seat, a child, or an adult. (Braver & Whitfield 1998)Multistage inflators, which will replace single-stage inflators, may provide varying levels of inflation output that can be tailored to characteristics of the driver and front seat passenger as well as different crash scenarios. Deployment options could include no deployment, low-level output, and high-level output, as well as additional levels of deployment between the low- and high-output stages. (Epidemiology 2002)While the occupant classification sensors and multistage inflators are the key new features of the advanced air bag systems envisioned by auto manufacturers, other components may also be improved. (Barnard 1997)For example, manufacturers anticipate that these systems include crash sensors that can more precisely discriminate among different types of crashes (such as a crash into a rigid concrete wall versus a crash with another car), control modules that can process the additional inputs provided by crash and occupant sensors and make more accurate and timely deployment decisions, and air bag designs that allows the bag to deploy less aggressively. (Berg 2000) These advanced air bag systems are designed to reduce the likelihood of the types of fatalities previously caused by air bag deployments. For example, such systems would deactivate the passenger air bag or deploy it at a low level if the passenger seat is occupied by an infant or small child. (Cummings 2001) These systems may also adjust air bag deployment if the driver or passenger is a small adult. Some vehicles on the U.S. market today have frontal air bag systems with multistage inflators and some other advanced features, such as seat belt usage sensors and improved air bag designs. (Calvert & McCubbins 1989)However, no vehicles currently on the market have air bag systems with all the features manufacturers believe are needed to fulfil the requirements of the advanced air bag rule. In particular, no vehicles currently have frontal air bag systems with occupant classification sensors that can distinguish among child seats, children, or adults. (Cobb 1983)
Manufacturers plan to continue making improvements in existing technologies for crash sensors, control modules, inflators, and air bags to comply with the advanced air bag rule. Manufacturers and suppliers are working on improving the ability of crash sensing systems to differentiate levels of crash severity and types of crashes. As part of this effort, manufacturers plan to increase the use of multipoint crash sensing systems. (Corneli 2000)Manufacturers and suppliers are also developing more complex computational systems to be incorporated into control modules, in order to allow them to process the additional inputs in advanced air bag systems and to make accurate and timely decisions regarding deployment outputs. (Coughlin 1994)
Under the behavioural definition, atmosphere bags are touted as a productive machine vehicle safety device. Federal regulations requiring the facility of atmosphere bags in the machine vehicle fleet have helped have American machine vehicles safer for occupants. (Dahl 1967)
To exemplify this perception, proponents of the behavioural definition offering estimates of the amount of lives that have been saved, and the amount of injuries that have been averted, by atmosphere bags. For instance, Dr. Ricardo Martinez (NHTSA) testified that "[a]s of April 15, 1997, much than 1,900 drivers and passengers are awake because of atmosphere bags. About 600 were saved in 1996 only. (Damsgaard 2001)
Deaths from atmosphere suitcase deployments are sad cases, and steps must be taken to guarantee that they do not happen in the future. But these deaths must be understood in the larger circumstance of traffic safety. (Damsgaard 2001)
It is significant to recall that over 40,000 folk perish in machine vehicle crashes each year. The deaths traceable to broadcast suitcase deployments are tiny in amount when compared with the amount of lives that have been protected by atmosphere bags. Senator Gorton stated that atmosphere bag-related "deaths are few in comparison with the amount of lives saved, or when compared to the 3,300 children killed in automobile accidents every year. (Decker 1984)In this manner the behavioural definition downplays the meaning of the deaths caused by atmosphere bags. The causal hypothesis for this definition suggests that the origin of the trouble is the conduct of the vehicle occupants themselves. (Epidemiology 2002)
Occupants are depicted as placing themselves at danger by positioning themselves overly tight to the atmosphere suitcase at the moment of deployment or by being improperly belted. In mention to the children who have died, Martinez stated: "Last year, about 721001121220f all the children who were killed in the frontal place [of] an auto were riding unbridled" (Glass 2000 p59)In most cases broadcast suitcase fatalities could well be averted by the appropriate consumption of place belts and placing inexperienced children in the back place off from atmosphere bags entirely. "[T]he behavioural issues, where, how, somebody sits, [are] ever going to be one of the principal determinants of living and death in the outcome of a wreck. (Grisoni 2000 p36) To exemplify the behavioural part of this matter, the place belt utilization pace of American machine vehicle passengers is compared with that experienced in new nations. Seat belt utilization rates in Canada and Australia are offered as benchmarks against which the U. S. experience is compared. (Ai & Norton 2003)
For example, Canada and Australia are credited with belt utilization rates of 90 0x0.002fb0804a29p-1022nd 95%, respectively; whereas the United States experiences a pace of 68. The correlation between belt consumption rates and atmosphere suitcase deaths is noted as Canada has had simply two or three fatalities attributed to broadcast suitcase deployments. If the conduct of machine vehicle occupants is causing the unfavourable consequences, so tools that change this conduct are the proper solutions. "In the brief condition, behavioural changes are the almost practical [cure] and would take the almost prompt welfare. Three tools to achieve a difference in conduct are "increased national training, improved resident security laws, and high-visibility enforcement of these laws. (Allison 2001 p44)
The values tacit in these behavioural solutions are general national safety, private obligation, and societal economical efficiency. (Association for the Advancement Automotive Medicine 2001)Because deaths happen in situations where the person is improperly situated or restrained, the person bears the obligation for altering the conduct that places them in risk. As Martinez testified: "No safety device is a cure-all; finally, drivers and passengers must go obligation for their own safety. To increase passionate consequence for these arguments, proponents provide respective depictions of the safety benefits of atmosphere bags. A woman is brought before a congressional hearing to say her tale about how an atmosphere suitcase saved her living. We a-e reminded that the lives saved are parents and grandparents. Videos indicate how atmosphere bags defend crash examination dummies in staged crashes. (Braver & Ferguson 1997 p128) In each lawsuit these symbols assist dramatize the technological and statistical arguments about the consequences of irresponsible conduct that induce the deaths traceable to broadcast suitcase deployment. (Braver, Whitfield & Ferguson 1997)
Proponents of the restrictive definition admit the safety benefits of atmosphere bags, but the dangers of atmosphere bags are more outstanding than in the behavioural definition. The circumstance that is described is one where atmosphere bags make easily, but individuals are being injured and some die needlessly. To back this portrayal of the circumstance, statistics are cited that describe the amount of children and occupants who have died payable to broadcast suitcase deployments. But it is pointed away that insignificant injuries are the more popular outcome. (Braver & Whitfield 1998)
To exemplify the general potency of atmosphere bags, it is estimated that there have been over 1 million atmosphere suitcase deployments. In light of this whole amount, the industry is not putting away a faulty merchandise, but atmosphere bags surely can be improved. Also, it is noted that these deaths are occurring at a moment when Americans are buckling upward more now than always. Seat belt utilization rates are used to identify the circumstance but are interpreted in a distinct circumstance than under the behavioural definition. The reason of the circumstance is outdated and rigid regime rule. After describing the death of a 1-year-old daughter in his country, Senator Dirk Kempthorne characterized Federal rule as follows
Is Alexandra’s death a disaster? Yes. Is this disaster the outcome of regime rule? Yes. Is this rule killing children? Yes. It is argued that automotive manufacturers are required to play rigid regulations when designing atmosphere bags. In specific, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 is the principal perpetrator. This measure requires atmosphere bags to defend the median grownup male, who is unbelted, in a head-on wreck at 30 miles per minute. In light of statistics indicating that most Americans now "crumple upward," the unbelted examination is outdated. (Barnard 1997) More significantly, to be in conformity with this rule. atmosphere bags must deploy at a personnel equivalent to 200 miles per minute. Such higher deployment forces are in surplus of what it would go to defend children and occupants wearing place belts, and still unbelted occupants.
Standard No. 208 is particularly unacceptable because by protecting individuals who in most cases are violating country place belt laws (i. e. , are unbelted), manufacturers know that they must put the older, tiny women, and particularly children at greater danger. As Senator Kempthorne comments: "[Standard no. 208] says, in gist, lawbreakers who do not don place belts will be protected. (Berg 2000 p67)But it may be at the price of your children. Not simply is there worry about the safety implications of Standard No. 208 but too the liability manufacturers may hold. "We think that manufacturers should not be subjected to merchandise liability danger when they are responding in better religion to a Federal authorization. (Cummings 2001)
The resolution that emanates from this causal hypothesis is an alteration in Federal rule. In the brief condition it is recommended that Standard No. 208 be amended to allow manufacturers to depower atmosphere bags (i. e. , cut the volatile accusation for deployment. Depowering would cut the danger that occupants confront when an atmosphere suitcase deploys. (Calvert & McCubbins 1989) Ultimately, the more suitable resolution is the liquidation of the unbelted examination entirely so manufacturers could produce a safer merchandise. (Cobb 1983) The security of the almost susceptible occupants in machine vehicles (i. e. , children, women of tiny height, and the older) is expressly espoused by this definition. Another value apparent in the proposed solutions is maker self-reliance or pattern flexibility. More tacit in this definition are values placed on legitimate conduct (i. e., wearing place belts) and the avoidance of maker merchandise liability. (Corneli 2000)
Common symbols engaged to produce sustain for this definition are susceptible infant passengers as well as outmoded, nonflexible regulation. Proponents of this definition let alone a direct critique of Federal regulators. As a substitute, their ire is determined on the regulation itself that is unfashionable or misguided. As this difference in symbols among the regulation as well as the regulator may seem minor, it allows sustained cooperation among the regulators as well as those espousing this regulatory definition. (Dahl 1967)
The technological problem definition outlooks the state from the viewpoint of the young children as well as people of small stature who are exposed to too much danger. As air bags have safety benefits, the technological definition focal points on the negative costs of air bags, that are a more serious problem than depicted by either the behavioural or authoritarian definitions. (Coughlin 1994)
To reveal the amount of this problem, the amount of fatalities is a key statistic that is referenced. Moreover, the number of air bags in employ, both driver as well as passenger side, are recognized to exemplify the prevalence of air bags in today’s automobile fleet. As Jim Hall (National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)) gives evidence, "[w]e add another 1 million vehicles each month with air bag technology that is not protected for everybody, as well as specially not for children". This marker assists to demonstrate that the problem is one that potentially faces a large segment of the population. (Dahl 1982)
Nothing like the other definitions, it is the technology that is the major cause of the deaths. The technology is described as crude; comparable to a one-size-fits-all piece of clothing. What creates one individual secure, though, will not essentially offer the same amount of safety to the next occupant. As a substitute of sensing the size of an individual, whether or not the person is belted, or whether a child safety seat is there, today’s generation of air bags deploy with one consistent force. This is why persons of small stature as well as young children are placed at danger during air bag deployment. Insufficient research as well as development has been mannered to create the next generation of air bags that will decrease the danger to smaller occupants. (Damsgaard 2001)
Obviously, the solution is to develop air bags that deploy with forces that are customized to the occupant as well as the conditions of the crash. Advanced technology holds the answer to improving air bag safety. These ["]smart" air bags will offer greater safety remunerations than existing ones without the amplified exposure to danger that young children as well as occupants of small stature currently face. As these technological growths are not directly available, short-term solutions comprise of depowering, installing on-off switches, as well as deactivation on demand. The last two of these short-term solutions offer the resident with the alternative of using the active technology. (Decker 1984)
A number of proponents imply that government regulation desires to be ratifies to motivate producers to expand smart bags. In reference to setting government standards pertaining to neat technologies in the future, Mr. Hall stated:
“I think the economic thoughts are the actuality here, Senator, as well as the automobile manufacturers, until the Federal government sets the standard, are not going to initiate the changes that are required.” (Epidemiology 2002 p71)
Charles H. Pully (Automotive Restraints Council) went further as well as testified: (Glass 2000 p89)
“So when will the sophisticated smart restraint organism [be] available? If we have aggressive targets set, the 2000 model year is not unreasonable. That’s the 1999 calendar year.” (Grisoni 2000 p164)
These solutions unreservedly worth technology, as future advances will make the motor vehicle an still safer means of transportation. (Ai & Norton 2003)Additionally, passive protection is valued, as the final goal is to create an air bag that suggests safety reimbursements to all occupants without any responsibility positioned on the occupant to make sure proper usage. (Braver, Whitfield & Ferguson 1997)Outmoded as well as hazardous technology is employed as an efficient symbol to heighten awareness for creating new technology. The present generation is referred to as "dumb` air bags, whilst the new as well as improved generation is "smart` technology. (Calvert & McCubbins 1989)
Under the corporate greed definition we are faced with an emergency or crisis. It is not that occupants are inadvertently dying, it is that air bags are killing people. In particular, air bags are killing young children. Even though it is acknowledged that some small women as well as senior citizens have died as a result of air bag deployments, it is the death of the child that is the focus of this description. (Epidemiology 2002)
As confirmation to validate this depiction, the number of children whose deaths have been credited to air bag deployments is obtainable. Their ages are identified as well as the circumstances surrounding their death. Frequently presented is a description of the way in that the air bag caused the death.
These are children who were "struck in the face by air bags, all in low speed collisions in that normally they would have survived". (Corneli 2000)Approximation of future child losses due to air bag deployments is also offered. (Damsgaard 2001)
Air bags are killing twice as a lot of children as they are saving, as well as the most current projection that I have seen from NHTSA is that air bags will kill 128 children a year, absent counteractive measures. The blame for these deaths is located on the automobile manufacturers. (Grisoni 2000) Corporate voracity has led manufacturers to install air bags that are inexpensively designed. The basis of the air bag crisis can be settled in a sentence: The automakers constructed cheap air bags that they knew were dangerous to children as well as failed to warn of the dangers. (Coughlin 1994)
It is critical that industry officials were well conscious of the dangers that air bags pretence to some occupants, other than the industry did nothing to caution people of these dangers when it was understand that air bags were a marketable product. The marketing of air bags was deceptive, as advertisements characteristically portrayed air bags as a big fluffy pillow, not a safety tool deployed at violent speeds. Therefore, corporate greed has reasoned these unsurprising, senseless deaths. (Corneli 2000)
To deal with this problem it is suggested that the public be knowledgeable about the danger that air bags pose, the on-off switches be fixed to give people the option to use an air bag, as well as smart air bags be developed. Since, it is not précised how this last solution is to be achieved. The values adopted by this definition are guard of children, individual choice, as well as corporate accountability.
Possibly the mainly dramatic symbol used in the argue over air bag safety is the innocent child whose life was unnecessarily shortened by an air bag. The family who is pain from such a tragic loss also perform the problem. The symbolic illustration of the greedy corporation additionally creates sympathy. (Berg 2000)
Beyond powering schedule setting, problem definitions also persuade the result of the policy process. Once an issue reaches the political agenda, the consequent debate over what to do may be considered as a competition among alternative definitions of the problem. Quite a few factors may influence the achievement enjoyed by a problem definition in framing the debate as well as determining policy result. (Barnard 1997)
The persuasion of a problem definition on policymaking is examined by the existence of an effective entrepreneur as well as the amount of consensus exhibited by proponents of a definition. First, the existence of an effectual entrepreneur has been recognized as a significant factor in agenda setting as well as policymaking. An effective entrepreneur is coherent, visible, willing to perform energy to the issue, as well as perceived as knowledgeable as well as believable in terms of the information presented. (Braver & Whitfield 1998)
The efficiency of an entrepreneur is also prejudiced by one’s political clout or the location that one engages in the policy process. Second, a problem definition benefit from an advantage over others to the level that the proponents of a definition are reliable in the information, messages, as well as solutions that they each offer in the policy debate. A definition is thus reinforced when it is spoken in the same way by several individuals. (Association for the Advancement Automotive Medicine 2001)
The description of the definition itself is also significant in explaining a definition’s persuasion on policymaking. First, scholars have recognized the significance of politically as well as technically feasible solutions that are inexpensive. For instance, Berg et. al.(2000) argues that a feasible alternative must be linked with a problem description to open a policy window.
Second, for a definition to fruitfully frame or dominate the policy debate, it must be comprehensive in its description of the matter in necessitate of redress. The effectiveness of a problem definition to casing the issue apparent by policymakers is in part resolute by the interweaving of all the mechanism of a definition into a persuasive as well as complete story (i.e., evidence, causal theory, explanations, as well as symbols). Those definitions that do not enlarge each module are likely to be less important. (Ai & Norton 2003)
Third, problem definitions also differ in views to their compatibility with other definitions of the state. There are two features to this idea of compatibility. The first pertains to a definition’s rational incompatibility with the causal theory of other definitions. (Braver, Whitfield & Ferguson 1997) The policy discussion is frequently revealed as a competition among jointly exclusive definitions. (Cobb 1983)As, the causal theories of rival definitions are not forever rationally incompatible, be familiar with the bearing of multiple causality in illuminating social circumstances. (Corneli 2000) The second feature of compatibility pertains to the reacceptance of a definition by persons adopting competing problem definitions. To the degree that the causal theory of exacting definition is acknowledged as valid by other participants in the discussion, the definition will be more powerful. (Dahl 1967)
In total, the subsequent "success characteristics" determine that problem definition is most likely to shape policy formation on a particular issue: the presence of an effective entrepreneur, a consensus among its proponents, the possibility of its solutions, the comprehensiveness of the definition, as well as its compatibility with other definitions employed in the debate. (Damsgaard 2001)
The problem definition viewpoint is a helpful approach for accepting the debate surrounding the matter of air bag safety. This discussion can be understood as a rivalry among four definitions: behavioural, regulatory, technological, as well as corporate greed. Each definition espouses a sole causal theory. As we have explained these definitions as obviously distinct, the real debate played out in the three congressional hearings that we observed is rather muddy. We expected to discover that a given person would powerfully espouse a specific definition. As an alternative, we found that persons often referenced the causal theory of additional than one definition as well as, therefore, would offer several solutions. The actors in the debate over air bag safety generally see the problem as a complex one involving multiple causes. (Decker 1984)
This is opposing to the usual picture of problem definitions as jointly exclusive depictions of a communal condition. (Cummings 2001)
The same solution can even be presented by several definitions in answering to dissimilar causal theories, probable rising the chance of its adoption. (Cobb 1983)Moreover, policy formation is a continual process where dissimilar definitions may have persuade at different times. This, in part, is a task of the changing cast of actors, as congressional committee members be different among the chambers as well as across years.
A problem definition viewpoint is helpful for illumination why certain policies were adopted as well as forecasting the shape of future policy. (Damsgaard 2001)The "success characteristics" of a problem definition conclude how probable a definition is to influence policy. We recognized several characteristics of winning problem definitions: an effective entrepreneur, a consensus among supporters, the viability of its solutions, its comprehensiveness, as well as its compatibility with other definitions. (Coughlin 1994)
With these achievement characteristics in mind, we are not astonished to find that the behavioural definition prejudiced the first iteration of policy on air bag safety as well as continues to frame much of the debate. The authoritarian definition has enjoyed incomplete success in recent regulatory changes. Because, the technological definition will probable persuade future policy considerations once smart air bags are verified to be reasonable. At last, the solutions presented completely by the corporate greed definition are not probable to be adopted. (Epidemiology 2002)
Producers are not required to produce vehicles that can meet the requirements of the advanced air bag rule until the production year starting in September 2003. Frontal air bag organisms with multistage inflators started appearing on the market in some model year 1999 as well as 2000 vehicles as well as became more widely available in model year 2001 vehicles. (Association for the Advancement Automotive Medicine 2001)While three of the eight Producers we talked to installed multistage air bag organisms in some or all of their model year 1999 vehicles, seven of the Producers installed this technology in some or all of their model year 2001 vehicles. Four of these seven Producers-BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, as well as Honda- installed multistage air bag organisms in at least one-quarter of their model year 2001 fleets. (Allison 2001) While most of the multistage air bag organisms installed in these model year 2001 vehicles have two stages of inflation, some have three stages. Producers are planning to further increase the number of vehicles with multistage air bag organisms in their model year 2002 fleets. (Epidemiology 2002)
Most of the multistage air bag organisms installed in vehicles on the market today have one or more types of sensors that offer information about the front seat occupants, such as the presence of an occupant in the passenger seat, driver seat position, as well as driver as well as passenger seat belt use. In air bag organisms with these occupant sensors installed, the control module utilizes input from these sensors, in addition to input from the crash sensors, in making deployment decisions. (Braver & Whitfield 1998)
• Three Producers-BMW, DaimlerChrysler (Mercedes-Benz), as well as Ford-have offered some model year 2001 vehicles equipped with weight-based occupant presence sensors on the passenger side. In these vehicles, the control module deactivates the passenger air bag if the sensor detects that the passenger seat is unoccupied. The main purpose of these sensors is to prevent unnecessary deployment of the passenger air bag as well as save on repair costs. The sensors are not capable of identifying what type of occupant is in the passenger seat. (Grisoni 2000)
• One Producer-Ford-has offered model year 2001 vehicles equipped with sensors that sense whether the driver’s seat is positioned forward on the seat track. When the sensor senses that the seat is placed forward, demonstrating that the driver is accommodated close to the air bag module, the organize module deactivates the high-output stage of the driver’s air bag.
• Four Producers-BMW, DaimlerChrysler (Mercedes-Benz), Ford, as well as Honda-have offered some model year 2001 vehicles that contain, as part of their multistage air bag organisms, sensors that detect whether the occupants are wearing seat belts. The control module deploys the air bags at a higher crash severity threshold if the occupant is belted as well as a lower threshold if the occupant is unbelted. (Ai & Norton 2003)
In addition to installing the new air bag technologies described above, Producers have also made improvements to crash sensors, control modules, as well as air bags. In currently available multistage air bag organisms, the level of air bag deployment in a crash is based on the level of crash severity, as the occupant sensors described above also affect deployment decisions in some vehicles. The crash sensors in these organisms have been refined to better discriminate crash severity levels.
These crash sensors are usually arranged in one of two ways. In the first type of plan that is characteristically used in conservative air bag organisms a "single-point" electronic crash sensor is situated within the control unit in the passenger section. In the second kind of arrangement, called a "multipoint" electronic crash sensing organism, one sensor is situated within the control module as well as one or more sensors are located in the front (crush zone) of the vehicle.
In all of the multistage air bag organisms installed in vehicles on the market today, the control modules contain more complex computational organisms designed to make timely decisions about the appropriate level of air bag deployment. In multistage air bag organisms that include occupant sensors as well as/or multipoint crash sensing organisms, the control modules must process the additional inputs offered by these sensors in making deployment decisions. (Braver, Whitfield & Ferguson 1997)
Producers have made a variety of improvements in their air bag designs aimed at reducing the aggressively of the deploying air bag as well as, therefore, the danger of injury caused by deployment. (Braver & Whitfield 1998)One major area of improvement has been to change the location of the air bag module or the size, shape, as well as folding of the bag to increase the distance among the occupant as well as the deploying air bag. For instance, on the driver side, Producers now frequently recess the air bag into the steering wheel as well as employ a fold and shape that permits the bag to deploy agilely relatively than rearward toward the driver. (Cummings 2001)
A domestic population-based cohort of children are involved in MVCs and are included in the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) database from 1995 to 2002 is studied. NASS CDS clusters, strata, and weights are included in all analyses.
Children 0 to 18 years of age are involved in MVCs and are seated in the correct frontal rider place.
Subjects included in the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) database from 1995 through 2002 were used in the survey. The NASS CDS is a chance sampled, population-based, nationally democratic cohort of persons involved in MVCs. Data in the NASS CDS database were collected through 3-stage sampling of MVCs from particular regions throughout the United States,20 to guarantee generalizability of the information to the country as a whole. The 8-year moment period was selected because it encompasses the largest, almost new block of information with extensive air-bag data in the NASS CDS database and because information assemblage changes for atmosphere bags were instituted in 1995. During this moment period, increased output and ultimate compulsory inclusion of both driver and rider atmosphere bags in rider vehicles occurred. By 1995, 98 % original cars sold were equipped with driver and rider atmosphere bags. The survey was approved by the institutionalized inspection boards of Oregon Health as well as Science University along with the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute.
A domestic, population-based sampling of children 0 to 18 years of age who were seated in the correct frontal place and involved in MVCs with rider vehicles or soft trucks, as included in the NASS CDS database, was included in the analysis. The survey included simply children because past studies have demonstrated a high danger of wound or death among adults, compared with children, when controlling for new significant wreck characteristics. We defined "children" as persons 0 to 18 years of age because this age scope allowed for sufficient comparison samples for many age, altitude, and weight reduce away points while minimizing factors such as alcohol and drug consumption between groups and because US increase charts cover this complete age scope.
Severe injury, the principal outcome, was explained as an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of > 3 for several body region. The AIS for a known injury series from 1 (minor) to 6 (non survivable). A score of > 3 shows a serious injury.
The vulnerability variable of stake was the presence of a rider position frontal atmosphere suitcase. Previous studies have defined air-bag vulnerability as air-bag presence quite than deployment, to account for variance in deployment and effects after activation. This definition has been suggested as a way of assessing simultaneously the consequence of air-bag activation and the consequence of the atmosphere suitcase after activation. There were simply 13 cases (1%) during this moment period in which the atmosphere suitcase had been disconnected or removed from the vehicle. In these instances, the air-bag variable was coded as not existing because of an inability to deploy.
In addition to air-bag data, variables were selected on the ground of known associations with wound and wreck hardship, as easily as age and anthropometric measures for children. Thirteen variables were considered in the analysis: air-bag position (described above), age (years), altitude (centimetres), weight (kilograms), restriction consumption (manual circuit or circuit and shoulder belt, automated belt structure, or kid safety place with belt consumption), instruction of influence (head-on, left lateral, or correct lateral, with a mention group of rear, undercarriage, and best crashes), rollover with collision, entrapment, steering bike malformation (in increments of 1 cm), vehicle example year (1998 versus earlier model years), vehicle weight, difference in speed, and rider place encroachment (15, 15-29, 30-45, 46-60, or 60 cm) We used difference in speed, rider place encroachment, steering bike malformation, rollover, and entrapment to adapt for crash hardship, the principal confounding element in the analysis. Change in speed, rider place encroachment, vehicle weight, and steering bike malformation were coded as continual variables, whereas the remaining no anthropometric covariates were coded as dichotomous categorical variables. In addition to the dichotomous interaction terms (described below), age, altitude, and weight were entered into the analysis as continual variables, to examine for a linear association with wound. Because some automotive manufacturers began implementing second-generation atmosphere bags in 1998, we included a dichotomous covariate for example year (1998 versus earlier model years) as a proxy for vehicles equipped with depowered atmosphere bags.
Age (scope: 0-18 years), altitude (scope: 30-203 cm), and weight (scope: 2-150 kilo) were coded as dichotomous categorical variables for consumption in interaction terms, with dual distinct cutoff points.
The dichotomous terms (ie, cutoff points) considered were as follows: 8 to 17 years for age, in increments of 1 year (eg, 0-8 vs 9-18 years); 110 to 180 cm for altitude, in increments of 10 cm (eg, 30-110 vs 111-203 cm); 30 to 75 kilo for weight, in increments of 5 kilo (eg, 2-30 vs 31-150 kilo. Potential cutoff points were selected on the ground of results from past studies and basic US masculine and feminine increase charts for children, as easily as to constitute a broad scope of prospective strata for age and system size. In overall, 27 distinct potentiality cutoff points were tested.
All analyses were restricted to children seated in the correct frontal rider place to insulate the effects of air-bag presence and to curb for the differential danger of wound according to place stance. Noncollision crashes and sheer rollovers were excluded to permit for the proper consumption of changes in speed to curb for crash hardship and because noncollision crashes are improbable to ensue in air-bag deployment. After expulsion of noncollision crashes (n =1019), sheer rollovers (n = 313), pregnant feminine subjects (n = 35), and subjects with missing air-bag data (n = 5), the 1995- 2002 NASS CDS database contained 3790 subjects 0 to 18 years of age. All children 0 to 18 years of age, irrespective of system size, were included in the analysis. Although we mention the overall unadjusted amount of children included in the analysis (n = 3790), we relate to the NASS CDS sample-adjusted amount and dimension of occupants throughout the clause, quite than the unadjusted numbers or local estimates.
To permit inclusion of all pediatric subjects contained in the NASS CDS database during this moment period and to maintain the new weighting strategy of the NASS CDS database, we used dual imputation to ascribe missing values. We imputed missing values by using symmetrical chains of multiple imputation, schism on the presence or absence of a rider atmosphere suitcase, to maximise the statistical efficiency of assessing interaction terms (mature, altitude, and weight) with the air-bag variable. Variables for clump, strata within clusters, and year were included as fixed effects in the imputation models to maintain the complicated sampling pattern features of NASS CDS.
Age-, height-, and weight-dependent cutoff points were investigated through interaction terms with the presence of a rider atmosphere suitcase in multivariate logistic regression models. These models accounted for the complicated sampling pattern of NASS CDS and included the extra variables noted above. We considered rider air-bag presence the focal autonomous variable in the interaction condition, with the age, altitude, or weight condition as a consequence modifier. Analyses were first performed on the subset of crashes that involved main or incidental head-on impacts (defined as a main or incidental instruction of personnel in the 10 o’clock to 2 o’clock stance of the vehicle), because these collisions are almost possible to induce air-bag deployment and to consult the almost prospective welfare from atmosphere bags for grownup passengers. Subsequent analyses were conducted with all crash types and included a covariate for instruction of influence (i. e, head-on, left lateral, or correct lateral.
Outcomes for the contact terms are presented as P values since of the complexity of interpreting the odds ratio (OR) of a relations term. For terms that recommended the occurrence of an interaction (P .10), we carry out stratified examination to measure the role of such effect modifiers as well as to quantify these relations in terms that would be clinically significant. Also, we calculated the cross-derivative of the interaction cause for interaction terms recognized above as well as designed this value next to the prospect of severe injury, as calculated with the multivariate model. As a qualitative test of the reliability of these outcomes, every method explained above was repeated with the exercise of passenger air-bag deployment in its place of passenger air-bag presence. To measure modification of the air-bag effect by self-control use as well as gender, we examined extra interaction terms with these covariates. In this study, we utilize the term risk synonymously with odds since the resultant (serious injury) was uncommon (ie, 2% of the sample). To discover the effects of numerous imputation as well as dissimilar potential fundamental patterns of missing data on the outcomes, we mannered sensitivity analyses of the imputation models with dissimilar patterns of absent data for variables with 5% missing information in a hypothetical information set with the same sample size as well as variables.
Database management was carry out with SAS version 8.1 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). SAS-callable IVEware (survey methodology program; Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) was utilized for numerous imputation as well as multivariate analyses to explanation for the difficult sampling design of the NASS CDS database as well as to guarantee suitable variance calculations. Stata software (version 8; Stata Corp, College Station, TX) was utilized to examine the cross-derivative of the contact effect.
We studied 3790 right front seat child occupants (age range: 1 month to the 18 years), representing a domestic population of the 2 055 390 kids involved in MVCs during the 8-year period. A total of the 2535 kids (67%) were involved in primary or secondary frontal collisions. No kids were excluded because of the missing outcome (AIS score) information.
Sixty kids (1.6%) had at least 1 injury with an AIS score of the 3. There were 10 fatalities (17% of the severely injured kids) in the outcome group. Characteristics for right front seat occupants, according to the airbag existence versus absence, are listed in Table 2.
In multivariate regression designs for kids seated in the right front seat as well as concerned in frontal collisions, age cut off points of the 14 years (contact term: P = .054) as well as 15 years (contact term: P = .074) were recognized as possible effect modifiers of the relation among air-bag existence as well as severe injury. When the same contact terms were included in models assessing air-bag deployment (rather than air-bag existence), the results were more pronounced (contact term for age 14 years: P = .019; contact term for age 15 years: P = .024).
These cut off points persevered in models which integrated every types of the collisions other than had fewer statistical contribution. There were no dichotomous cut off points in height or weight that customized the relation between an air bag as well as severe injury, regardless of the collision type as well as whether the air-bag variable was coded as existence or deployment (all P .20). Additionally, there was no linear association among height or weight as well as injury in any of the models (all P .20).
In examination stratified according to the age cut-off points shown earlier, an age split at 0 to the 14 vs 15 to the 18 years provided the most consistent risk strata in all models. Among kids 0 to the 14 years of the age involved in frontal collisions, point estimates suggested an increased risk of the severe injury from airbag existence (OR: 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-30.9) as well as deployment (OR: 6.13; 95% CI: 0.30- 126), although these values did not reach statistical significance. Among kids 15 to the 18 years of the age involved in frontal collisions, there were protective effects on injury from both air-bag existence (OR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.05- 0.75) as well as deployment (OR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.09-0.99). These findings persisted in stratified analyses involving all collision types (Table 3).
The contact effect (cross-derivative) between air-bag existence as well as age of the 0 to the 14 years (versus 15-18 years) was positive for all probabilities of the severe injury, although there was a more pronounced statistical contribution in crashes with a moderate probability of the severe injury (Fig 1). For kids with a very high or very low probability of the injury, the contact effect was negligible. We able to know that like but further pronounced outcomes when the air-bag variable was known as air-bag usage (data not exposed).
The use of the restraints as well as gender did not modify the relation between air-bag existence (or deployment) as well as injury (for contact terms in the full as well as stratified models, all P 0.30). There were no qualitative differences or indications of the systematic bias in the results of the sensitivity analyses with different patterns of the missing data.
NASS CDS domestic estimates for the percentage of the kids seated in the right front seat demonstrated that the majority of the kids 13 to the 14 years of the age (67% in 2002) sit in the front passenger seat, regardless of the existence of the an air bag. With the same domestic estimates, there has been a substantial decrease in the amount of the kids 0 to the 12 years of the age seated in the right front seat since the introduction of the air-bag warning labels in 1997 (15% in 2002). However, the amount of the kids 12 years of the age seated in the right front seat has not changed significantly since 1997, even when 13- to the 14-year-old kids are considered separately (data not shown).
These outcomes recommends that, between occupants 0 to the 18 years of the age seated in the right front seat of the vehicle equipped with a passenger air bag, kids 14 years of the age have the greatest odds of the severe injury, particularly in crashes with a moderate probability of the injury. However, both air-bag existence as well as deployment seem to the have a protective effect on injury among older kids (15-18 years). This age cut-off point (i.e, 0-14 years versus 15-18 years) is consistent with results from a previous study that assessed the age at that fatality risk from air bags changed from harmful to the net beneficial14 as well as a study that assessed the risk of the injury among 3- to the 15-yearold restrained kids. Although the effect of the passenger air-bag existence on the risk of the severe injury seemed to the be influenced by age, we were unable to the identify any effect modification with child height or weight.
Child developmental alteration linked with teenage years may offer one argument for these verdicts. Although there is variation in the timing as well as duration of the puberty among kids, the onset of the puberty typically occurs at 11 years of the age among girls as well as 13 years among boys. There are increases not only in weight as well as height but also in body composition, including lean body mass, bone mineral content, as well as bone density (bone mass), during puberty. In addition, age has been shown to the be a better determinant of the pubertal development than anthropometric measurements. If changes in body composition as well as bone mass during early puberty play a role in susceptibility to the injury from air bags in MVCs, it may not be surprising to the demonstrate age as a better discriminator for risk of the injury than height or weight. Despite the differences in onset of the puberty between boys as well as girls, we did not find gender to the be a significant effect modifier.
The age cut-off point recognized in this analysis is older than that recommended by a number of previous studies 15- 18 as well as the current suggestions by NHTSA. Though the broad application as well as distribution of the NHTSA guidelines regarding kids travelling in vehicles with passenger air bags have been credited with reducing the amount of the air-bag- associated deaths among kids, the results presented here suggest that there may be a significant proportion of the at-risk kids being missed by the current suggestions.
Restraint use has been suggested as a modifier of the relation between air bags as well as death among kids with one study demonstrating that certain groups of the younger restrained kids (i.e., 9-12 year-old kids) actually have a survival benefit associated with the air bag. Our outcomes failed to demonstrate such effect modification by restraint use. However, our finding that younger kids were at risk of the injury from an air bag despite restraint use is consistent with several other studies. There are quite a lot of possible limitations in our analysis.
The NASS CDS data set provided a relatively limited amount of the kids who were seated in the right front seat as well as severely injured in a vehicle equipped with a passenger air bag. Attempts to the use contact terms in multivariate models to the demonstrate effect modification generally require large sample sizes to the avoid type II error. It is possible that this sample as well as the amount of the subjects with severe injury were not large enough to the demonstrate the effect modification by height as well as weight, as well as we cannot exclude the possibility that a larger sample of the such kids might suggest height or weight cut-off points for kids as well as air-bag risk.
Our incapability to the discover exact cut-off points in height or weight might have several additional explanations, ie, (1) multiple imputation was required for a portion of the missing height as well as weight data, (2) values for height as well as weight in the NASS CDS data set might not have been accurate for all kids, (3) the relationship between height or weight as well as injury might be more complex than can be tested with a dichotomous cutoff point, as well as (4) the risk strata for body size might be better estimated with a combination of the height as well as weight values, that we did not assess. Of these possibilities, we do not suspect that the multiple imputation process adversely affected our ability to the detect height or weight cut-off points because we performed sensitivity analyses for all variables with >5% missing data (including height as well as weight) with 3 different patterns of the missing data (missing completely at random, missing at random, as well as missing in a non-random pattern). The non-random pattern of the missing-ness simulated a scenario in that missing values for height as well as weight were associated with less severe crashes as well as less severe injuries. There was no indication of the any qualitative change or systematic bias in the results secondary to the multiple imputation, as well as our results were robust with all patterns of the missing data.
There is also the possibility that the methods we used to the identify cut-off points for age, height, as well as weight (i.e., the use of the dichotomous contact terms) might not identify the ideal risk strata. Modelling age as a continuous (rather than dichotomous) variable in the contact term produced similar point estimates for when the odds of the severe injury began to the change; however, small amounts of the kids in each age group reduced the precision of the estimates as well as created difficulty in drawing firm conclusions.
We tried to regulate for dissimilar types of the air bags by using vehicles with model year of the 1998 versus previous models as a substitute for vehicles equipped with de-powered air bags. This variable represents not only the effect of the newer-generation air bags in certain vehicles starting in 1991 but also that of the other safety features included in newer-model vehicles. When we stratified the sample according to the model year of the 1998 versus older vehicles as well as assessed the same contact terms for age, height, as well as weight, age of the 14 years was the only cut off point that persisted for both newer as well as older vehicles, but results were limited by the small amount of the newer-model vehicles.
An age of the 0 to the 14 years (versus 15-18 years) modified the effect of the passenger air-bag presence on severe injury among children seated in right front seat as well as involved in MVCs. Children 0 to the 14 years of the age seem to the be at increased risk of the injury from a passenger air bag, particularly in crashes with a moderate probability of the injury, whereas the presence of the an air bag has a protective effect on severe injury among children 15 to the 18 years of the age. We were unable to the identify similar cut-off points for height or weight. The association with childhood developmental changes (measured by age) must be considered in ongoing effort to the reduce unnecessary air-bag- related injuries as well as deaths among children, because age may be a better marker than height or weight for risk assessment for children as well as air bags. On the basis of these results, children 0 to the 14 years of the age must not be seated in right front passenger seat of the vehicles equipped with a passenger air bag.
Positioned air bags are not hazardous. They are not extremely hot or about to the catch fire. Air bags deploy one time only as well as pose no danger after deployment. If an air bag has positioned, you will see it drooping from the steering wheel, the dashboard, or the side of the driver’s as well as passenger’s seats. Rescue personnel who arrive immediately after air bag development will see smoke as well as powder inside the vehicle. The smoke is produced by the combustion of the sodium aside as well as other chemicals within the inflator module.
The powder, typically corn starch, is consumed as a lubricant in order to make sure smooth deployment of the air bag by avoiding it from sticking together as it is stored inside the module. Also mixed with the residual powder is a small amount of the sodium hydroxide, a by-product of the combustion which takes place in inflator module. This chemical is slightly alkali as well as may cause skin as well as eye irritation. When irrigated with water, sodium hydroxide turns out to be safe baking soda. A number of extra discomforts may be practised if the powder reaches into a cut or onto burned skin. Anybody who gets "the powder" on exposed body parts must wash with soap as well as water.
The actual burning process is contained within the inflator module as well as lasts for less than 1/10 of the second. The same gloves as well as eye protection which shield rescue personnel sharp edges, glass, as well as bodily fluids also protect them from this powder.
Although it’s rare, an air bag can unexpectedly deploy throughout rescue operations, producing a hazardous operating condition as well as causing additional injury as well as delay in medical aid to the victims. Even as each crash poses outstanding conditions, the subsequent procedures will assist in reducing risks.
Detach the power to the air bag system. Turn off the engine, as well as detach or cut both battery cables. Detach the negative cable first, followed by the positive. Make certain which the cables do not return or "spring back" to their original placement on the battery. Note: Move seats with occupants away from frontal air bags, if likely (considering likely injuries), before detaching the battery in case the front seats are powered.
Should circumstances permit, detach or cut the negative battery cable near the engine block. During any detach, as well as will be created because there is always a current draw on the battery even when the ignition key is turned off. In addition, since the battery is going through discharge as well as generating some flammable hydrogen gas around the battery area, this can pose a problem. Keeping the arc away from the battery may assist in preventing the gas from being ignited.
In a harsh crash, make definite the battery case has not been penetrated with metal body parts that could re-complete the electrical circuit. Battery detach may frequently be confirmed by attempting to the twist on the headlamps as well as taillights. Though, be aware which the impact of the crash may trip a circuit breaker or blow a fuse, causing the lights not to the work.
Even after a battery detach, it is likely which static electricity can deploy the air bag. Static electricity can be generated by the use of the hydraulic shears as well as rams, rescue personnel sliding across the seat, as well as the cutting of the safety belts. After a crash, it is not likely to show how much static electricity is present around the vehicle as well as, specially, what wires individuals as well as extrication equipment may contact. Also, the use of the rams as well as the prying open of the body parts can trigger the deployment of the mechanically activated side air bags. For these reasons, it is always best to the treat air bag systems as if they were "live."
If time permits wait in expectation of the air bag system is disabled. Check the Air Bag Deactivation Times chart on page 44 to the find out how long it takes for the backup system to the completely deactivate. Some vehicles may take up to the 30 minutes to the deactivate, but most vehicles take one minute or less. Although this will significantly lower the chance of the accidental deployment, it does not make it 100 percent safe.
More importantly, rescue personnel must consider the need to the reach as well as extricate victims as soon as likely as well as to the reach a trauma center within the "Golden Hour" if they are to the deliver the best chance for victims to the survive as well as recover to their fullest potential.
As an extra safety measure, execute extrication preparation efforts from the side of the occupants, through the roof, as well as away from the potential deployment path of the air bags.
Avoid placing yourself or equipment between un-positioned air bags as well as the occupant.
Move seats with occupants away from frontal air bags, as well as lower the seat back if it is appropriate for the victim as well as type of the injuries. When likely, tilt the steering wheel to deliver additional clearance. Do this before detaching the battery in case the front seats are powered.
Do not drill or cut into the air bag module or apply heat above 350 Fahrenheit in area of the steering wheel, dashboard, or seat side panel.
Do not mechanically displace or cut through the steering column until the battery has been detached as well as all other rescue techniques have been performed as well as exhausted. On most air bag systems, cutting through the steering column must not cause the air bag to deploy. However, mechanical systems with the sensor built into the back of the air bag module are sensitive to the sudden movement. Take painstaking care to the deliver a smooth continuous movement while using hydraulic rams as well as other displacement tools to the move or cut the steering column. Be certain to the have as much clearance as likely between the victim as well as the un-positioned air bag before displacing or cutting the column.
Even after these procedures have been followed, emergency personnel must treat every un-positioned air bag as if it were "live."
Ai C, Norton ED. (2003): Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Econ Lett. 80:123-129 40. Kish L, Frankel M. Inference from complex samples (with discussion). J R Stat Soc. 1974;36:1-37
The study discusses that car airbags need to be controlled to protect children and shorter people riding in the front seats. An exploding air bag can be fatal for children, and in addition can severely injure or be fatal for shorter women and those with certain medical conditions. Airbag switches can eliminate this danger.
Allison PD. (2001) Missing Data. Sage University Papers Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Publication 07-136. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
The study discusses that Advanced Air bags have been mandated by Congress, and once developed, they will be safe for women and children, but the deadline for their development is set at 2012. In the US, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers auto air bags to be especially dangerous to children, shorter people, and those with medical conditions.
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. (2001) The Abbreviated Injury Scale, 1990 Revision, Update 98. Barrington, IL: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.
The study illustrates the fact that some car manufacturers have begun offering airbag switches that are based on the weight of the passenger. These systems are an effort to make the airbag safer by turning it off for smaller people and on for larger [people. This applies only to the passenger airbag in certain cars. But depending on the accident, (and issues such as whether the car stays upright or flips, etc.), it is difficult to predict whether the airbag will be on or off. a manual airbag switch is the only way to know for sure that car airbags are turned off.
Braver ER, Ferguson SA, Greene MA, Lund AK. (1997): Reductions in deaths in frontal crashes among right front passengers in vehicles equipped with passenger air bags. JAMA. 278:1437-1439
The study reflects that the car air bags injure far more people in all categories than they kill, and although no official statistics are kept, emergency rooms see severe and debilitating injuries from airbags every day. Considering that air bags explode with 1200 lbs of force and come out at more than 200 mph, this is not surprising.
Braver ER, Whitfield R, Ferguson SA. (1997) : Risk of death among child passengers in front and rear seating positions. In: Child Occupant Protection 2nd Symposium. Report SAE 973298. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers; 25-34
The study discusses that sensible Solutions offers Air Bag Switches for either the driver or passenger air bag of any vehicle. These are the new Gold Standard of airbag switches: they have gold internal contacts and have no internal fuses. This means they will last longer, be more dependable and never be subject to internal corrosion. These are the leading airbag switches available today and meet all federal requirements.
Braver ER, Whitfield R, Ferguson SA.(1998)Seating positions and children’s risk of dying in motor vehicle crashes. Inj Prev. 4:181-187
The study concerns the discussion that currently, car makers have until 2012 to develop airbags that are "safe". Until then you need to protect yourself and your loved ones. To get permission to have an airbag switch installed, you need to apply to the government (NHTSA) for permission. Visit our page: "How to Get a Switch" to find out about the application.
Barnard J, Meng XL. (1997): Application of multiple imputation in medical studies: from AIDS to NHANES. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:17-36 32. Schafer JL. Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. New York, NY:Chapman & Hall.
The study reflects that the frontal-impact airbags are something we take for granted in today’s automobiles. But today’s front airbags differ radically from the airbags of 1996, the year they became a federally required safety feature. What’s more, depending on the age and the brand of vehicle you’re driving, you could have one of several types of front airbags — all of which have different benefits and risks. And as we’ve all heard, some can be a serious danger to your child should he or she be sitting in the front seat during a collision.
Berg MD, Cook L, Corneli HM, Vernon DD, Dean JM. (2000) Effect of seating position and restraint use on injuries to children in motor vehicle crashes. Pediatrics. 105:831-835
The study shows that the airbag technology is getting a lot more advanced. Starting in the 2006 model year, all passenger cars and light-duty trucks must be equipped with sensors that identify children and very small adults and deploy the airbag with less force or not at all. This doesn’t mean it’s OK for kids to ride up front, but it does mean fewer risks for adults of short stature. Some automakers are taking things a step further by designing airbag systems that not only change the force that the airbag deploys, but also the size and shape of the airbag.
Cummings P, Weiss NS. (2001): Mortality reduction with air bag and seat belt use in head-on passenger car collisions. Am J Epidemiol. 154:387-389
The study discusses that the safety experts and automakers agree that the safest place for any child age 12 or under is the backseat, they recognize that some drivers do allow children to sit in the front seat and set out to study the potential injury to a child or small adult when a front-impact airbag deploys. After studying different types of airbag deployments, researchers concluded that airbags in older vehicles pose the greatest risk.
Calvert, R., McCubbins, M. D., & Weingast, B. (1989). A theory of political control and agency discretion. American Journal of Political Science, 33(3), 588-611.
The study discusses that the older vehicles came equipped with first-generation airbags, which could harm and even kill children and very small adults, especially those not wearing seatbelts, due to the extreme force with which the airbags deployed. In 1997, 53 people were killed when the airbag deployed in a collision, with 31 of those deaths children, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C.D. (1983). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-building. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
The study aims to explain that many automakers had fought the federal requirement, precisely because of a fear of airbag injuries. After seeing the number of fatalities, federal regulators changed the airbag requirements to allow a "depowered" airbag, which gave automakers the opportunity to reduce the deployment force, thereby improving airbag safety, while still providing additional protection beyond the seatbelt in a crash.
Corneli HM, Cook LJ, Dean JM. (2000): Adults and children in severe motor vehicle crashes: a matched-pairs study. Ann Emerg Med. 36:340-345
The study discusses that as airbag technology progressed, automakers began to develop methods to reduce the deployment power of airbags based on the size of the occupant. By the early 2000s, some automakers introduced these new airbags, calling them "advanced," "smart," "dual-stage" or "multi-stage.
Coughlin, J. F. (1994). The tragedy of the concrete commons: Defining traffic congestion as a public problem. In D. A. Rochefort & R. W. Cobb (Eds.), The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda (pp. 138-158). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
The study reflects that the Unfortunately, in the earliest versions of advanced airbags, the systems didn’t always "sense" the occupant accurately, effectively fooling the computer. Some owners of Hyundai, Jaguar, Jeep, Lexus, Nissan and Toyota vehicles complained to NHTSA, that their vehicle’s front-passenger "airbag off" warning light came on whenever a small adult was in the seat, or would intermittently turn off depending on the person’s sitting position.
Dahl, R. A. (1967). Pluralist democracy in the United States. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
The study discusses that some automakers take the technology one step further. Mercedes-Benz and BMW, for example, have sensors that can identify a child car seat on the front-passenger seat and suppress the airbag in a crash.
Dahl, R. A. (1982). Dilemmas of pluralist democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
The study discusses that since the introduction of the automobile, 30 million people are estimated to have died in motor vehicle crashes. That’s more than the number of soldiers who succumbed during World War I and World War II combined.
Damsgaard R, Bencke J, Matthiesen G, Petersen JH, Muller J. (2001): Body proportions, body composition and pubertal development of children n competitive sports. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 11:54-60
The study discusses both General Motors and Ford have introduced new designs for their front airbags that not only deploy with less force but in a smaller size, depending on the size and location of the occupant.In real world situations, sensors determine the size, shape and force that the airbag should deploy, or if the airbag should be suppressed completely, within milliseconds.
Decker MD, Dewey MJ, Hutcheson RH, Schaffner W. (1984) The use and efficacy of child restraint devices. JAMA. 252:2571-2575
The study reflects that education, legislation and changing social mores have contributed to lowering the casualty rate. Nearly 82 percent of the population now uses safety belts. Drunken driving has been reduced. Speed limits have been lowered. And cars today are constructed with sturdier safety cages and more effective crumple zones.
Epidemiology. (2002), 13:525-532 19. Durbin DR, Kallan M, Elliot M, Cornejo RA, Arbogast KB, Winston FK.
The study discusses that General Motors’ "dual depth" system uses sensors to look at the force of the collision in real time, as well as the weight of the occupant and the position of the seat. The vehicle’s computer then determines the appropriate size and force of airbag deployment. "This is especially important on the passenger side because [unlike the driver] the occupant can sit anywhere and in any position he wants," explains Vitet. Dual-depth frontal airbags are currently available on the 2006 Buick Lucerne and Cadillac DTS.
Glass RJ, Segui-Gomez M, Graham JD. (2000), Child passenger safety: decisions about seat location, air bag exposure, and restraint use. Risk Anal. 20:521-527
The study discusses that while it’s likely that more automakers will adopt technology similar to GM and Ford’s dual-depth airbags, even more advanced airbag technology is on the horizon. Soon, these ultra-intelligent systems should be able to identify even greater detail, such as if the front passenger is riding with his feet on the dashboard or is leaning over to pick something up off the floor at the moment of a collision.Regardless of how advanced airbags become, one thing is likely to remain the same: the recommendation that children under 13 ride in the backseat. After all, technology can only work within, not eliminate, the laws of physics.
Grisoni ER, Pillai SB, Volsko TA, et al. (2000), Pediatric airbag injuries: the Ohio experience. J Pediatr Surg. 35:160-163
The study discusses the Airbags inflate rapidly (and then immediately deflate), cushioning the occupants and preventing or reducing the level of contact with the steering wheel or dashboard.They need to inflate at an extremely fast rate in order to be fully inflated by the time a person’s body begins to move in reaction to a collision. The bigger the airbag, the faster it has to inflate. In general, European airbags hold 35 litres of gas propellant and fully inflate within 25 milliseconds, which means that they have to expand at anything up to 160 mph. American air bags, usually holding 60 litres of gas, have to inflate even faster. The area of space within the car taken up by the airbag as it inflates is known as the ‘airbag deployment zone’. Sensors within the vehicle monitor the direction and severity of an impact and fire the airbag if the severity and direction warrants it. The impact should be greater than 20mph, and in a frontal direction. Rear end shunts should not fire the airbag. As the airbag module fires, it and the gas it generates are hot, so car occupants may suffer minor burns.
We will send an essay sample to you in 2 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.Get help with my paper