tacoma crash test - did better than rest

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25823041/

Can anyone give me a good reason for not having side airbags as a standard feature (cost is not acceptable)? This should be the law. You can't buy a car without seatbelts. Why can you buy one without side curtains?

Can anyone give me a good reason for not having side airbags as a standard feature (cost is not acceptable)? This should be the law. You can't buy a car without seatbelts. Why can you buy one without side curtains?

When talking side airbags, there are usually 2 separate ones: the side airbag that pops out of the seat back, and the side curtain airbag that pops out of the roof rail above the doors. Convertibles, of course, do not have a side curtain bag, in which case their side bags are bigger, to cover not just the chest area, but the head also.

Side and side-curtain airbags are much more difficult to operate, since there is so little crushspace in the side (virtually none, compared to the front airbags), so they have to work instantaneously. That makes them much more expensive. There is also the problem of the seats and the rest of the interior of the vehicle (the B-pillar, for instance) getting in the way of the inflating bag. That is why Mercedes-Benz, when it first introduced side airbags, had them popping out of the door or pillar and not the seatback.

So, maybe it would be difficult, engineering-wise, to add side airbags to the Colorado/Canyon and Ranger.

Sorry, you said cost no issue, but that is my argument (but then, everything comes down to cost).

Back to the topic of the Tacoma doing well... Toyotas have always done well in IIHS crash tests, usually better than its domestic competitors (and Ford has usually done much better than GM or Chrysler vehicles). Now, as soon as Toyota puts the new active-head restraint seats in all its vehicles, it should ace the rear crash tests also.

I disagree with the argument that there should be a law requiring side airbags, side curtain airbags, and other related safety equipment. I don't think that our government needs to waste our tax dollars on such things. (They waste more than enough of our tax dollars on unneeded legislation as it is.)

I believe that consumer demand and competition will take care of this on its own. Look at today's cars compared to cars 10 years ago. 10 years ago, most cars did not have have side airbags. Few cars offered them as standard equipment, and a few more offered them as options. As consumers demanded safer cars, more and more automakers offered them as standard equipment on new or updated models to stay competitive. Now, most- if not all of the major mid-size sedans have them as standard equipment... and the rest are following suit. Because of competition, most, if not all mid-size sides will have them as standard equipment very soon.

Even subcompacts are offering them as standard equipment. Corollas, Civics, Sentras, Cobalts, Elantras, Focus (Foci?), Calibers, and many others all offer side curtain airbags as standard equipment. (2008 and/or 2009 models)

Give the market another few years, and most manufacturers will offer side impact airbags or curtain airbags as standard equipment on all models. (According to the original source).

Smaller pickups are slower to catch up with safety features because our market hasn't created a demand for them. (Smaller pickups have typically been slower with evolving into modern-day vehicles than sedans or SUVs) When the market demands that smaller pickups have these features- one manufacturer will add them (this has already happened)... and then other manufacturers will add them in order to stay competitive.

My point being... I completely agree that these are important safety features that are needed- BUT- why waste tax dollars when the market will add these safety features on its own. (And probably faster than a law would get through congress anyway)

We do not need more government intervention in this area. The IIHS and manufacturers have done a good job with improving safety and adding safety equipment on its own.

Remember that frontal airbags were made mandatory in an effort to save Americans from themselves. Americans largely refuse to fasten seat belts while in the car, in part because, as known libertarians, they claim not to like government intervention in their lives.

There is a higher rate of serious injury or death in motor vehicle accidents in the USA than there is in Canada or Europe, where there is a much higher rate of seat belt use. With high rates of injury and death, insurance rates went up. So, in effect to reduce the number of complaints of high insurance rates, frontal airbags were mandated. Americans who dislike government intervention, got more. But, airbags are supplementary restraint systems, that work effectively only if used in conjunction with seat belts. But, Americans still refuse to wear seat belts, so frontal airbags became more forceful in an effort to save those Americans who still refuse to wear seat belts.

And with mandatory frontal airbags came the complaints that the airbags are inflating with too much force, and injuring or killing those who tend to sit closer to the steering wheel. So, we get the variable force airbags. And of course, frontal airbags meant that child restraint seats could not be used in the front seats. And, each complaint led to more legislation and more complicated airbags.

But, the cat has been let out of bag. The only way to go now may be more airbags, more complicated airbags, and larger and heavier cars, all in an effort to save American drivers from themselves.

Personally, I think that car bodies can be made stronger, or at least made to crumple in completely deterministic ways that direct the crash forces away from the passenger compartment, without greatly increasing the weight of the vehicle. The Japanese and Western European auto manufacturers have proved that this can be done. I don't believe that all American auto manufacturers have caught up to this. Perhaps this should be tried instead of mandating side airbags. Airbags, while trying to save misbehaving drivers from themselves, have also tended to cover up for bad engineering design, I believe.

Another reason to love the tacoma! :thumbsup:

I think you should have the option in whether or not you want any airbags. You take your risks with everything you do. Driving is a privelege not a law. They might as well make it a law to require roll cages in cars if anyone is that much a safety nut. Make it a law to require cars to have less horsepower so people can't drive fast. As it was said, it all depends on consumer demand.