Rav Safety, No Recall

[rav man]

See NCAP thread on Auris forum.

[rav man]

The NCAP thread on the Auris forum has a number of responses from Toyota PR which are worth viewing for anyone with an interest in this subject. Rich.

[vilarav]

The NCAP thread on the Auris forum has a number of responses from Toyota PR which are worth viewing for anyone with an interest in this subject. Rich.

This is the same problem but in a HONDA /CR-V

#Vehicles units affected 130617

Make / Models : Model/Build Years:

HONDA / CR-V 2002-2004

Recall Number: 04V255000

Summary:

ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, THE WIRE HARNESS OF THE DRIVER'S FRONT AIR BAG WAS INCORRECTLY WIRED.

Consequence:

IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH, THE AIR BAG INFLATION RATE WOULD BE INCORRECT, WHICH COULD INCREASE THE RISK OF INJURY TO THE DRIVER.

Remedy:

DEALERS WILL REPAIR THE WIRING. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON JUNE 16, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT HONDA AT 1-800-999-1009.

Notes:

HONDA RECALL NO. P34. CUSTOMERS CAN ALSO CONTACT THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION’S AUTO SAFETY HOTLINE AT 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).

Why TOYOTA doesn't care us???? :ffs:

[rav man]

Vilarav, From Toyota's responses to us on the Auris forum (5 star NCAP for Auris) i believe your right they don't care. This is for one reason or another hinted at it Toyota PR's responses. I believe it is because of the expense, Toyota will undoubtably argue against that stating there is no safety issue. If there was no issue then why do NCAP recomend a recall. Toyota have chosen to ignore this, as i pointed out on the Auris thread ,Why bother to have your cars tested then. If you are going to ignore the findings. If however you get a favourable result well thats great. Toyota PR state they have not seen this thread hence them responding on the Auris site. Lots of other people have read this thread though and at some point Toyota should take note.

did think Toyota were THE best for customer service but after reading threads on this site about 4.2 Flywheels and T180 leaks, i'm not so sure. A couple of small niggles with a car are to be expected but its how the maker / dealers respond that counts.

Just looking at the Auris site i notice that a large number of prospective customers for this car add posts prior to purchase. Presumably the same occurs with RAV owners. Toyota need to take note.

[rav man]

New Honda CRV and Mitsubushi NCAP tested both got 4 stars which i suppose is some small relief to Rav owners. At least we are not getting left behind in the ratings just yet. I await the new freelander when its tested.

[rav man]

Freelander, (sorry for the bad language) got 5 stars. (for occupant safety anyway). :(

[chatman]

Freelander, (sorry for the bad language) got 5 stars. (for occupant safety anyway). :(

Yea but the occupants don't spend a lot of time in it :P :P ...because it's always in garage being fixed..... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[bjw]

Vilarav, From Toyota's responses to us on the Auris forum (5 star NCAP for Auris) i believe your right they don't care. This is for one reason or another hinted at it Toyota PR's responses. I believe it is because of the expense, Toyota will undoubtably argue against that stating there is no safety issue. If there was no issue then why do NCAP recomend a recall. Toyota have chosen to ignore this, as i pointed out on the Auris thread ,Why bother to have your cars tested then. If you are going to ignore the findings. If however you get a favourable result well thats great. Toyota PR state they have not seen this thread hence them responding on the Auris site. Lots of other people have read this thread though and at some point Toyota should take note.

did think Toyota were THE best for customer service but after reading threads on this site about 4.2 Flywheels and T180 leaks, i'm not so sure. A couple of small niggles with a car are to be expected but its how the maker / dealers respond that counts.

Just looking at the Auris site i notice that a large number of prospective customers for this car add posts prior to purchase. Presumably the same occurs with RAV owners. Toyota need to take note.

Toyota customer service is as good as a chocolate teapot I always thought they were better than other manufacturer's but that does not seem to be the case

There has been safety concerns raised on the MPV forum and the Verso forum regarding the Verso MMT automatic gearbox so much so that some people have been refusing to drive them I suggest you have a look !

http://toyotaownersclub.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=67316

http://toyotaownersclub.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=33317

Despite Toyota attempt to sort the problem out many customers have written to the VOSA and they are now investigating it Safety of our families are paramount

[Nightstalker]

lo there...

WELL this is a shock!!! :( :( :(

I got the Rav thinking I've got a nice reliable and SAFE vehicle for the family and now I find out that there could be an issue with the airbags deployment system in a frontal crash

I mean how bad is this???? Surley if NCAP would be worried about this they would not have allowed the Rav to be released until this problem was resolved??

Also if good old MR T aint doing anything about it....is there anything we can do to modify the problem???

Totally gutted now....perhaps I should have bought a CCCCCCCCRRR naaa would have never happened and I cannot force myself to say it....! B)

[anchorman]

lo there...

WELL this is a shock!!! :( :( :(

I got the Rav thinking I've got a nice reliable and SAFE vehicle for the family and now I find out that there could be an issue with the airbags deployment system in a frontal crash

I mean how bad is this???? Surley if NCAP would be worried about this they would not have allowed the Rav to be released until this problem was resolved??

Also if good old MR T aint doing anything about it....is there anything we can do to modify the problem???

Totally gutted now....perhaps I should have bought a CCCCCCCCRRR naaa would have never happened and I cannot force myself to say it....! B)

Don't get me started on this again or the dummy will be out.

Check your chassis No to see if your effected.

Good luck

[Nightstalker]

lo there...

WELL this is a shock!!! :( :( :(

I got the Rav thinking I've got a nice reliable and SAFE vehicle for the family and now I find out that there could be an issue with the airbags deployment system in a frontal crash

I mean how bad is this???? Surley if NCAP would be worried about this they would not have allowed the Rav to be released until this problem was resolved??

Also if good old MR T aint doing anything about it....is there anything we can do to modify the problem???

Totally gutted now....perhaps I should have bought a CCCCCCCCRRR naaa would have never happened and I cannot force myself to say it....! B)

Don't get me started on this again or the dummy will be out.

Check your chassis No to see if your effected.

Good luck

I am....! Thats why Im not to happy.... got an 06 plant 6 011XXXX.

GUTTED :(

[Fujisan]

I may have confused you, let me try and explain a bit more clearly.

I'm not sure where the V906 or V3 or V4 came from but I don't think they count.

To know if your vehicle is effected you have to look at the chassis No.

The relevent number should be in the front of your service book.

The 5 and the 6 in the middle of the number identifies the plant where they were manufatured. I am going to reproduce the 2 chassis numbers that the MODIFIED vehicles START from.

JTMBA31V00 5 012623

JTMBA31V30 6 022220

You can see that I've seperated the 5 and the 6.

Now look at the 6 didgit number that follows. This represents the number of the actual car of that type produced at that plant.

So if your car was built in plant 5 and the number is lower than 12,623 then yours is pre mod. If it was built in plant 6 and the number is lower than 22,220 it is also pre mod.

Mine was new in September and was built in plant 6 but it is about 7000 cars too early for the mod so don't be surprised if yours is too.

You have to remember that they have been made in Japan, then stored for dispatch, then sat on a ship for some time, then stood at the UK import centre long before you got it. They could be quite old (comparatively).

I hope you are lucky.

Regards

anchorman

Just had a good read though this thread, grime reading and a sad situtation.

Many thanks to Anchorman for his clear explanation of the chassis numbers involved

I don't have a great deal of luck but I seemed to have dodged the bullet on this one by the skin of my teeth.

Good luck to everyone with a pre-mod car in forcing Toyota to pay for remedial work.

[Toyota PR]

Hello everybody,

First off, I do not get the chance to look in here often so was only altered to this thread by a PM from someone. Here's what I sent them:

“The point is the car scored four stars the first time it was tested. That makes it better than most other cars - of any type - on the road. So if you think we should recall all those RAV4s, do you also think all the other four star and lower cars should also be recalled, branded as unsafe?

We asked EuroNCAP they same questions and they could not give a good answer. Of course, they did not “condemn” all other four star cars. Funny, eh.

The truth is you can design a car to perform well in a real crash or you can design it to score well in EuroNACP - both are not necessarily the same. Our engineers had some robust discussions with EuroNCAP about the real-life validity of their testing. EuroNACP apparently did not like that.

However, Toyota engineers felt they could score five stars so resubmitted and it scored four again, only just missing five. Why EuroNCAP decided to say what they said - i.e. try to embarrass Toyota – no one knows. Their top two men publically disagreed about it at the time. It might, I suggest, have more to do with the debate over the testing system than the relative safety of the RAV4.

Hope that explains the situation a bit more.

Scott"

Now, I hope it is clear I am being as straight and honest as I can be.

Having now had a quick run through this thread let me add that the so-called failure in the first test resulted in a delay in the airbag deployment of microseconds. There is more than one sensor so the airbag deployed effectively and, as has been said endlessly, it scored 4 stars.

Had Toyota just accepted the first test result the RAV4 would be seen - rightly - as one of the safest SUVs, or car of any type in fact, on the road. This is a large part of why there is no recall or action to change the early cars.

Personally, I think EuroNACP, or some within that organisation, deliberately stirred this whole mess up because they did not like having their methods challenged. If they really thought there was an issue with the early four star scoring RAV4s then surely they should have an issue with all the cars scoring "only” four stars? There is no such call. If they really believed what was said about the RAV4 would there not still be a call for the rectification work. There is not.

They don't and can't call for such things, I believe, because this whole mess is the rather sorry outcome of some bruised egos and an inability to admit others might have a valid point.

Of course, life goes on and it is very much the Toyota way not to have public slagging matches with anyone. For the greater good it was decided to leave the argument over RAV4 behind, everyone having learned from it, and move on.

One thing to be clear on is that Toyota takes safety very seriously. If there was any doubt about the RAV4 then work would have been done. If you doubt that, go look at the number of recalls and rectification actions carried out voluntarily by the company in recent years. I suggest these are not the actions of a company who does not care.

[bjw]

Hello everybody,

First off, I do not get the chance to look in here often so was only altered to this thread by a PM from someone. Here's what I sent them:

“The point is the car scored four stars the first time it was tested. That makes it better than most other cars - of any type - on the road. So if you think we should recall all those RAV4s, do you also think all the other four star and lower cars should also be recalled, branded as unsafe?

We asked EuroNCAP they same questions and they could not give a good answer. Of course, they did not “condemn” all other four star cars. Funny, eh.

The truth is you can design a car to perform well in a real crash or you can design it to score well in EuroNACP - both are not necessarily the same. Our engineers had some robust discussions with EuroNCAP about the real-life validity of their testing. EuroNACP apparently did not like that.

However, Toyota engineers felt they could score five stars so resubmitted and it scored four again, only just missing five. Why EuroNCAP decided to say what they said - i.e. try to embarrass Toyota – no one knows. Their top two men publically disagreed about it at the time. It might, I suggest, have more to do with the debate over the testing system than the relative safety of the RAV4.

Hope that explains the situation a bit more.

Scott"

Now, I hope it is clear I am being as straight and honest as I can be.

Having now had a quick run through this thread let me add that the so-called failure in the first test resulted in a delay in the airbag deployment of microseconds. There is more than one sensor so the airbag deployed effectively and, as has been said endlessly, it scored 4 stars.

Had Toyota just accepted the first test result the RAV4 would be seen - rightly - as one of the safest SUVs, or car of any type in fact, on the road. This is a large part of why there is no recall or action to change the early cars.

Personally, I think EuroNACP, or some within that organisation, deliberately stirred this whole mess up because they did not like having their methods challenged. If they really thought there was an issue with the early four star scoring RAV4s then surely they should have an issue with all the cars scoring "only” four stars? There is no such call. If they really believed what was said about the RAV4 would there not still be a call for the rectification work. There is not.

They don't and can't call for such things, I believe, because this whole mess is the rather sorry outcome of some bruised egos and an inability to admit others might have a valid point.

Of course, life goes on and it is very much the Toyota way not to have public slagging matches with anyone. For the greater good it was decided to leave the argument over RAV4 behind, everyone having learned from it, and move on.

One thing to be clear on is that Toyota takes safety very seriously. If there was any doubt about the RAV4 then work would have been done. If you doubt that, go look at the number of recalls and rectification actions carried out voluntarily by the company in recent years. I suggest these are not the actions of a company who does not care.

I do understand where you are coming from as an example your house may not be to current building regulations it was when it was built it does not make it unsafe if you know what I mean.

Without hijacking the thread perhaps you would look at the thread below and post a comment on that thread as there seem to be many concerned owners and as up to now nobody from Toyota public relations department has commented I know your hands may be tied as it is being investigated by the VOSA

http://toyotaownersclub.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=33317

[anchorman]

Hello everybody,

First off, I do not get the chance to look in here often so was only altered to this thread by a PM from someone. Here's what I sent them:

“The point is the car scored four stars the first time it was tested. That makes it better than most other cars - of any type - on the road. So if you think we should recall all those RAV4s, do you also think all the other four star and lower cars should also be recalled, branded as unsafe?

We asked EuroNCAP they same questions and they could not give a good answer. Of course, they did not “condemn” all other four star cars. Funny, eh.

The truth is you can design a car to perform well in a real crash or you can design it to score well in EuroNACP - both are not necessarily the same. Our engineers had some robust discussions with EuroNCAP about the real-life validity of their testing. EuroNACP apparently did not like that.

However, Toyota engineers felt they could score five stars so resubmitted and it scored four again, only just missing five. Why EuroNCAP decided to say what they said - i.e. try to embarrass Toyota – no one knows. Their top two men publically disagreed about it at the time. It might, I suggest, have more to do with the debate over the testing system than the relative safety of the RAV4.

Hope that explains the situation a bit more.

Scott"

Now, I hope it is clear I am being as straight and honest as I can be.

Having now had a quick run through this thread let me add that the so-called failure in the first test resulted in a delay in the airbag deployment of microseconds. There is more than one sensor so the airbag deployed effectively and, as has been said endlessly, it scored 4 stars.

Had Toyota just accepted the first test result the RAV4 would be seen - rightly - as one of the safest SUVs, or car of any type in fact, on the road. This is a large part of why there is no recall or action to change the early cars.

Personally, I think EuroNACP, or some within that organisation, deliberately stirred this whole mess up because they did not like having their methods challenged. If they really thought there was an issue with the early four star scoring RAV4s then surely they should have an issue with all the cars scoring "only” four stars? There is no such call. If they really believed what was said about the RAV4 would there not still be a call for the rectification work. There is not.

They don't and can't call for such things, I believe, because this whole mess is the rather sorry outcome of some bruised egos and an inability to admit others might have a valid point.

Of course, life goes on and it is very much the Toyota way not to have public slagging matches with anyone. For the greater good it was decided to leave the argument over RAV4 behind, everyone having learned from it, and move on.

One thing to be clear on is that Toyota takes safety very seriously. If there was any doubt about the RAV4 then work would have been done. If you doubt that, go look at the number of recalls and rectification actions carried out voluntarily by the company in recent years. I suggest these are not the actions of a company who does not care.

Hi Scott

We have debated this before and I accept your comments about the car originally attaining a 4 star rating.

I'm not sure that my point is fully understood though. You have modified the specification of the current production vehicles and that means that they are in some way (to us unquantifiably) better than early models. As you say in the real world passive safety systems can only be effective in certain scenarios and as every one is different then you can only hope that the onboard devices will between them go some way to mitigating the effects of the accident but the point remains that later vehicles offer "something" more and customers of these pre-mod vehicles feel naturally unnerved by this situation.

Toyota have not quantified the improvement nor have they even attempted to explain what the modifications are. If it is not possible to modify old vehicles without fundamentally rewiring the whole car - say so. NCAP (and I accept your comments about the mood between your organisations) have suggested that the wiring to at least one of the sensors is routed in a vulnerable position and that then depends on one of the the other sensors to deploy the appropriate systems. It might be acceptable but what if those other sensors have been disabled during the course of the accident?

It's the not knowing that irritates me.

Kind regards

[Toyota PR]

As far as I know the change - re-routing some wiring - is not major when incorporated to the car at the production stage, but very difficult (and so time-consuming - to do to an existing car.

If that comes over like it is too expensive for Toyota to consider, then please do not read it that way. As I said before, Toyota has shown an almost eager attitude to recalls. Cost is not an issue.

As to which is "better", then all I can say is that Toyota engineers considered the original spec good enough for both five stars and to offer the best real world protection.

[anchorman]

Firstly let me say how much I sincerely appreciate you commenting on behalf of Toyota and I'm sure that the other members feels the same.

I suspected that it probably wasn't easy to re-route the wires and if I'm honest I probably wouldn't want the dealer to start ripping my car apart to that extent anyway. When making the decision to spend what I consider quite a large amount of money on a vehicle, one of the major influences was that the car would be "cutting edge" in terms of safety and I have no doubt that is what Toyota set out to achieve. Of course in launching a new vehicle it has to be done in manageable increments and the biggest market (USA) has to come first, especially when the European version is fundamentally different in having a shorther body and different powertrains. NCAP has to be important to the European market because that is how people are gauging safety and whatever the reality of just how the results are to be interpreted it has to be said that controlled testing does help to quantify them.

Now we have to remeber that the USA have standards that are similar to our European Type Approval and Construction and Use requirements but they have nothing similar to our NCAP voluntary testing so that would also presumably help to schedule how far into production NCAP testing was done.

As we have to accept that our pre modded vehicles do not benefit from this modified wiring it would be nice to have an assurance for the next time we make such a significant investment that Toyota might complete the safety testing before introducing around 35000 vehicles into the global market place. I would suggest with the very first one would be a good time.

They might avoid causing so much questioning of ethics and morality - we the owners have invested our trust in these products but there are occasions when the feeling of betreyal becomes prominent. If it sounds a little bit dramatic, imagine a situation where a life was lost. Could the question truthfully be answered as to whetheer the later spec "nearly 5 star" vehicle would have made the difference or not?

Regards

[duncerduncs]

Maybe the best way to reassure Rav owners would be for Euro NCAP to release footage of the first crash test with the unmodified wiring (I imagine they would've filmed it) or maybe Toyota Europe could release this footage? That way owners can see the crash for themselves.

Or if that's not possible, maybe Toyota could pay for Fifth Gear (a motoring program in the UK, for those who are not sure) to do a crash test between a modified and unmodified Rav to show us that the unmodified cars are perfectly safe.

It was interesting to read that, at the time, Toyota Europe were "proud of the 4 star rating", in fact they are so proud it seems strange that the Rav is missing off THIS page...

[vilarav]

Maybe the best way to reassure Rav owners would be for Euro NCAP to release footage of the first crash test with the unmodified wiring (I imagine they would've filmed it) or maybe Toyota Europe could release this footage? That way owners can see the crash for themselves.

Or if that's not possible, maybe Toyota could pay for Fifth Gear (a motoring program in the UK, for those who are not sure) to do a crash test between a modified and unmodified Rav to show us that the unmodified cars are perfectly safe.

It was interesting to read that, at the time, Toyota Europe were "proud of the 4 star rating", in fact they are so proud it seems strange that the Rav is missing off THIS page...

Hello all,

I think I'm the only Spanish RAV4 owner worried about the lack of safety in the premod RAV4, so it is comfortable read this forum to know that there are more people in this fight.

In the swedish URL of toyota it is published the results for both test, the premod and the postmod. The postmod gets 32,44 points (rounded at 32 points). 32,5 means 5 star.

The premod gets 29,22 (rounded at 29 points).

That its 29 total points -16 lateral points -2 belt reminder -2 pole test = 9 frontal points.

I think that 9 frontal points it is a very bad result for a 2005 car. Isn't it?

the link:

http://www.toyota.se/innovation/technology..._ncap_2006.aspx

I want to believe in Toyota safety ethics but I can not forget this issue each time a drive my car...

[bothwell_buyer]

And me wi ma 1994 RAV4 wi 1 airbag?????????????

And I've a Renault minibus that just has seatbelts???

And ma good ol Humber Hawk o 1963 vintage??

If yuv a worry aboot airbags, take some fireproof pillows wi ye!!

And when yur walking doon the street, mind an wrap yersels up in the latest impact absorbing underwear.

As you might detect, I'm a bit of a septic when it comes to airbags. If a car is built properly in the first place with an integral passenger compartment which is along the lines of F1 etc, and the seat belts are adequate if you need to wear them, then why do we need all this palavour over airbags??

Apolgies to anyone posting before cos I've not read the whole thread. Mind, I paid £21,000 for my 1 airbag RAV back in 1994 and was quite happy then and still am.

the mad scotsman :yahoo: :yahoo:

[vilarav]

And me wi ma 1994 RAV4 wi 1 airbag?????????????

And I've a Renault minibus that just has seatbelts???

And ma good ol Humber Hawk o 1963 vintage??

If yuv a worry aboot airbags, take some fireproof pillows wi ye!!

And when yur walking doon the street, mind an wrap yersels up in the latest impact absorbing underwear.

As you might detect, I'm a bit of a septic when it comes to airbags. If a car is built properly in the first place with an integral passenger compartment which is along the lines of F1 etc, and the seat belts are adequate if you need to wear them, then why do we need all this palavour over airbags??

Apolgies to anyone posting before cos I've not read the whole thread. Mind, I paid £21,000 for my 1 airbag RAV back in 1994 and was quite happy then and still am.

the mad scotsman :yahoo: :yahoo:

Yes, you are right, but let me answer you.

1) I have not paid 21,000 for a 1 airbag in 1994. I have paid a little bit more for a 9 airbag 2005.

2) The problem was frontal airbag firing late. I think that is more dangerous that not fire, or simply without airbag.

Think a little. You have a crash, the car is well constructed, the seat belts works weel, and the load limiters do their job and your head goes very near of the wheel and then the airbag hits you head at 300 kph. :ffs:

[bothwell_buyer]

And me wi ma 1994 RAV4 wi 1 airbag?????????????

And I've a Renault minibus that just has seatbelts???

And ma good ol Humber Hawk o 1963 vintage??

If yuv a worry aboot airbags, take some fireproof pillows wi ye!!

And when yur walking doon the street, mind an wrap yersels up in the latest impact absorbing underwear.

As you might detect, I'm a bit of a septic when it comes to airbags. If a car is built properly in the first place with an integral passenger compartment which is along the lines of F1 etc, and the seat belts are adequate if you need to wear them, then why do we need all this palavour over airbags??

Apolgies to anyone posting before cos I've not read the whole thread. Mind, I paid £21,000 for my 1 airbag RAV back in 1994 and was quite happy then and still am.

the mad scotsman :yahoo: :yahoo:

Yes, you are right, but let me answer you.

1) I have not paid 21,000 for a 1 airbag in 1994. I have paid a little bit more for a 9 airbag 2005.

2) The problem was frontal airbag firing late. I think that is more dangerous that not fire, or simply without airbag.

Think a little. You have a crash, the car is well constructed, the seat belts works weel, and the load limiters do their job and your head goes very near of the wheel and then the airbag hits you head at 300 kph. :ffs:

ah but 21 grand 13 years ago is equivalent to a lot more than now. But if you've paid for something that aint matching the spec then its fraud on the maunfacturers part. Beats me how 9 airbags could get into a 3 door so maybe you're running a stretched limo (dry sense of humour if ye haven't clocked it before)

2. I am, for what its worth, disabled and so have a seat belt exemption certificate. mainly cos badly designed seatbelts and poorly positioned airbags will kill me. Thats why I'm paying a lot of money to adapt the inside safety of my old RAV. As has been said, airbags are designed to be effective in a number of situations. I'm sure you've never rubber necked an accident where you think - how the hell did that happen - and airbags would have been of little use/protection. But same agian - if you purchaise an item and it aint doing what its meant to; and what you understood you were buying then it comes under trade description and fraud.

I've stripped down my RAV - dashboard out etc and know the structure and frankly its not that strong which is why I'm putting a full roll cage in - but then I'm looking to thrash the motor - going from 120bhp to 300bhp demnds a few changes. The steering wheel airbag fitted would explode into my stomach at present which would kill me due to the state of my veins around that area. Somebody slighter than my 21 stone might not have that problem - see my point.... airbags can be a saviour or a killer depending on who is sitting there and what size they are. Now if the compartment boasted integrity and the seatbelts were able to be adequately adjusted for an individual then that must reduce the need for airbags.....do they have airbags in F1 cars????

Bring Back racing for the Nutters Over 50s Campaign :yahoo: :yahoo:

[anchorman]

It is important to keep a balanced view on this. One of the requirements of a front airbag is that after it has deployed it must be completely deflated and lay on the drivers lap in 0.6 of a second. TV porgrams tend to depict a nice cosy beach ball type thing that inflates like a balloon and then the driver has a comical session of trying to see past it.

In reality it goes off in an explosive bang and the driver will probably see little more than a flash except for the linen spread over his knee. This important because the car may continue moving for some time after an impact and he/she needs to see where they are going if they still have any control of the car. You could watch slow motion footage and I doubt very much if you would see any difference whatsoever in the results as you need very sophisticated timing equipment to measure the results in milliseconds. This is what Scott from Toyota PR was saying earlier.

However, there is no doubt that airbags are effective and do save lives and the secret of the success is the timing of deployment. At 60mph you are travelling at 88ft/27m per second and if you hit something solid the car will stop and anything loose (including the driver) will try to continue at that speed until you hit something which in this case would be a steering wheel or the passenger crash pad (facia). If you think that wouldn't be so bad don't forget that close behind it is shards of broken glass, razor sharp twisted metal, an engine and gearbox which will no doubt be spilling out scalding hot oil and water and then either somebody elses twisted car or the tree or what ever else you were unfortunate enough to tangle with.

If this shocks you it is meant to do.

For anyone who questions tha validity of airbag systems consider this. Imagine taking the glove box or a section of that fairly soft facia, let alone a fairly heavy and nobbly steering wheel and going up to a person which could be your most loved one then with all your every last strength swinging it back and then hitting them in the face with it. Make's you feels sick doesn't it? Let me assure you that you will not even come close to the kind of impact that even a modest front impact will do let alone 88ft per second (which is only two cars hitting each other at 30mph).

We may well have done without these devices since the evolution of cars but to me if they help to reduce the tiniest effects of an accident on my wife or daughter's then they are worth every single penny of the cost of that car and I want them to perform at their optimum. At 88ft per second you are going to strike that dash in around 1/40th second and if those bags are going to do any good the need to be fully inflated before that time. 1/35th second might not be good enough.

I hope this sobering post helps any reader to understand why I get so emotive about the matter and why I am prepared to split hairs with who seems to be a very nice person from Toyota about millisecond deficiencies.

[Steve@Aberdeen]

Well put, Anchorman. Deceleration is important, as you say. I once crashed my car into a stationary one at something approaching 50mph (I was doing 60 when he turned across my path) - everyone walked away with nothing worse than light bruising because it wasn't direct on and the energy was absorbed by skidding and both cars getting mangled; the skidding meant deceleration wasn't too great. Hit a solid wall (or a large tree) at 30mph and the short and fierce deceleration will probably tear your insides apart!

However, one tiny correction. Two cars colliding at 30mph is only 44fps in each direction and, assuming both cars are similar size, structure and mass, only half the amount of energy has to be dissipated than for one car hitting a solid object at 60mph - sharing that between the two cars actually means 1/4 of the energy each - far more manageable. Energy increases with the square of the velocity - and however you stop, that energy has to go somewhere. And some folk wonder why break parts wear out so quick!

[anchorman]

Quite right Steve, thanks for that. In reality things are unlikely to quite so bad as invariably vehicles glance off each other and that makes a huge difference to hitting something very solid (a big tree rarely fails to kill). As you also quite rightly say the airbags will only cussion you from the dash as it comes to visit your face (at best you are going to feel like you have been hit by a very large boxing glove). It may protect your upper body from the impact but that doesn't mean you will survive whatever else happens as your vehicle continues to absorb the energy around you.

I think it is important for people to be reminded about just how vulnerable we are inside our cars which are nothing more than folded tin and I'm for every bit of available protection.

Cheers.