backtop


Print 96 comment(s) - last by tomsan.. on Sep 10 at 7:10 PM

Seatbelt ignition interlocks haven't been used since the 70s

Seatbelts have been mandatory in the United States for decades, but many drivers and passengers still refused to wear them. Federal regulators are currently conducting more research on whether or not they will allow automakers to install seatbelt ignition interlocks that would allow the manufacturer to skip crash tests designed to protect unbelted motorists.

The seatbelt ignition interlock would prevent the automobile from starting unless the seatbelt was clasped. Back in 1974 the government required interlocks on nearly all 1974 year model vehicles. However, public outcry led Congress to banish the mandate.

This week the NHTSA reportedly rejected a petition from BMW that would allow the German automaker to skip certain crash testing requirements if it installed seatbelt interlocks in front seats. BMW apparently feels that it could make better use of its resources by not catering to those who refuse to buckle up. In essence, this means that if you choose not to buckle up, you’re own your own, as there won’t be any additional safety features to protect you in the event of a crash.
 

BMW M4 Coupe Concept

Although the NHTSA denied BMW’s petition for now, the agency said that more information was needed before it can grant such a request.
 
BMW maintains that having seatbelt ignition interlocks could save hundreds of lives by increasing seatbelt use. BMW also says that using these interlocks could make vehicles lighter and more spacious by allowing them to remove knee bolsters designed to protect unbelted occupants.
 
Lighter weight vehicles mean vehicles with not only improved fuel efficiency, but improved performance as well.

BMW outlined three different potential types of interlocks including one that would prevent the vehicle from being started without a seatbelt in place. Another would prevent the driver from shifting out of Park and a third would allow the vehicle to be driven only at low speeds without the seatbelt being buckled.
 
BMW concluded that the third option would be the "least annoying and most accepted type of interlock."

Source: Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Just another..
By CCrunnernb on 8/30/2013 9:38:52 AM , Rating: 3
Just another annoying step when playing musical cars in the morning.

Seat belts are obviously nice when in an accident, but if someone refuses to use them who cares? Can't protect everyone from everything all the time.




RE: Just another..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/2013 9:47:58 AM , Rating: 3
Didn't you know? The roll of government is to protect us from ourselves or some such. Uncle Sam is one kickass nanny.


RE: Just another..
By ipay on 9/3/2013 3:34:33 PM , Rating: 1
Same tired old bull from someone who can't see, or refuses to see, nuance. Nothing is as simple as some seem to suggest.

Imagine, if you will, a parent why refuses to wear a seat belt. They have their child in the car. In an accident the unbuckled parent can become a potentially lethal object. What choice did the child have?

It's not necessarily a case of the gov protecting us from ourselves, sometimes it's a case of the gov protecting us from each other.


RE: Just another..
By Rukkian on 8/30/2013 11:57:20 AM , Rating: 3
The problem is if I were to get into an accident and the other person were not wearing a seatbelt, I would have to pay for his stupidity.

If there was some way to make a law that you get no money for injuries from my insurance or your insurance, you sustain if it is proven you were not wearing a seatbelt, then sure, I would not care.

The people that don't wear them and cost more money due to injury are raising everybody's insurance rates.

I would love to say that they could take out the extra measures to protect unbelted passengers, but then you have the same insurance issues.

The third option they were talking about sounds about right. My new forrester has a warning that does not start going off until you hit 5mph. After that, it does not stop until you put it on, or slow down. Just make the car not able to do over 10mph if the seat belt is off.

It also allows choice for the customer, as if you want to go without a seatbelt, don't buy a car with this feature. Insurance rates should go down if you have a car with this feature.

I see no problem with this as long as it is not mandated by the government (at least at this point).


RE: Just another..
By Dr of crap on 8/30/13, Rating: 0
RE: Just another..
By Jeffk464 on 8/30/2013 12:45:44 PM , Rating: 3
I'm fine with higher risk paying higher premiums so long as its within reason.


RE: Just another..
By headbox on 8/30/2013 10:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
My wife works for a hospital, and we take a voluntary health test to get a large discount on our medical insurance. The majority of Americans are fat and unhealthy, so offering a discount is a better way to go.


RE: Just another..
By Camikazi on 9/1/2013 10:12:38 AM , Rating: 3
We are at around 25% obesity rate (last I checked and second now no longer first) how is that a majority exactly?


RE: Just another..
By ForceCredit on 9/3/2013 12:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not aligning myself either way in this particular debate between you two, but I did want to give you actual numbers to work with:

US Population Obese in 2010: 36%
US Population Overweight & Obese in 2010: 69%

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm

As a final note, "obese" isn't the dividing line between "normal" and "fat".


RE: Just another..
By Solandri on 8/30/2013 1:46:58 PM , Rating: 5
Insurance is supposed to help spread out of the cost of random incidents and accidents.

If you choose to overeat, choose to smoke, choose not to wear a seat belt, or choose not to wear a helmet, those aren't random incidents or accidents. You're making a conscious choice which directly inflates your risk. I have no problem with taking people who choose a riskier lifestyle and putting them into a more expensive insurance pool.


RE: Just another..
By Rukkian on 8/30/2013 2:20:35 PM , Rating: 3
So basically you are against any kind of personal responsibility, and others need to pay for your bad habits.

I have no problem with anything you are suggesting, it sounds like the correct way to do it. You are good at convincing me this is the correct course of action.

Why should I have to pay more for my insurance when I never have an accident, pretty much never speed, don't run red lights, don't tailgate and wear my seatbelt. I think it all goes hand in hand.

To me, if we could have penalties for idiots, we wouldn't need more laws like the seatbelt laws.


RE: Just another..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/13, Rating: -1
RE: Just another..
By SeeManRun on 8/30/2013 3:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
You are 100% wrong. If you have a 200k accident, does your insurance go up by 200k? Insurance spreads out the cost. When your insurance company pays out less in claims because there are fewer thefts, or fewer accidents, or fewer whatever, they can either give you back some money on your insurance, or pay out to shareholders.

Either way, it gets cheaper for them and the money they saved goes somewhere. The exact opposite is true too. If your insurance has stayed the same in 20 years with no increases, then you have one hell of an insurance company, because I haven't had a claim in 10 years and my rates fluctuate as I described above.


RE: Just another..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/2013 4:29:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
because I haven't had a claim in 10 years and my rates fluctuate as I described above.


What in the hell DOESN'T go up? Is food or gas or just about anything cost the same as it did 10 years ago? No.

Insurance goes up for many many reasons. But it's completely disingenuous to say that someone not wearing a seat belt directly drove up your insurance rates. That's hyperbole, and you can't honestly use it to propose whatever you want.


RE: Just another..
By SeeManRun on 8/30/2013 4:37:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
My rates have only gone up once in my life, and it was because of me, not some faceless person who didn't wear a seat belt.

I am only going on what you're saying. If you mean something else it would really be awesome if you said what you mean instead of mean what you say.

Anyway, insurance only goes up for 1 reason, not many; costs. Now, costs go up for many reasons, including administration, taxes, number of accidents, dollars per claim, fraud investigation, litigation, lobbying... The list goes on. But, if you believe wearing a seatbelt, or having an airbag statistically reduces the odds of being injured in a crash, then you can say that motorists not wearing seatbelts will have a direct impact on your rates (assuming they were wearing them before, if they never wore them then your rates are higher than they could be if they were wearing them).


RE: Just another..
By Rukkian on 8/30/2013 4:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
How about uninsured motorist?

Also, if it were only based on me, mine would be pretty much zero, but I currently pay for all the idiots that also have insurance that are not safe drivers.

This is where I like things like progressives snapshot - easy 30% discount for me by proving I am not an idiot. Give me seat belt lockout and drop another 10% off my bill, and I will be happy.


RE: Just another..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/13, Rating: 0
RE: Just another..
By Paladin21 on 8/30/2013 4:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
What they're actually saying is that they want to cut safety features that only matter if you aren't buckled. The knee bolsters they refer to are to keep your ass from getting launched out of the car if you don't have a belt on. If you do have a belt on, they do nothing. Trying to claim they want to make the car "less safe" is a gross overstatement. If you meant to say "less safe for me because I'll wire around the lock and not wear a seatbelt anyway"...well, that could very well be the case (or not).


RE: Just another..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/13, Rating: 0
RE: Just another..
By SeeManRun on 8/30/2013 3:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
The cost of his health care is passed onto you, either by taxes if he goes to a free hospital, or via increased premiums for health insurance due to his injury. You have a vested interest in not having people get hurt.


RE: Just another..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/2013 3:39:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You have a vested interest in not having people get hurt.


Nope. I'm not my brothers keeper.


RE: Just another..
By SeeManRun on 8/30/2013 3:42:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Nope. I'm not my brothers keeper.

You are whether you acknowledge it or not.

That is a good quote actually, your brothers keeper. If your brother gets hurt it takes the resources of your parents to care for him, thus less resources for you. Maybe you don't get a car for your birthday, or don't get that new baseball glove because your brother broke his femur and needs a bunch of physio that your parents have to pay for.


RE: Just another..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/2013 4:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry I'm not interested in the lies you Collectivists use to justify your warped ideology to everyone.

And I love how you use this argument to highlight some issue and drum up support for your little crusade; but as soon as someone like me mentions taxes, debt, or the entitlement state we're just selfish greedy bastards.

So hey, we all have things we have to pay for that we don't like.


RE: Just another..
By SeeManRun on 8/30/2013 4:32:31 PM , Rating: 5
Warped? It is utter logic man. If your expenses go up, your discretionary spending goes down. You should know this since you hate tax. If spending goes down, then taxes can go down...

You can be macro about it if you like, think of your own spending and income. If you lose your job you will have to spend less. If your wife loses her job, then the kids get fewer luxuries.. If your upstairs neighbour nearly burns down your entire building, strata fees will go up to pay for damage/increase insurance.

There is nothing at all warped about what I am saying. It translates perfectly to the auto insurance world. The fewer people getting hurt in accidents, the less your insurance will cost (or at least it should work that way, you know how they aren't in the business of charging you less for their service).

There is nothing wrong with changing your stance/opinion based on new information. So feel free to acknowledge that you hadn't thought about it in this perspective and now see how it is in your best interests to not have people getting hurt unnecessarily in auto accidents.


RE: Just another..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/2013 4:39:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Warped? It is utter logic man.


It's also "logical" to say we should force McDonalds to close because some fat guys health problems impact others.

See where I'm going here? You're crazy if you think you're dropping "new information" on me. You apparently are not getting the crux of my argument.

I've increasingly seen this type of argument used by others, like you, to petition for increased laws, Government regulations, and mandates. Resulting in less freedoms and more misery for everyone.

That's where I just automatically draw the line. Regardless of how well-reasoned or logical it might be. Go sell your totalitarian utopia somewhere else, we're not buying here.


RE: Just another..
By SeeManRun on 8/30/2013 4:53:00 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, you're arguing based on some abstract concept of freedom. I think this subthread got started because someone claimed that it didn't impact them if someone else drove without a seatbelt, and myself and others pointed out the contrary.

Now, if you can acknowledge that then we are free to debate the should part of the argument. Your example is good, McDonalds probably could be closed for the damage that it does to society, but then there is the should part. And I would say no it should not, even though I can logically understand how one could make that argument.

There are all sorts of things that could be banned because of costs or safety or risk, like drinking, skydiving, snowboarding, surfing, swimming, canoeing, driving, guns, bacon... But that doesn't mean people like me want them to be.

I have no problem with seatbelt laws because they inconvenience me very little and the payoffs could be huge. I would not, however, take a discount on my insurance if the insurance company installs a box on it telling them how fast I go and how many miles I drive. There is a limit to everyone's willingness to give up freedom for security/convenience/cost.. Mine is just a bit higher than yours.

See Reclaimer, we're just the same you and me. Forever linked on Dailytech, going round and round.


"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki