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

RE: Unbuckled start
By Flunk on 8/30/2013 11:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
You're right, I typically do that too. Even if it's great weather I still prefer to let the engine warm up until the revs drop before I actually start driving so I start the car the second I get in.

I could live with option 2, I'm not sure I'd really even notice because I never drive without a seatbelt on.

RE: Unbuckled start
By JDHammer on 8/30/2013 12:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well, how would this work if the drivers and passengers just simply buckle their belts first to the seat then sit over the seatbelt? How will automakers get around this kinda thing? I don't think it is possible because unless they install somekind of sensor in the belt itself and a failsafe should a fuse be pulled... that would be running up the costs...

RE: Unbuckled start
By DT_Reader on 8/30/2013 1:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
That's exactly what people did in the '70s. They left the belts buckled and just sat on them. Some cars had sensors that the belts had to be pulled out, as they would be if they were wrapped around you instead of tucked under you - so people pulled them out, tied them in a knot to keep them out, buckled them up, and sat on them.

"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki