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

RE: Bypasses
By invidious on 8/30/2013 11:52:55 AM , Rating: 3
So anyone who doesn't have a seatbelt on during a crash and is lucky enough to not die somehow deserves to suffer physically and financially for the rest of their life? As if anyone wears their seatbelt 100% of the time and has never taken it off for any reason even for a second. Why would you even care about who gets covered, you aren't paying their insurance premiums, at least not until ObamaCare mutates and takes over all types of insurance.

What happens when you pull up to a drive though and unbuckle to get your wallet, then the driver behind you rear ends you?

What happens when your child gets into an accident without their seatbelt dispite your direction? Now you have to chose between your child's medical care and losing your house.

What happens if your seatbelt latch breaks? Now you can't even drive it to the dealership to get it fixed without being insured and you have to get it towed.

Obviously this is the internet and nonsense opinions are common, but is it really that difficult to give even a little consideration to the implications of your thoughts before you waste your own time broadcasting them to the world and making yourself look foolish?


RE: Bypasses
By Rukkian on 8/30/2013 12:01:46 PM , Rating: 1
The problem is, we are all paying the premiums to deal with the extra injuries involved due to some not wearing their seat belt. For the cases you state, if you get rear ended in a drive through at what - 2mph, your seat belt is not going to come into play either way.

As for not being able to take it to the dealer- how often does the seat belt break? I have never had one break in any car I have ever been in, or know of anybody that it happened to.

In that one case a year, maybe a tow would be a better option?


RE: Bypasses
By M'n'M on 8/30/2013 12:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So anyone who doesn't have a seatbelt on during a crash and is lucky enough to not die somehow deserves to suffer physically and financially for the rest of their life?

Pretty much, yes. You get the consequences of your choice. I don't see why that's some odd concept. Ideally you'd be responsible for any added costs, beyond what would have happened if you had your seatbelts on. In practice this might be a bit hard to determine so I'm open for some compromise. Perhaps you could buy a "no belts" option, where you and others pay more for insurance, and don't have to belt up.

quote:
As if anyone wears their seatbelt 100% of the time and has never taken it off for any reason even for a second.

No but the odds of getting into an accident during those few seconds or few minutes is pretty remote. If you don't like the odds then keep the seatbelts on.

quote:
Why would you even care about who gets covered, you aren't paying their insurance premiums, at least not until ObamaCare mutates and takes over all types of insurance.

Already answered above. Your extra costs inflate my never-had-an-accident insurance bill.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Related Articles













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