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: 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%

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
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
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
"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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