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 Motoman on 8/30/2013 12:24:47 PM , Rating: 3
I don't see any way they can justify having it at all. Any kind of switch that kills the ignition is a horribly bad idea, and should never be anywhere near a car.

Because like anything else, it can malfunction. And when it malfunctions at 70MPH in the middle lane of a 10-lane highway at rush hour, you have carmageddon and a large number of dead people.

Intentions aside, this is one of the worst ideas anyone could ever have.

RE: Bypasses
By bah12 on 8/30/2013 5:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
Which is why I'd bet they do part 2 of my senario. That is not kill the car, but simply lock the belt until the car is parked or off again. Although that seems dangerous as well.

RE: Bypasses
By Avatar28 on 8/30/2013 11:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
No, they can't do that because, again, what if it malfunctions and you can't get out of your car or you're in an accident and aren't able to shift the car into park. I don't think the lawyers would let them get away with that.

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins
Related Articles

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