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: Seriously folks
By Ammohunt on 8/30/2013 3:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
I understand its a private company pushing for this. That still doesn't change my argument. Freedom of choice is a double edge sword this is freedom from choice.


RE: Seriously folks
By Rukkian on 8/30/2013 4:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
How is it freedom from choice? You have a choice to buy a BMW or not. Nobody is forcing you to buy a BMW. BMW is trying to get out of a government mandate which takes away your choice as well as car companies. They should have the right to design a car that is meant to protect people who follow the law, and should not be forced by the government to put extra safety equipment in and crash more cars to deal with idiots who wont wear their seatbelts.


RE: Seriously folks
By M'n'M on 8/30/2013 8:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
But you aren't guaranteed to have choices. You have the choices the people selling stuff give you. If you don't like the choice Company A gives you, buy from somebody else.

What's sad is that Nannism leads to BMW seeking this type of trade-off. Just make the idiots pay for their idiocy and this wouldn't be talked about.


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan

Related Articles













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