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 Reclaimer77 on 8/30/2013 4:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry I'm not interested in the lies you Collectivists use to justify your warped ideology to everyone.

And I love how you use this argument to highlight some issue and drum up support for your little crusade; but as soon as someone like me mentions taxes, debt, or the entitlement state we're just selfish greedy bastards.

So hey, we all have things we have to pay for that we don't like.

RE: Just another..
By SeeManRun on 8/30/2013 4:32:31 PM , Rating: 5
Warped? It is utter logic man. If your expenses go up, your discretionary spending goes down. You should know this since you hate tax. If spending goes down, then taxes can go down...

You can be macro about it if you like, think of your own spending and income. If you lose your job you will have to spend less. If your wife loses her job, then the kids get fewer luxuries.. If your upstairs neighbour nearly burns down your entire building, strata fees will go up to pay for damage/increase insurance.

There is nothing at all warped about what I am saying. It translates perfectly to the auto insurance world. The fewer people getting hurt in accidents, the less your insurance will cost (or at least it should work that way, you know how they aren't in the business of charging you less for their service).

There is nothing wrong with changing your stance/opinion based on new information. So feel free to acknowledge that you hadn't thought about it in this perspective and now see how it is in your best interests to not have people getting hurt unnecessarily in auto accidents.

RE: Just another..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/2013 4:39:39 PM , Rating: 3
Warped? It is utter logic man.

It's also "logical" to say we should force McDonalds to close because some fat guys health problems impact others.

See where I'm going here? You're crazy if you think you're dropping "new information" on me. You apparently are not getting the crux of my argument.

I've increasingly seen this type of argument used by others, like you, to petition for increased laws, Government regulations, and mandates. Resulting in less freedoms and more misery for everyone.

That's where I just automatically draw the line. Regardless of how well-reasoned or logical it might be. Go sell your totalitarian utopia somewhere else, we're not buying here.

RE: Just another..
By SeeManRun on 8/30/2013 4:53:00 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, you're arguing based on some abstract concept of freedom. I think this subthread got started because someone claimed that it didn't impact them if someone else drove without a seatbelt, and myself and others pointed out the contrary.

Now, if you can acknowledge that then we are free to debate the should part of the argument. Your example is good, McDonalds probably could be closed for the damage that it does to society, but then there is the should part. And I would say no it should not, even though I can logically understand how one could make that argument.

There are all sorts of things that could be banned because of costs or safety or risk, like drinking, skydiving, snowboarding, surfing, swimming, canoeing, driving, guns, bacon... But that doesn't mean people like me want them to be.

I have no problem with seatbelt laws because they inconvenience me very little and the payoffs could be huge. I would not, however, take a discount on my insurance if the insurance company installs a box on it telling them how fast I go and how many miles I drive. There is a limit to everyone's willingness to give up freedom for security/convenience/cost.. Mine is just a bit higher than yours.

See Reclaimer, we're just the same you and me. Forever linked on Dailytech, going round and round.

"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
Related Articles

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