Doing some research...seatbelt interlock.

Don Fearn wrote: snip

Don, don't you feel the least bit foolish with that extremely foolish statement above?...by your admission it's kinda apparent that some drivers indeed DO need a 'nanny buzzer'...you might try making a little more sense next post...

"Built_Well" wrote

While I'm firmly 'for' all forms of safety devices (especially those which protect the OTHER vehicle occupants) I don't really see the sense in seatbelt laws...how do seatbelts protect the people in OTHER vehicles?...I think that aspect could be handled much better by insurance companies...no pay-out to drivers who have an accident when it's apparent that they weren't belted up. Simple.

Nah...common sense says that if the crash was severe enough to put the driver through the w/s or in the other seat then the car ain't going anywhere anyway and can't be controlled anyway.

I coulda sworn Gord Beaman typ'd:

You mean posting to alt.autos.toyota? Yeah, it is a little foolish, innit?

I've never claimed to make sense -- not here. not any other newsgroup I've ever posted to . . . . .

-D

Too bad former Congressman Lyman passed away in 2002. You could have written to him to tell him that it was his fault that you did not buckle your seat belt and got injured as a result.

I have not seen any studies of how many people bypass ignition interlocks and buzzers, but from what I have seen, people who do not want to wear seat belts just buckle them behind them to get around the interlocks and buzzers.

If it is any solace to you, there is a light on the dashboard that continues to flash if you do not buckle your seat when the car is started. Of course, you would have to occasionally look at the instruments to notice, like when you scan the instrument panel to make sure that all warning lights are off after starting the engine. If you cannot remember to fasten your seatbelt before putting the vehicle in motion, you can ask someone to wire a buzzer into the warning light circuit.

Also, several states have a mandatory seat belt law as a further incentive to buckle your seat belt prior to putting the vehicle in motion.

In

Auto industry lobbyists would not want continuous buzzers because auto manufacturers do not want them. Auto manufacturers do not want them because by and large, the buying public does not want them.

Many accidents happen while people are pulling out of driveways and side streets, as you have discovered. That is why people who take driver's education are taught to fasten their seat belts BEFORE they put the car in motion, every time.

In article , Ray O wrote in part:

I bet I'm not alone in this: getting out to lower the garage door when leaving home, I'm often surprised to find I'd already fastened the seatbelt while in the garage.

Brent

Brent,

We were with friends the other day, talking about "the good old days" and my wife was saying "remember when we had to get out of the car to open and close the garage door?" I was thinking that there probably are not very many garages without openers these days.

I don't like to let the car idle unnecessarily and so I have always buckled the seat belt and made sure all passengers are buckled before starting the engine. It is a habit that I do not vary from so at least for me, buzzers and interlocks are unnecessary.

Ray O, thank you for your comments. There's one thing I disagree with you on, though. I'm not so trusting of Boardroom Motives to think that car manufacturers did not want continuous buzzers in 1974 because the public did not want them.

One look at the Ford Pinto case shows that board members are coldly calculating.

Executive thought, you probably know, ran something like this:

"Well, if it costs more for us to fix the Pinto's gas tanks than pay out the jury awards to victim's families, then just pay out the awards."

I'd really like to know the real reasons behind the industry's apparent squashing of Continuous buzzers back in '74.

You're welcome!

There's one

Although I was not a member of the board of an automotive manufacturer, I did work for an auto manufacturer for almost 15 years and have a pretty fair idea of how features and options are incorporated into vehicles.

As is true when selling just about any product, the companies that succeed do so because they are selling a product that the public wants. Take a moment and think about options and features that are popular in vehicles today - AC, keyless entry and security systems, cruise control, power door locks, power windows, GPS map systems, leather seating, CD players, etc. Absent government controls, auto manufacturers will include or exclude features based on what consumers want. If the public wanted continuous seat belt buzzers in their cars and trucks and saw that as a desireable feature and were willing to pay for it, there is absolutely no logical reason why an auto manufacturer wouldn't include it.

Think about the "talking cars" of the 1970's with a female voice that would tell you that the door was ajar or your seat belt was unfastened. They are gone today because people didn't like that feature.

Using the Pinto as an example is notr a valid one.

When the Pinto was designed and produced, I believe its fuel tank construction and placement were in keeping with practices for many auto manufacturers at that time, where the fuel tank is an integral part of the vehicle's structure. I did not study the Pinto's actual design, NHTSA records, and court records so I am not in a position to comment on whether the design was actually deficient.

Many safety improvements come as a result of landmark cases, unforseen accidents, cost/benefit analysis, and state of the art at the time.

Look at a 1950's car and you will see that there have been tremendous advances in vehicular safety. Your comment above implies that auto makers have an obligation to bring everything they have ever sold up to current state of the art in order to protect accident victims. If that were the case, a '53 Chevy would need lap and shoulder belts, door side intrusion beams, front and rear crumple zone modifications, break away engine and transmission mounts, reinforced firewall, padded instrument and knee panel, front and side air bags, ABS, traction control, stabiolity control, all wheel drive, collapsible steering column, laser cruise control, fuel cells, on-board fire supression systems, roll bars, and more.

Did you know that hospitals treat more people with injuries to their lower extremities from front end collisions than 20 years ago? An uninformed observer would blame the auto industry for not doing enough to save peoples' legs.

An informed observer will point out that more people survive front end collissions than 20 years ago, and what used to be a fatal accident now results in a victim with injuries to their lower extremities. There were no statistics for how many corpses had broken legs but there are statistics for the type of injuries from auto accidents. By the way, most automakers are working on footwell protection without having to compromise the overall structural integrity of the vehicle. That is why you are beginning to see knee bolsters and air bags being offered.

The real reason may not be the one you would like to hear or believe, but most people do not want them and believe that they are responsible enough to fasten their seatbelts before putting the vehicle in motion and will take responsibility for not doing so if they do not.

snip of much good info

I still think that seatbelt use should not be legislated...it should be widely taught and then left up to the insurers to enforce by refusing to pay when it can be proven that belts were not worn during a crash.

My reasons are that belt wearing does nothing to protect 'other vehicle' occupants and therefore is your own responsibility. IMO

One needs to do all that's possible (including being forced by law) to ensure that you don't cause injury to OTHERS...you have no right to do that...if you wanna write yourself off by stupidly sitting on your belts etc then 'fill yer boots'...You're merely improving the driver gene pool after all...

The Massachusetts State Police had a very informative demonstration at auto shows several years back. It was basically a passenger car seat and seat belt mounted on rails about 10 feet long that were raised at one end. Participants went up a few stairs, sat in the seat, and fastened the seat belt. The seat was released and rolled down the track and came to an abrupt halt at the end of the rails to simulate a 5 MPH crash. The people waiting in line and watching could see the passenger get thrown against the seat belt and the participants can feel themselves thrown against the seat belt. It convinced a lot of non-believers to always wear their seat belts!

They still have that thing and bring it to county fairs.

Have you ever taken a ride on it? It's a blast!

"Louis Wyman"--a name that should go down in history with the likes of "Benedict Arnold" and other infamous names.

"He did a Wyman on the public."

"He Wyman'ed us."

In response to your comment, were Louie still with us, I wouldn't write a letter. I would probably organize a _Peaceful_ protest outside his local New Hampshire Congressional offices, and invite the news media.

I'm guessing, at a minimum, 50 or 60 accident survivors would show up. But there's always a chance hundreds might appear, because Little Louie's unsafe amendments to the highway safety bill are responsible for millions of serious injuries since 1974, and many, many deaths.

The 8-SECOND ABSURDITY.

Lil Louie effectively tied safety agencies' arms behind their backs for 30 years.

If I were a believer in heaven and hell, and all that religious superstitious stuff (today's religion is tomorrow's mythology, after all), I'd be confident Mr. Louis Wyman is burning in "Hades."

You are assuming that former Congressman Lyman was bowing to the desires of the auto industry. I don't know if that assumption is correct or valid because there are no auto manufacturers or factories located in New Hampshire so auto manufacturers are not his constituents.

Perhaps he figured that if one was not in the habit of automatically fastening their seat belt AND an 8 second audible reminder AND a continuously flashing reminder in the instrument panel was not enough to get that person to fasten the seat belts, and, rather than taking responsibility for their action or inaction, that person blames someone else, it might be beneficial if that person were removed from the gene pool.

Or, perhaps we should have a big government that protects people from injuring themselves. By banning the sale of candles, we can prevent thousands of house fires and injuries each year. By banning the sale of all instruments with a blade longer than 1/2 inch, including hunting, fishing, and kitchen knives, letter openers, screwdrivers, scissors, chisels, tent stakes, nails, screws, etc., we can eliminate thousands of cuts, pokes, and stabbings every year. Banning bathtubs, hot tubs, pools, swimming, and boating would prevent thousands of drowning deaths each year. Banning stairs in homes and public places would prevent people from falling down stairs. There should be a government curfew whenever there is extreme weather predicted, like thunderstorms, extreme heat, or extreme cold so we can prevent weather related deaths. If prescription medication were dispensed from the pharmacy one dose at a time, then overdoses could be prevented. If we can get all of this accomplished, we may be able to prevent people from hurting themselves.

The following refers to the pivotal 1970's in car safety legislation and comes from the September/October issue of "Mother Jones" Magazine, a great publication:

"However, according to Ford, airbags will add anywhere from $100 to $400 to the cost of every auto. The company argues, probably correctly, that the auto buyers would prefer to pay less and take their chances. But the vehemently anti-airbag Ford wasn't willing to take its chances with the Department of Transportation even when it was loaded with pro-auto Republicans. So Ford introduced a crafty little system called the ignition interlock. The ignition interlock will not allow a driver to start the car until the front seat passengers are buckled up. The ignition interlock was a sensible compromise. The rationale was that if drivers were forced to use seat belts there would be no need for airbags, which is true enough. In late 1970, Henry Ford II sold Chrysler president Lynn Townsend on the idea and convinced him they could sell it together in Washington.

A Nixon aide set up a meeting between Ford, Chrysler's Townsend and Nixon to discuss "matters related to the automotive industry." A few days after the meeting, John Ehrlichman called a meeting with Transportation Secretary John Volpe. After the meeting Volpe was heard to remark "The airbag's in trouble." Soon after, Henry Ford II contributed nearly $50,000 toward Nixon's re-election campaign.

After many of the delays that auto-makers love, on August 15, 1973, Department of Transportation officials finally issued a new regulation requiring ignition interlocks on all new cars. There was now no need for airbags, so they dropped from the picture. During this two-year delay, however, Congress member Louis Wyman (R-N.H.) was preparing an amendment to the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Act of 1974, which said, "Federal safety standards may not require that any vehicles be equipped with a safety belt interlock system." Some Hill staffers say Ford actually wrote the amendment. With a well-timed push from auto lobbyists, the amendment passed. The airbag and the ignition interlock were now both dead, victims of one of the most brilliantly executed double fixes in the history of lobbying.

Incidentally, my air bag did not come out, though if you looked at the severely damaged front end of my car, you would think it would have. And certainly my forehead and left eye say the bag should have deployed.

Obviously air bags are not enough. They don't always work.

I fully acknowledge that I'm responsible for not having put on my seat belt before starting the car. I think I said so about a week ago.

The car manufacturers are also responsible, however. They have a responsibility to let you know of the extreme danger involved in rolling 3 thousand pounds of metal down the road.

And a simple 8-second warning buzzer does not adequately warn you of that HUGE danger. A Continuous buzzer, however, would.

Like I mentioned, I *always* use the belt, but on occasion would wait 30 seconds to a minute until I was on the road before fastening it.

Of course that's dangerous--and a continuous buzzer would not let you forget how dangerous.

My goodness. Wyman, Nixon, and Henry Ford the Second.

Did I forget to mention Darth Vader? [chuckle]

What a rogue's gallery.

Don't Get Wyman'ed! Use your belt.