From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Two articles on seat belts
Date: 12 Oct 92 13:04:57 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1basouINN6l1@armory.centerline.com>, jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:

>The current passive-restraint regulation is the result of a compromise
>between the auto industry and the federal government that avoided
>forcing all the automobile companies to begin putting air bags in all
>the cars back when trying to boost the manufacturing volume of air
>bags that much was probably impossible.  And back when air bags hadn't
>quite proved themselves so effective and become so popular.

Fact: People refuse to buckle up voluntarily.
Fact: Mouse-driven seatbelts are less safe and cost more than 3 pt seatbelts.
Fact: Air bags add very little safety to a 3 pt belt, but add up to $800 each
      to the baseline pricetag.
Fact: The Federal Gov't did not have the guts to stick by the ignition
      interlock proposal which is the only real way out of the bind.

The gov't has been weaseling around on safety issues for years, and letting
the auto companies weasel, too, as long as the overall safety trend continued
down.  GM's door-mounted seatbelts were an attempt to find a compromise be-
tween the gov't half-assed mousebelt or air bag requirement and the safer and
more marketable 3 pt safety harness.  Yes, it's not as good as a real 3 pt
harness.  Yes, it can result in accidents like the one described.  But it _is_
frequently used passively, and it _does_, according to the NHTSA, have a better
safety record than 3 pt harnesses, apparently because of that.

I'm sick and tired of the gov't meddling about with safety standards trying to
mandate enough safety to get all those safety nazi re-election dollars without
pissing off their contituents who have to pay for all this and use all this so 
they won't get re-elected.

I want to see every car equipped with 3 pt, non-comfort-feature equipped belts
with a _transmission_ interlock, so the engine can start and run before some-
one belts up but so the car will not move until the occupants are properly
belted.  Air bags are fine, but they should be _optionally_ available so people
who think they do add safety can buy them, but every car should have a first-
rate belt system and mechanism to ensure it is used.  Such a feature should
also be a part of every state inspection.

>A car with an air bag, however, could retain the convenient 3-point
>belt, the safest combination.  Some Japanese companies offer the air
>bag and the motorized belt in combination.  [So did GM's Saturn
>division prior to 1993 - jim]

Those are temporary measures, those cars are, according to Car & Driver,
scheduled to get 3 pt belts in the near future.

>The motorized belts required engineering and they added cost.

Not to mention they break, leaving you with _no_ safety belt, and they do not
restrain at the proper points on the body, leading to more injuries when they
do get used.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: rec.autos