Would you be annoyed by your car forcing you to wear a seatbelt?

[originalpckelly]

A car would not start operation without the proper safety belts beings fastened.

I've figured out a way to know if someone is sitting in a seat, which is not the driver's seat, and to force those people to put their seat belts on as well.

If you put something on the seat it will not trigger the warning. (Though the system may require you to place the item in an restraining bag, so that the object will not fly through the passenger cab in a car accident.)

If you use a child safety seat, you'd have to connect a small durable cable on the appropriate side and most safe seat for the child safety seat.

(The system would know whether or not it is a booster or normal child safety or infant carrier type seat.)

So would you be annoyed by that system being required in all new vehicles?

[originalpckelly]

1. I might be bouncing ideas off y'all on this matter...

in the next couple of days. I hope you won't mind.

I can see how it would be annoying, but it is a good kind of annoying, the kind that saves lives. (The system, not the bouncing of ideas (I hope that wouldn't be annoying.))

[Buzz Clik]

2. I don't need a mommy any more.

What's next? Food that cannot be eaten until your napkin is in your lap? Gas stations that require cash paying customers to not only prepay but overpay -- thus requiring at least two visits to the cashier's cage? (errr... nevermind on that one. That's reality already)

Don't protect me from myself, if you please.

[originalpckelly]

3. Then don't make me pay your medical bills...

Uninsured or insured, one way or another I and other Americans have to pay for your stupidity. If you get in a serious car accident and receive life threatening injuries because you are not wearing a safety belt, you a still guaranteed emergency medical care.

In the case of someone with health insurance, this stupidity costs other members of the health plan.

In the case of someone without health insurance, this stupidity costs other citizens to pay for your care in taxes.

And quite frankly, while most people may not want to wear a seatbelt before a crash, when one happens, they will almost certainly wish they had. (That is if they make it.)

[AngryAmish]

7. People that smoke, drink, jog etc. should also stop?

Yours is a totalitarian argument.

[Crandor]

10. Do you think it's a good thing that 40 million Americans can't afford health insurance?

Every time an avoidable medical problem happens that adds to demand and pushes the number up further. People who fail to protect their own safety are hurting everyone.

[originalpckelly]

11. No, not really.

Smoking and drinking (to excess) are paid for by myself and others only when you are on a government funded health program.

And it is not too insane to talk about that for those types of problems as well. I could see someone smoking long before it was widely known cigarettes were deadly, but afterward it is pure stupidity for someone to smoke and for myself and others to pay for it.

If the drinking was by choice excessive, then why should I have to pay for it?

Health insurance premiums and life insurance premiums are higher for smokers for a reason.

[ProfessorGAC]

75. Because That's How Mutual Risk Mitigation Works

Come on, PC. You know that all risks are shared within any community that isn't based upon Randian misanthropy, and that every single insurance program in the world is intended to mitigate overall group risk by sharing the cost.

So, the reason why you have to pay more is because that's how it works. If you don't want that, drop out of the insurance plan, live your perfect life at zero risk, move to a desert island, and drop of society. Then you'll never have to pay for anyone else's behaviors.

It's the only logical extension of your POV.
The Professor

[wuushew]

81. Somebody should start a topic just on insurance

I find your post excellent by the way Professor.

I would like such a discussion to show how "privacy rights" run contrary to the function of insurance. Many people lie about health conditions, speeding habits etc. because the increased risk necessitates higher insurance rates. If such personal risks are underreported the overall group cost increases. However if any given member has risk greater than that of the overall group they have effectively saved money by withholding information.

Insurance is a tool to prevent being completely wiped out by occasional catastrophes. Instead of paying out of pocket for totaling a car, we make affordable monthly payments.


What should be insulting is the premiums that for profit insurance charges, not the concept itself.

[BattyDem]

15. Everyone is guaranteed emergency medical care, if needed

That's why the poor and uninsured go to emergency rooms for health care - they are treated regardless of their ability to pay.

What other types of "stupidity" should be eliminated by force?
Should we prevent people with heart disease or high cholesterol from buying or eating certain foods?
Should we outlaw the sale of sugar to diabetics?
Should we outlaw all high risk activities like bungee jumping, sky diving, rock climbing, etc.?

Where does it end? And who decides what is "high risk stupidity" and what is simply "living your life."

Other countries have their fair share of idiots who don't wear seat belts and they have people who engage in high risk activities, yet they are still able to treat them all for a fraction of what it costs us. WHY IS THAT?

I'm not disagreeing with you about seat belts. You're right ... they save lives and EVERYONE should wear them. I always wear mine and I insist that my passengers wear them as well. However, I don't want a machine making that decision for me. I have a brain and I use it. Every time this kind of decision is taken out of the hands of an individual, it makes it that much easier for the next decision to be taken away ... and the next.

[originalpckelly]

17. High risk stupidity:

Any activity which a preponderance of scientific data proves results in immediate death or extreme injury.

[BattyDem]

27. Ok, but ...

immediate mass death or extreme injury does not happen simply because a person didn't wear a seat belt - there has to be an accident first, which means the high risk stupidity is driving itself! ;)

You're 100% right about seat belts and I totally agree that anyone who doesn't wear their seat belt is a first class idiot! But ... I don't think machines should be making that decision for us. I also don't think we should be using the uninsured as an excuse to put "nanny laws" in place. The uninsured are VICTIMS of the high cost of health care in this country - they are not the reason for it.

[originalpckelly]

29. Actually, the problem lies with everyone insured or uninsured...

the price of emergency medical care is so obviously higher, it is one of many causes of higher health care prices. Ironically, these high health care prices cause people to go without routine health care, which can in a number of diseases prevent expensive illnesses.

[BattyDem]

32. You're right about that

It's appalling that so many people in this country end up with serious and/or life-threatening conditions simply because they couldn't afford basic, preventative health care! I'll never understand why our country can always find money in the budget to blow things up, but there's never a dime to spare when it comes to the basic heath care needs of all Americans. :grr:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

21. I think we should eliminate child birth

Why should I pay for the costs of a woman having a child, which includes the high medical costs associated with difficult pregnancies, when I don't want her to have a child in the first place and I think we should come to view voluntary pregnancy as something as aberrant and dangerous as smoking or drinking? For the sake of the planet, its natural resources, endangered species, and our quality of life, I think we should attach the same stigma to pregnancy as we do to smoking: that it is something that endangers us all. I'm all for reducing population.

That said, I don't want to FORCE women and men from refraining from having children. I would hope that individuals in a civilized society could be allowed to choose to make some intelligent decisions on their own and not have big brother make every single decision for them, even if the costs of some decisions have to be born by others.

[Buzz Clik]

49. My stupidity? For not wanting a car that won't start without a clicked seatbelt?

Could you be more rude?

FYI, buddy: I wear a seatbelt every moment in the car -- because I want to. Not because it's the law. And certain NOT to protect your money.

[AngryAmish]

4. Minis are seatbelt nazis

[longship]

5. I don't need my car to tell me that I should wear a fucking seatbelt.

I wear one all the time when I drive. This is bullshit.

[RB TexLa]

6. I hate wearing the things and never wear them at night outside of the city

Places have made the fines for not wearing them so crazy when it's easy for a police officer to see into the car I have to put it over my shoulder or some how make it catch and lay it across me.

[originalpckelly]

9. Why don't you wear a seatbelt?

Isn't that kind of asking for severe brain trauma in the event of an accident?

Do you think I should have to pay for your emergency medical care (which will be substantially higher in almost every single conceivable crash)?

[RB TexLa]

12. because I don't find them comfortable

I'm sure we'd all be even safer if we wore helmets while driving. I know it's a law and not as safe, and choose what I choose. Many people give up safety in different aspects of life for a variety of reasons.

If you want to throw your "that is not safe, you should not make that decison, because it might cost me higher insurance premiums or taxes" on all you really need to get to work on it. It will take quite a while. Should you chose to make that your life work, please try to find some time to relax every now and then.

[originalpckelly]

14. So I take it flying through a windshield is more comfortable?

I get that. Makes sense to me.

And when you land, that'll be really comfortable as well.

[Hekate]

22. It's amazing the kinds of life-changing head injuries you can get from hitting the windshield

I have a friend who was an occupational therapist for about 30 years. It's just amazing the kinds of life-changing head injuries you can get from flying through a windshield. She once had a mother-daughter duo in her unit at the rehab center, both severely disabled -- the kid was only 13.

Hekate

[Der Blaue Engel]

50. I was lucky

It was a well-made windshield and didn't shatter; I only had post-concussatory syndrome for several months. (And possibly lifelong depression and aphasia.) But that was enough for me.

[Frank Cannon]

69. Probably more comfortable than being impaled on the steering column

That's what happened to a dear friend of mine who was not wearing his belt when he fell asleep and got into a crash. The wheel collapsed and the steering column went right into his chest like a battering ram.

His belted passenger survived.

I know that's anecdotal, but I've seen and heard enough to know that anyone who does not wear a seatbelt is a fool, plain and simple.

[DemBones DemBones]

53. I don't find them comfortable either, but

being in a head on crash back before cars had seat belts gave me a LOT more discomfort than wearing a seatbelt. Several weeks in a hospital worth of discomfort.

[shanti]

35. i'm sorry but

you are a fool. i speak from experience. wearing your seatbelt wasn't the law in 1974, so people didn't follow it. i didn't and paid for it. people only used seatbelts when it BECAME law to do so.

don't be a fool.

[shanti]

36. duplicate post

n/t

[Der Blaue Engel]

8. My car already doesn't operate without the proper safety belts being fastened

Because I have the key, and it's not turning until they are. It annoyed people initially, but they got over it really quickly.

[originalpckelly]

13. If there were only more like you.

It's so sad to see people take such a dumb totally pointless risk.

[Raine]

55. Same here...

the car is not leaving until EVERYONE has their seat belt on. I'm fanatic about seatbelts!

[NuttyFluffers]

57. i try to do the same here

i've had a few weasel out of it while i was distracted and only found out after the fact. but i get pretty pissy about seatbelts -- and if they don't like my nanny behavior they can go walk. in fact, if i could actually point out that their lack of wearing the seatbelt is the reason we aren't moving would make my life easier. it'd get rid of any point of argument. can we really have this technology, yet? pretty please? i'm responsible for all who ride in my car -- emotionally, if perhaps not legally -- and last thing i want on my consceince is some dummy who went against my injunction and worked around wearing their seatbelt.

[Nicole]

16. I wouldn't dream of driving without my passengers buckled in

I wear my seatbelt & they will wear their's too.
My car = my rules.

[BattyDem]

34. My car = my rules

Exactly! No seat belt = no ride ... and you can't smoke in my car, either! :P

[Nicole]

44. We would get along great on a road trip!

No smoking in my car either. :P

I'm an ex-smoker but I never smoked in my car.

[Hekate]

18. My 1990 Camry already has passive restraints, but I buckle the lap belt too

My kids grew up knowing we wouldn't go anywhere without it. I had to train my mother-in-law to buckle up when she's my passenger; now she fumbles for the belt automatically and I help her click it.

I have a friend who is an occupational therapist. It's just amazing the kinds of life-changing head injuries you can get from flying through a windshield. She once had a mother-daughter duo on her ward -- the kid was only 13.

Hekate

[originalpckelly]

23. The wonder of the system is that it tries to eliminate annoyances...

I remember those belts, and they are as annoying as all hell get out. On top of that I know how annoying the warning sounds are. However, for all their annoyance, they can be ignored.

Another option, would allow someone without their seatbelt on to maneuver their vehicle at slow speeds without their seatbelt on.

But of course, there can be accidents in parking lots (though of course they tend to be lower speeds with small amounts of whiplash.

[LittleClarkie]

19. My friend's Ford used to bring the strap across my body automatically

Used to remind me of a James Bond movie "Good bye Mr. Bond. Mwaaah"

[DaveJ]

20. Yes, I believe in freedom

How far should we let the government decide what we should or shouldn't do because it is in our best interest? Should they also legalize how much we eat and exercise? Should they make the career choices that are most suited to us? Should they decide what we watch on TV? I strongly believe in the concept of freedom in the U.S.

[Jed Dilligan]

24. I think this was tried after the Nader anti-Corvair campaign

Congressmen themselves found the pressure-plate system too intrusive and killed the law IIRC. What we have now (buzzers etc.) represents a compromise between safe and not-annoying.

[originalpckelly]

28. Actually many new vehicles have a system which automatically turns off the front...

passenger airbag. (The force exerted on a child is so great it can do great harm instead of protecting them.)

The anti-ignition approach is quite intrusive, hence the reason I asked. However, on the other hand automatic speed limitation is less annoying than a buzzer, but without some sort of warning, it can unnoticed and actually cause a crash. (If someone expects the vehicle to accelerate but doesn't.)

[Jed Dilligan]

31. No computers controlling cars, please!

Let's keep them in their current status of reminding the humans.

[rpannier]

25. Another example of...

the Nannies getting their way.

[originalpckelly]

30. Are you against seat belt laws? Why? (nt)

[Swamp Rat]

26. Yes!!!

What if I wanted to drive it off a cliff or into a lake? :D

[shanti]

33. NO AND HELL NO!!!

as someone who had a head on collision without benefit of a seatbelt (1974), and a large scar on my forehead to show for it, HELL FUCKING NO! it changed my life, this accident. yes, i have a scar, but i am alive. i wonder how many others in the same situation can say the same.

SEATBELTS SAVE LIVES. USE YOUR SAFETY FEATURES!!

*getting off my soapbox*

[originalpckelly]

37. Would I be able to put you in the category of those...

who had a crash and decided to wear their safety belts?

:sarcasm:

When you see it or go through it, it really changes your whole perspective.

[shanti]

40. yes you would!

how many blood alley videos do people have to see to believe in auto safety features?????? if i'd had the safety features in 74, i'd have USED them! why not????

[greyl]

46. That wasn't an automatic seatbelt that saved your life.

Your argument supports wearing seatbelts, not a device like described in the OP.

[slackmaster]

84. I've been in several collisions and always had mine on

I don't need a fucking electromechanical gizmo to force me to wear a seatbelt.

[Eugene]

38. Seat belt interlocks were tried in the mid-1970's. They didn't work.

It was a fiasco.

[originalpckelly]

43. Those systems were not well designed and used simple electronics...

it is no wonder they failed. This is a totally different method of doing it. It has absolutely nothing to do with a pressure sensor.

Secondly, they didn't account for objects in the seats, and were not intelligent enough to protect small passengers.

In other words, they totally sucked.

This I at least hope would be different.

There is a second proposal which would not prevent ignition, but would limit the speed of the vehicle to around 15 MPH. Enough to not hassle anyone when they are in their driveway or in a parking lot, but enough to prevent them from forgetting to do their safety belt. The accelerator pedal performs as it would usually, but when it goes over the equivalent threshold of 15 mph, it gives a repeated warning to the driver.

The intelligent system would combine two parts, the belt system and the passenger/object description system. Objects placed in seats would have to fit in a restraining bag which ties into the seatbelt. This prevents them from becoming projectiles on impact.

On top of that, there would be another system in every child safety seat which describes it as such. (It is of such obvious design it would be a great help for parents not knowing how to install the seats properly, because the cable cannot be connected if the seat is in the improper position.)

In either case you hook up a durable metal connector, and it tells the safety system to allow the car to be started.

[SeattleGirl]

39. Not at all, as I started wearing a seat belt years before it became

mandatory where I live. And having been in a couple of accidents that could have killed me had I not been belted in, well, what can I say?

[Hippo_Tron]

41. I'd sure as hell be annoyed if the device broke

And my car wouldn't start even if my seatbelt was in.

[cigsandcoffee]

42. Most new cars seem to have this now.

On some recent trips, I rented a Dodge Durango and Caliber, and a Lincoln Town Car. All three had seat sensors that triggered the seatbelt flasher - driver and passenger.

[originalpckelly]

45. Big difference, you'd be surprised how many people ignore the warning...

You'd think these idiots would figure it out already, the car wants you to put on your fucking seatbelt, you know so your last act isn't an aerobatic one through the windshield. OH NO! NO NO, these IDIOTS ACTUALLY FRICKIN IGNORE THE WARNING! ITS FREAKING ANNOYING TOO! Yet they still ignore it.

You have to wonder if this isn't an example of natural selection.

Well, this will do the trick.

(You'd actually be surprised how many people ignore such an annoying sound. Quite astonishing what people will put up with.)

[TygrBright]

48. Oh. Two more things...

A former co-worker of mine was one of those "nobody tells me what to do" types, and when he got his first car that had a noise-reminder it pissed him off so much he buckled the seatbelt without him in it, and left it buckled that way all the time.

This was a long time ago so I have no idea if he ended up in a head-injury ward. I wouldn't be surprised. He was a Freeper before Rimjob ever hit the Internets.

And finally, the one thing that really, really creeps me out is those seatbelts that MOVE when you close the door. Those things freak hell outta me and I'd never buy a car that had one.

But I'd never buy a new car anyways, so I'm probably not a good person to base any notions abour marketability on.

diffidently,
Bright

[originalpckelly]

66. No, I hate those kinds of belts as well...

Because the type of sensor used is not a pressure sensor, there is a wonderful ability to know if someone is actually wearing the belt.

It puts little itty bitty radio signals in two plastic buttons on the belt. Depending on the weight of the person and how far away from the seat the belt is, the device will either allow the ignition or not.

It also gives the car more data-points to judge how to deploy the airbags in a vehicle on impact. Depending on the weight vs profile of the occupant, the computer can know if a child is in the seat.

One unmentioned thing, is the safety of dogs and cats in vehicles. There are restraints on the market which modify seat belts to make them work (and make them comfortable) for doggies. These restraints would need a cheap microchip added to them, so that they can provide their profile to the safety system.

Kitties will have to go in a special car carrier, which also has the descriptor in it.

[cigsandcoffee]

92. I couldn't ignore it. I had to find the owner's manual to shut it off.

Thank God that was still an option, because I could never own a car that doubled as a nanny.

[TygrBright]

47. I always wear my seatbelt NOW...

...but one time I didn't it probably saved my life, or at least my ability to walk, etc.

It was very late and there was almost no traffic, but visibility was poor. I was at an intersection with a highly angled approach and couldn't see the traffic coming from my left very clearly. I did see lights but couldn't see how far away they were. I inched further forward, thinking I still had plenty of room, and it would help me see better.

I didn't have plenty of room. The lights were suddenly right on top of me and they belonged to a semitrailer that plowed into the side of my car.

I was thrown to the passenger side of the front seat, the driver's side door was stove in, steering column bent & twisted, steering wheel toast. No damage to the semi, except perhaps a couple more dents on its bumper. I had some bruises and was moderately hysterical for a few minutes.

The cops who came to the accident site took a look at the car, took a look at me, and said "You've used up your one chance. Wear the damn' seatbelt from now on."

And I always have.

But I'm aware that wearing a seatbelt does NOT, always, automatically, make one safer. Just 99.9% of the time.

I'm also reminded of one car I had with a manual transmission that had an odd hitch to first gear. It had to be pushed to get from park into first. I became an expert at parking on level or very slightly downhill inclines, and starting the car, getting more or less half out, giving a good heave, getting in and shifting. THEN putting my seatbelt on.

FWIW

helpfully,
Bright

[LearnedHand]

51. I voted no (k&r)

I wear my seatbelt all the time and insist that any passenger I carry also wear one. Sounds like you have a very good idea. Good luck!

[piedmont]

52. yes-- I hate being told to do something I already do.

It squeezes every bit of satisfaction out of it.

[Gwerlain]

54. Wouldn't bother me a bit,

I'd prolly never find out unless the little microswitch thingie went bad. I check seatbelts. Every time. It's automatic. I don't try to turn the car on before I have a seatbelt on.

[Raine]

56. No seatbelt...no go

NO-ONE is riding in my car without being belted in!

[B Calm]

58. It would be just something else that would malfunction and cause you

to take the time and money to get it fixed.

[EdwardM]

59. Nanny state Government, Nanny Cars, Have we had enough?

It's nobody's business if I wear a seatbelt besides my own. If I want to be thrown through the windshield, That is my prerogative.

[wuushew]

61. Only if you are on private land

you own the car, but the conditions by which you drive it are subject to state oversight and licensing.

A person's home is their castle because THEY own it and have the right to privacy there in, no individual owns the road.

[EdwardM]

62. I'm not willing to give up all rights just because I am on public property just yet.

[Marrah_G]

60. Bad bad bad idea

Anything that hinders your ability to get away quickly in an emergency is a bad idea.


I do not need, YET AGAIN, to be told how to live every second of my life by some stranger who is "concerned" about me.

Although I realize your intentions are to save lives, I and I suspect many others are getting a little sick and tired of being told how we should live every single aspect of our lives. We all die sometime. You cannot make laws to change that one simple fact.

[Divameow77]

70. Exactly

A few years ago I was in a parking lot alone, late at night trying to get in my car and a man saw me and started running towards me, so I jumped in my car locked the doors and quickly drove away, I can't saw for certain if he wanted to hurt me but my instincts told me to get the hell out out of there. I was already in a panic, not sure how quickly I could have gotten out of there if I had to first put on my seatbelt when I was freaking out.

I know this situation might be rare, but it's my experience.

[originalpckelly]

72. Good point...

sometimes things are unforeseen.

It looks to me that the only system which people wouldn't be annoyed by isn't the prevention of ignition, but a system which limits the speed of the vehicle. It would produce an audible warning if the driver goes over the speed limit, and possibly would shut the car down (or automatically reduce the speed to the speed limit, so that someone can drive out of traffic if they have to) after a number of seconds (or minutes) above the speed limit.

That way if you are in your driveway, you're in a parking lot, or something like your situation, a person can still drive without the hassle of the belt ignition system.

[Toots]

63. Should be seat belts on motorcycles and helmets on car operators

More head injuries in car accidents than motorcycle accidents and more people fly off of motorcycles than out of cars... :crazy:

[originalpckelly]

67. Actually, I have been working on a type of airbag...

which deploys around the user of the motorcycle if it falls. I don't know how effective it will be, but I think it will probably do a lot of good.

[regularguy]

64. Yes. I always buckle up, but

having your car tell you what to do is not compatible with dignity.

[noonwitch]

65. I wear mine all the time anyways.

I don't always put it on before I start the car, though, but I always do before I put the car in motion.

[SmokingJacket]

68. I would be irritated as hell.

And I always wear my seatbelt. I think the little bell that rings until you put your belt on is enough.

[ThomWV]

71. One Of Our Cars Had Almost That

What the hell? Cars these days won't start unless your foot is on the brake, unless you have it in neutral, or unless the wind is blowing from the south and the sweet Lord Jesus still rules the world as far as I know. What's one more safety gizmo gonna hurt?

A Ford Thunderbird we used to have (can't remember the year but sometime in the early 90's) had automatic seat belts, or at least the diagonal strap came over automatically. You still had to buckle the lap belt yourself. I didn't mind it a bit. It was not distracting, it operated quickly and was not noisy or in the way, or otherwise dislikable.

Neither our current car (Audi) or truck (Ford) has anything similar. Each has a annoying light on the dash that lights if the seatbelt is not buckled up, but I'm not even sure if it stays on for long if you don't buckle up.

[zappa_parappa]

73. Yes, it would annoy me...that damn beep that goes off now annoys me

and half the time its not even because theres a passenger...if I put a bag of groceries on the front seat, it thinks theres a passenger and starts beeping uncontrollably...thats all i'd need...my car not starting because i have something heavy in the front seat.

[originalpckelly]

74. Would you be annoyed by having to put the groceries in a restraining bag?

Objects placed in car seats can become projectiles in a car accident. On the other hand, it is possible to just the stuff in a bag(s) (which would come with the car or system were it installed after purchase) you can use the seat as places to put things, and they also don't become a projectiles on impact.

What do you think of that?

[zappa_parappa]

76. I think if groceries were meant to be restrained, they'd come with bungies

my broccoli never hurt anyone.

[Divameow77]

77. What about items that won't fit in a bag?

Such as a piece of furniture that won't fit in the trunk and needs to go in the back seat.

[originalpckelly]

86. If you want to move furniture...

A safety screen can be provided.

Two sets of holes on above the rear seat and just below the rear seat will be provided. Whether one folds down the rear seat to place furniture in the vehicle or places large objects in the back seat, the system works flawlessly.

The shape of the connectors for the top holes is different from the bottom ones, this helps you know to install the screen the right way. In addition the screen connects through the two holes on the bottom, and provides information to the car so that it can know to allow ignition.

This solves the problem of something coming from the trunk toward the front of the vehicle in all vehicles with a trunk and rear folding seats.


In a hatchback or a SUV, the screen which should usually be brought forward to the back of the rear seat for privacy (and though you may not know, your own safety in a crash) would be extended and the holes in addition to the ones just behind the rear seat, there would be holes right below the seat, but just high enough to account for the seat being folded forward.

In a minivan the holes would be present in one or more rows of rear seats.


There would be a problem, which looks to be unsolvable, if you have a split rear folding seat, meaning that you can fold down one of the back seats while leaving the other in the upright position. There might be some canvas hood to place over the furniture, which would to a hole in the side of the unfolded seat and connect to the hole in the vehicle's wall for the folded seats.


It's all complicated, but it can save lives.

[trof]

78. Um...IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.

I had a 70-something VW Dasher that would not start unless all occupied seats had seatbelts fastened.
It was a MAJOR pain in the butt.

In fact, it couldn't tell the difference between a suitcase, a couple of bags of groceries, or a butt.
And sometimes with all belts fastened it still wouldn't start.
So you'd see me bouncing up and down in my seat while turning the key trying to get that damn butt switch to make contact.

No thanks.

[slackmaster]

82. The dumb old days when many cars had separate shoulder and lap belts

I hated those.

[LWolf]

79. Yes.

I don't need to be treated like a toddler. I put my seatbelt on every time before I start the vehicle. So does the child I haul around with me, in his regulation car seat even though he is almost 7.

I admit that I take my seatbelt off when I get to the mailboxes on the isolated dirt road that leads back to the private dirt road my house is on. I usually ride the last mile without the belt. Of course, the speed limit on that road is 15mph, and the only people on it are the few people who also live on private roads further back. I'm likely to see another car once or twice a week; we slow to 5-10 mph, smile, wave, and pass each other by.

Other than that last 1/2 mile home, my seatbelt is on all the time. Why the hell do I need an electronic nanny? We have laws about seatbelts. Enforce them if you are worried about people hurting themselves because they didn't obey the law.

[Shrek]

80. Would you be annoyed by a universal maximum 5 mph speed limit?

That would save more live than seat belts ever could.

[slackmaster]

83. HELL YES I'd be annoyed!

My driveway is very tight. My house is on a steep hill and a curve. There are lots of lead-footed soccer moms and Generation Y clowns with stereos on wheels who drive way too fast both up and down the hill.

I have to do a lot of twisting and turning and looking both ways while backing out. I have some stiffness in my back, and wearing a seatbelt while doing that maneuver is very uncomfortable. I usually don't fasten the seatbelt until I am in the street ready to proceed forward.

So would you be annoyed by that system being required in all new vehicles?

If I ever buy a vehicle hobbled with that "feature", my first official act as Mr. Home Mechanic will be to disable it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. As you describe it, yes

In Britain, there is an exception to the seatbelt law for "the drivers of vehicles while performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing"; and so not allowing the car to start would be very annoying. It would also be a pain for people servicing the car - they'd have to get out of it, or wear a belt, to start it up.

[Catherine Vincent]

87. What about the front and side airbags they have nowadays?

Does that eventually take the place of seat belts?

[slackmaster]

93. Negative

The owner's manual of my SUV very clearly states that the air bags provide protection only when used in conjunction with the 3-way harness.

I've heard that they are actually dangerous when deployed on someone who is not wearing a seat belt.

[Greyhound]

88. Get your goddamn busy-body, police state, "we know what is best for

you" Bullshit out of our lives!!

My sister has a new Honda CRV and while I basically forced her to buy it (after she got raped by the Chrysler corporation for the 4th time with their crap cars/trucks that nobody wants to buy) because they retain their value when it is time to buy another one. It is a great machine, solid, quiet, dependable, good power, and good mileage, but the constant seat-belt alarm is infuriating.

Why is it that the Dutch are apparently the only people on earth that get it. You design the system to accommodate the users, you don't force the users to comply with the system.:banghead:

[RB TexLa]

89. I knew something was missing from the OP

"This thread brought to you by StateFarm/Farmers/Progressive/AllState"

[porphyrian]

90. I'm in the habit of using it anyway. - n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

91. It was done for a while, then stopped

caused more problems than it solved

[Jamastiene]

94. I'm already annoyed that my car nags me with the little dinging

bell. I have heard that bell so much now, that I have started a plot to disconnect it. I crank the car, then put the seatbelt on. What's the big fucking deal? The car seems to want to nag me about that. :mad: