schley@mmm.UUCP (Steve Schley) (09/26/85)
In article <1770@hao.UUCP> kitten@hao.UUCP writes: >> In article <388@decwrl.UUCP> wasser@viking.DEC (John A. Wasser) writes: >> > a consumer's question. How much more would I be asked to pay >> > for a car because the manufacturer was required to install >> > airbags that I don't want because I ALWAYS wear my seat belt. >> >> Several hundred dollars. Now, maybe there could be a "seatbelt customer" >> option which would be cheaper? A "seatbelt customer" car would be intended >> only for people who do use seatbelts, and would be a few hundred dollars >> cheaper. And if belt-user cars get fewer injuries than bag-user cars, >> maybe insurance rates will eventually be lower for belt-user cars. >> >> But it would be necessary to prevent someone who doesn't use >> a seatbelt from buying one of those cars. So a "seatbelt customer" car .... >> 2) Passive belts as a cheaper replacement to airbags. Passive belts don't >> look as nice as airbags. But would that be enough inducement for people >> to spend more for airbags? I doubt it. > >This, I believe, is the answer...I can't think of anything better to satisfy >(almost) everyone than to have a choice of passive belts and airbags. Sure, >the non-belters will grumble and whine at the cost of the airbag...perhaps >it will be enough incentive for them to start belting. Having owned identical cars with and without passive belts (both VW Rabbits), I can honestly state that I prefer the non-passive belts. I always belt up, so the passive belt doesn't help me out. It is really a hassle when loading junk into the car, and I don't find it as comfortable. The requisite knee bar (replacing the lap portion of the belt) restricts your leg room, too. >> 3) Penalties for people who buy a seatbelt car and then don't use them. >> Now we're in the same field as the belt law discussion and insurance >> benefit/penalty questions. One of the problems is proving whether >> someone was using their belt... Scot E. Wilcoxon > >Something *like* this should be included in #2 above. Anyone caught with >a disconnected passive belt should suffer a HEFTY penalty, and should >count on their driving records as a moving violation. Just make sure that the proposed seat belt laws apply to passive belts, too. However, I'm in favor of the insurance penalty proposals, rather than giving the traffic cop one MORE thing to try to enforce. Let me sign an iron-clad waiver of benefits tied to my wearing seat belts, and reduce my rates. >Passive belts >should be connected in a way that disconneting could not be put back. NO, NO, NO! Sounds good in concept, but drive a car with passive belts first and you'll see the folly. Things other than passengers ride in the passenger seat, and these parcels, boxes, and grocery bags don't need belting. Many won't fit behind a belt, and disconnecting the belt almost always makes loading and unloading easier.These points are even more important on two-door cars. >My Ford has a bolt head for the seat belt that has a multi-point star >shaped hole, requiring a 'special' tool, but it can be removed by a >wrench, etc. Make this impossible, and the insurance people and cops >can tell it was deliberately removed. The most important reason for having disconnectable belts, and the reason that VW puts a buckle at the door connection, is that in an accident, you have GOT to get out of that belt FAST! Bolt me into my seat? YOU GOTTA BE CRAZY! Something that I find interesting is that of all the VWs with passive belts that I see on the road, almost all ( > 95% ) have their belts connected. This statistic (informally arrived at in Minnesota driving) far outstrips the statistics for normal belt usage. I have no explanation, except for the obvious ease of use and elimination of "forgetfulness" factors. (You can tell the passive belt cars by the seat belt buckle at the upper rear corner of the front door windows. The buckle has a bright red button -- for emergency use.) -- Steve Schley ihnp4!mmm!schley
kitten@hao.UUCP (10/06/85)
> >Something *like* this should be included in #2 above. Anyone caught with > >a disconnected passive belt should suffer a HEFTY penalty, and should > >count on their driving records as a moving violation. > > Just make sure that the proposed seat belt laws apply to passive belts, > too. However, I'm in favor of the insurance penalty proposals, rather > than giving the traffic cop one MORE thing to try to enforce. Let me > sign an iron-clad waiver of benefits tied to my wearing seat belts, and > reduce my rates. I guess I changed my mind and agree this is a better idea. The pocketbook often speaks louder than the *possibility* of the cop with the ticket book. > >Passive belts > >should be connected in a way that disconneting could not be put back. > > NO, NO, NO! Sounds good in concept, but drive a car with passive belts > first and you'll see the folly. Things other than passengers ride in > the passenger seat, and these parcels, boxes, and grocery bags don't > need belting. Many won't fit behind a belt, and disconnecting the belt > almost always makes loading and unloading easier.These points are even > more important on two-door cars. For this, I recommend using the emergency disconnection. (meant as being temporary for the single use, then reconnected) > >My Ford has a bolt head for the seat belt that has a multi-point star > >shaped hole, requiring a 'special' tool, but it can be removed by a > >wrench, etc. Make this impossible, and the insurance people and cops > >can tell it was deliberately removed. > > The most important reason for having disconnectable belts, and the > reason that VW puts a buckle at the door connection, is that in an > accident, you have GOT to get out of that belt FAST! Bolt me into my > seat? YOU GOTTA BE CRAZY! I seem to have not made myself clear. I was refering to where the belt bolts to *the car*. Of course, due to its nature, the passive belt must have an emergency release. I meant this as a discouragement for people completely disconnecting the belts. > Something that I find interesting is that of all the VWs with passive > belts that I see on the road, almost all ( > 95% ) have their belts > connected. This statistic (informally arrived at in Minnesota driving) > far outstrips the statistics for normal belt usage. I have no > explanation, except for the obvious ease of use and elimination of > "forgetfulness" factors. (You can tell the passive belt cars by the > seat belt buckle at the upper rear corner of the front door windows. > The buckle has a bright red button -- for emergency use.) > -- > Steve Schley > ihnp4!mmm!schley That is why I believe in passive belts for those who can't be bothered with belting up. Thanks for your reply. {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!kitten CSNET: kitten@NCAR ARPA: kitten%ncar@CSNET-RELAY