Optional New GM System Seat belt required

[abaucom21]

I voted NO. Don't need the government or auto mfg. to inform me to buckle up as by now that should be common sense. Most states you will get a ticket, its the law. The percentage of people that still ignore the warning chime when a seat belt is not buckled, they hit the windshield or ejected in a crash, deserve the consequences. The government can not force stupid people to be safe. Nobody rides with me unless they buckle up.

[McRat]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

Your quip seems more appropriate if the technology GM is testing was actually part of a government mandate. It's not. Part of it is a PR piece to woo the NHTSA (which isn't requiring the technology), and also a PR piece for the general public who just witnessed GM recall seemingly more cars than they've even sold in the last 10 years.

Today.

Personally, I've never had a problem figuring out how to use seatbelts. I was wearing them before it was required.

I guess it's just a GM/BMW thing:

http://www.autonews.com/article/2013...-seat-belt-use

Like tire pressure monitoring, it starts off as voluntary. Then you add $500 to the new car price and pay more for tire changes for life. Even if you didn't have a problem reading a pressure gauge in the past.

[Iam Broke]

Originally Posted by HDRDTD

Didn't we go through this way back in the early 70's?

I seem to remember defeating it by simply buckling the seat belt (lap belt) and just sitting on it along with unplugging a sensor under the passenger seat?

Yep, my Dad's '72 Impala.

[fightingmajor]

Why are all of you seat belt nazis not all up in arms about the fact kids don't have to wear seat belts on school buses? Why are you not out preventing another bus from moving with a child on it until seat belts are mandatory like they are if they were in your car? This seems like a pretty common sense thing to get passed.

[hiddenangels89]

Personally, i would hate this feature, i often just back my car up a few feet in the driveway to open my gate / garage door, i would hate to have to get buckled in or move anyone in the front seat out / tell them to buckle up so i can roll it back a little bit...

to add to it, i don't even close my door when i'm doing this, and sometimes i have 1 leg hanging out the car. it's literally just a roll back 10-15 feet (long driveway), but i'm not going into the street and am going like 2mph (idle speeds)

[TOYMARO]

Ill start by saying that I always wear a helmet when riding or my seatbelt when driving.

Originally Posted by Stormwalker

I feel pretty much the same way about this that I feel about helmet laws on motorcycles.

1). People have a right to be stupid if they're only endangering their own lives.
2). That right should be respected, but the individual in question should assume all legal liability for injuries resulting (or even possibly resulting) from their choice to be stupid.

In other words, people should be able to drive around without a seat belt if they want to, but if they get themselves thrown through the windshield and killed, whoever else was involved in the accident shouldn't be liable for it.

Of course, our society is allergic to common-sense solutions, and as long as you can be sued for other peoples' stupidity, there's probably a need for helmet laws and seat belt laws. I'd rather not have more electronic nannies in my car, though.

So true. I totally agree its the choice of the RIDER whether or not to use a helmet. BUT, as a driver, I can see WHY the seat belt law is for more than JUST the personal safety of that driver.

A MC rider can have only eye protection on, and have no trouble handling that equipment, even when in a "out of control" situation, the helmet will add nothing to the rider, only save HIS life, with no "handling" enhancements because of the helmet on or off. So he could harm others with his MC.

Now when a driver of a car gets "out of control", the seat belt can help here, by keeping his arse right where its supposed to be, in the seat. When the driver is safe in the seat, he has a better chance of saving the car AND OTHERS around him........if hes tossed about, he has a less likely of a chance to save the car, and could harm or kill others.

Dont take me wrong here. I do NOT think this feature should happen in any vehicle. We have enough laws and regs in this country in regards to individuals.

Originally Posted by lurker

Hmmm. Current administration doesn't seem to pay much attention to people's rights... or the legislative process if it gets in the way of what the president wants.

We think alike sir.

Originally Posted by McRat

............................Like tire pressure monitoring, it starts off as voluntary. Then you add $500 to the new car price and pay more for tire changes for life. Even if you didn't have a problem reading a pressure gauge in the past.

PPL dont get that sometimes. Ignorance of a few will affect the many.

[kevint]

Originally Posted by fightingmajor

Why are all of you seat belt nazis not all up in arms about the fact kids don't have to wear seat belts on school buses? Why are you not out preventing another bus from moving with a child on it until seat belts are mandatory like they are if they were in your car? This seems like a pretty common sense thing to get passed.

Answered. Long ago.

[McRat]

Oh CRAP. I didn't think about it enough.

It should be really easy to defeat, but what if your car has a rollbar/cage/harnessbar, and you want to use the 5-pt at the track? You REALLY don't want to sit on your factory latched seatbelt like we did in the 70's.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by McRat

Today.

Personally, I've never had a problem figuring out how to use seatbelts. I was wearing them before it was required.

I guess it's just a GM/BMW thing:

http://www.autonews.com/article/2013...-seat-belt-use

Like tire pressure monitoring, it starts off as voluntary. Then you add $500 to the new car price and pay more for tire changes for life. Even if you didn't have a problem reading a pressure gauge in the past.

I agree with you politically, but this is a change I'd concede. It's minimal, should cost nothing (a simple software code update) and it has virtually no affect on me personally; I already wear my seatbelt and check my own tires, etc.

Let me flip the law around. Let's assume we abolish any/all legislation about wearing seatbelts. Would any of you vote for a law that allowed hospitals and auto insurance companies to deny you care AND coverage for your injury/loss if it was determined you weren't wearing a seatbelt?

I'd be more in favor of that, because it lets stupid people be stupid, without consequence to me, personally.

[Silverlsinva]

Ok so I have thought this over and It is very cool but should say optional and can be turned off somehow. Now I think if I had a child who was driving age this is a great idea and should be standard with parental control over it.

[wadew2lt]

Originally Posted by lurker

Hmmm. Current administration doesn't seem to pay much attention to people's rights... or the legislative process if it gets in the way of what the president wants.

+1

[TommyTheCat]

And for manual transmissions? They can't keep me out of gear

[ChrisBlair]

One more thing to fail out of warranty.

Just make no seatbelt use a primary stop with a 500 dollar fine

Originally Posted by fightingmajor

Why are all of you seat belt nazis not all up in arms about the fact kids don't have to wear seat belts on school buses? Why are you not out preventing another bus from moving with a child on it until seat belts are mandatory like they are if they were in your car? This seems like a pretty common sense thing to get passed.

lol

Now I want you to wear two seatbelts and a crash helmet, just to piss you off.

[McRat]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

I agree with you politically, but this is a change I'd concede. It's minimal, should cost nothing (a simple software code update) and it has virtually no affect on me personally; I already wear my seatbelt and check my own tires, etc.

Let me flip the law around. Let's assume we abolish any/all legislation about wearing seatbelts. Would any of you vote for a law that allowed hospitals and auto insurance companies to deny you care AND coverage for your injury/loss if it was determined you weren't wearing a seatbelt?

I'd be more in favor of that, because it lets stupid people be stupid, without consequence to me, personally.

Nothing the Gov does is free. Even if you only pay $10 more for the interlock, the gov't paperwork, procedures, monitoring, enforcing, etc, will cost a bunch. They don't see $100,000 as a lot of money. Not even $100,000,000. They simply care that they are getting funding.

Simply put, the Fed has important things to do. Wasting money on stricter seatbelt laws does little for the taxpayer.