NHTSA Will Require Audible Seatbelt Reminders For Everyone In the Car (caranddriver.com) 258
Longtime Slashdot reader sinij shares a report from Car and Driver with the caption: "As someone that uses back seats to carry some luggage, I am not a fan of this requirement." From the report: Previously, federal standards governing seatbelt warnings only required manufacturers to monitor the driver's seat, issuing a chime if its seatbelt was unbuckled when the vehicle was underway. Now, a new rule has been finalized, requiring all new passenger vehicles sold in the U.S. to have enhanced front seatbelt warnings by September 1, 2026, and rear seatbelt warnings by September 1, 2027.
It's exactly 50 years since Congress attempted to mandate ignition interlocks tied to seatbelt use, in an effort to reduce deaths on the road. In that instance, the public revolted and the House blinked, repealing the interlock requirement later in the same year. [...] The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that these new regulations will save about 50 lives per year, and reduce injuries by 500.
It's exactly 50 years since Congress attempted to mandate ignition interlocks tied to seatbelt use, in an effort to reduce deaths on the road. In that instance, the public revolted and the House blinked, repealing the interlock requirement later in the same year. [...] The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that these new regulations will save about 50 lives per year, and reduce injuries by 500.
Beaurocrats with too much time on their hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Having to justify their non jobs by added on ever more spurious "safety" systems with a law of diminishing returns regards to actual safety. Having said that its even worse in the EU with endless warnings and bongs going off from driver awareness systems that don't work and in some cases actually distract the driver from paying attention to the road.
Re:Beaurocrats with too much time on their hands (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the problem when you have positions in government that are given a goal of reducing X by Y every year without a end point (or worse the ever favorite 'project 0' initiatives). The goals need to be set to get to a certain point of diminishing returns and then the positions eliminated and tax dollars shifted to something else. Instead, government only grows and never shrinks. Keeping obsolete agencies and projects alive forever.
Re: Beaurocrats with too much time on their hands (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what will save far more lives?
Universal health care.
How Americans haven't revolted yet is beyond my understanding.
Re: Beaurocrats with too much time on their hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Canada has universal healthcare. Despite the strain our system is under, we both pay less per capita than Americans, and have better health outcomes and greater life expectancy.
You should not be asking "How will we pay for universal healthcare??" You should be asking "What are the best ways to spend the billions of dollars we save once we have universal healthcare?"
The reasons universal healthcare saves money are many. Some of them are: Getting rid of the profit motive in healthcare, encouraging people to get treatment before it progresses to a severe (and expensive) stage rather than avoiding going to the doctor for fear of fees, and having much more leverage when bargaining over drug prices because you represent an enormous buyer.
Re: (Score:3)
Canada has universal healthcare. Despite the strain our system is under, we both pay less per capita than Americans, and have better health outcomes and greater life expectancy.
You should not be asking "How will we pay for universal healthcare??" You should be asking "What are the best ways to spend the billions of dollars we save once we have universal healthcare?"
The reasons universal healthcare saves money are many. Some of them are: Getting rid of the profit motive in healthcare, encouraging people to get treatment before it progresses to a severe (and expensive) stage rather than avoiding going to the doctor for fear of fees, and having much more leverage when bargaining over drug prices because you represent an enormous buyer.
LMFAO!
Canada patient: Doc, I have a hangnail. Can you help me out?
Canada doctor: Have you considered the end of life options that we have?
Canada patient: ??????? WTF???????
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I pay a few hundred dollars a month I think for health insurance.
You pay that much. Your employer probably pays even more. My family had to go on COBRA last year, and it cost $24,000 for 10 months of coverage (it was a very good PPO). We'd been paying $600 a month while employed, meaning the employer was around $1800 a month.
Is that all it would take in tax to pay for US Universal health care?
Where and from whom is all this extra money the US is paying currently in health care coming from?
No, but like Medic
Re: (Score:3)
I'm with Cayenne8 here, but with slight differences. I do believe a properly run Universal Health Care system could save costs. But I do not believe any Government, especially the US Federal Government, could properly run one, and I don't want bureaucrats making medical decisions for me. What I would like to see is regulation wrangling in the current "advertised costs" of health care in the U.S. which are way higher than what the insurance companies also pay. Oh, and the whole concept of Pharmacy/Plan B
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And....just how would we, in the US, pay for this?
We already pay thousands per month now for a sub par experience. Government healthcare doesn't need to turn a profit. It's a service.
This country generates tremendous wealth but refuses to use any for the benefit of the citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
If you took whatever you're paying for that insurance today, and what your employer is paying on their side and it was a tax instead, that'd easily cover your portion of the cost of universal healthcare and also the costs for those who are not covered today.
No, it wouldn't. In 2023, total healthcare premiums collected was about $1.2 trillion. Total healthcare spending in the US in 2023 was $4.9 trillion, or $14,750. Of that, $1.0 trillion was Medicare and about $900 million was Medicaid. That leaves $3 tril
Re: (Score:3)
The savings universal healthcare will create by singelhandedly removing the need for a "health insurance industry" with the associated costs and their massive profits would be a good start.
This is completely untrue. Health insurance companies don't make a lot of money. As an industry, their profit margins are around 3%. The most profitable insurer in the country has a net profit margin is barely over 6%. They're just not great moneymakers.
Also, eliminating private health insurance will in no way remove the need for a health insurance industry, it'll just effectively nationalize it. Medicare and Medicaid aren't significantly more efficient than private insurers, even though they don't ha
Re: Beaurocrats with too much time on their hands (Score:3)
"Medicare and Medicaid aren't significantly more efficient than private insurers, even though they don't have to make a profit."
That's why national health care makes more sense than single payer health insurance. You don't have to figure out to whom you would deny care.
We also have hamstrung our government health coverage systems by not permitting them to bargain for prices, and motivated our insurance companies to keep costs high by capping their profits at a percentage of what is paid.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of the work, the EU in particular have their defense largely covered by the US....if the US were to pull all their bases, and every country had to start paying the full amount they'd need to do for their own defense, I wonder how much THEY could then afford to pay for Universal Health care and other generous social safety n
Re: (Score:2)
If I so much as lay my damn iphone in the passenger seat while driving the damn seatbelt alarm starts going off. Who the fuck weighs 8 ounces?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll frequently fasten the rear seatbelts if I'm carrying anything of any size in the back seats, and occasionally do the same with the passenger seatbelt, the idea is to make it more difficult for luggage to slide around when I'm taking corners. Obviously that won't work for really large objects but then it's time to put the rear seats down anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
But my dog does set off the passenger seat from time to time...I just ignore it and it stops after a few seconds.
Does it keep going on other cars out there and not shut up after a bit?
Re: (Score:2)
If I so much as lay my damn iphone in the passenger seat while driving the damn seatbelt alarm starts going off. Who the fuck weighs 8 ounces?
That's the fault of a terrible design. I've never owned a car where putting a carton of beer (18 x 440 ml up to 24 x 500 ml) will set off the sensors... this include a very sensor happy Mercedes.
The idea is a sound one, letting the driver know, quite clearly, if one of the passengers isn't wearing a seatbelt (especially as that passenger is likely to be their kid).
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously....?
When is it worth leaving things up to personal responsibility and not mandating crap that raises costs and complexity in our vehicles....more shit to break.
Re: (Score:2)
The way I read it; only 50 deaths are attributed to not wearing a seatbelt. Considering the high bodycount, it seems adoption of wearing seatbelts is already high. Maybe those 50 are a Darwinism effect. That begs the question, do we really want to save them? To what lengths do we go to keep these 50 dim lighbulbs from involuntarily checking out?
Re: (Score:3)
Most remotely modern cars detect a passenger with electrical fields (capacitance? Something), not weight. So various electronics tend to be more likely to trip the sensors than a lot of other things.
Re: (Score:2)
This is like those stupid fucking buttons you have to push to keep your vehicle from shutting off every time you stop. Whoever thought that was a good idea needs kicked in the nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how many of those deaths would be prevented by this measure? How many were rear-seat passengers who were not buckled in, regardless of whether they might have been saved by this audible indicator?
Belts are difficult for some (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Having worked on integrating wheelchairs into cars, I can sympathize. But I don't think that going without a seatbelt, and then being angry that the car dings at you, and then being angry at NHTSA for the regulation, is really the right solution. Advocating for better seat belt systems or accessories seems a better approach, because ultimately that will result in greater safety for you.
Easy fix (Score:3)
Just keep all the belts plugged in all the time
Re:Easy fix (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. Better headline proposal: "NHTSA Mandates that Seatbelts Must be Stored in the Engaged Position, and not Retracted."
Re: (Score:2)
Shh.. Next they are going to come up with an update requiring that the system detect this situation. Probably around the same time they will mandate a shift interlock to prevent the car from shifting from Park into drive if a passenger is not belted properly or force emergency braking down to a certain speed and limp mode if it's already in drive when a seat is unbuckled.
Re: (Score:3)
I've left my front passenger seat buckled for years, and it even helps keep cargo items in the seat restrained.
But yeah, this is another case of bureaucrats trying to justify their existence by inconveniencing millions to save a few fools. ("We must do something! This is something!") I'm still sore about the backup cameras thing, mine (from 2013) has a horrible camera such that it shows mostly blobs of light or dark, and it also means you're stuck with the factory radio because of the screen. But at least
Unintended consequences (Score:2)
I guess this means more and more people will buy (or 3d print) the short buckle clips and leave them in permanently to prevent cargo from triggering warnings. Likely meaning when an occasional passenger sits in the back seat and finds they cannot insert the buckle, they'll just decide to go without.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess this means more and more people will buy (or 3d print) the short buckle clips and leave them in permanently to prevent cargo from triggering warnings. Likely meaning when an occasional passenger sits in the back seat and finds they cannot insert the buckle, they'll just decide to go without.
Yep, like when kids were jumping off a passenger bridge to play in a creek despite the sign saying it was dangerous they eventually shut down the bridge for an entire summer to raise the fencing because of safety. Well it was the only way out of that end of the park so people were taking the train bridge instead including one woman I saw with a stroller. Not everything is thought through.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not buy really short seat belt extenders, and leave them plugged instead? That way the belts would still work, and they're only $15 a pair.
Prices to pay (Score:2)
OK, is the marginal return on this regulation, 50 deaths and 500 injuries, worth the added price, both the financial and the Orwellian boot descending on human faces for eternity? I submit it is not. There should be some price in this live for being a dumbs**t. This is one of those price points. Perhaps NHTSA should have a nice soul to soul conversation with DOGE.
{^_^}
Re: (Score:3)
Let me offer a counter argument.
What is your life worth to you? Are you going to be one of the fifty that dies? Are you so very much inconvenienced that you'll permit others to die?
Consider the complications of rear airbags. The seat in front of you is really close. How will a front-mounted, rear-facing airbag break your face?
This isn't Orwell. This is protection for edge-cases. Yes, it does increase the costs, but few today argue the benefits of seatbelts as they did two decades ago.
I also acknowledge that
Re: (Score:2)
We could save the cost and complexity of this and a LOT of the recently mandated crap with "personal responsibility"
And, if you have none....that's why we have the Darwin Awards.
If you're too stupid, maybe removing yourself from the gene pool isn't necessarily a bad thing for society?
Re: (Score:3)
You're using a brutalist approach to the problem of random auto accidents. If people were responsible, that's great, but accidents still happen despite the best actions and intentions.
The socials are full of videos of Shit Happens. Some are gruesome and deadly, life-changing.
Is Darwin at work there, or is it the fickle-finger-of-fate? Was it an unlucky day?
Whichever is the case, we then have to deal with the aftermath, destruction of life and all that it entails, personal injury-- perhaps fixed short or lon
Re: (Score:3)
This works both ways. Would you like to have someone prevent your death or injury? Or are we all not in any way responsible for each other?
Is there no warmth in your life, no camaraderie? No one loves you enough to care? That's pretty sad; I hope it changes.
For others, we're our brother's keeper. We raise children to survive in this crazy world. We're concerned over each other's safety and well being.
Some are not.
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly the analysis that needs to be done, and exactly the analysis that provokes a strong negative reaction in the voting public. They'll yell at you for making the regulation, but yell louder for doing the math to explain why you shouldn't.
Counterproductive regulations? (Score:2)
Wikipedia has a nice table of vehicle fatality statistics. Deaths per mile decreased steadily from roughly 1966 through 2014. In 2014, there were 1.08 deaths per million miles traveled. Since then, deaths/mile have increased by around 25%.
Is it possible that new safety regulations are becoming counterproductive? Just as an example: FMVSS 214 and 226 started a phased program in 2013 that has led to airbags in the pillars, and thick pillars reduce visibility.
Re:Counterproductive regulations? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's smartphone use that has increased the fatalities.
Re: (Score:2)
They should mandate a safety measure that makes sense for this: Drivers seat smartphone detection.
Vehicle will monitor RF signal sources inside the cabin and block shifting into drive or accelerating upon detecting a Smartphone present within reach of the driver. And include a separate isolated compartment where smartphones are to be stowed while the vehicle is being operated.
Re: (Score:2)
"airbags in the pillars, and thick pillars reduce visibility."
As someone who's had an accident because a car was in my large blind spot to the rear I can testify to that. Yes, the accident was my fault, I should have done an over the shoulder full check and I normally do, but we're all human and humans make mistakes. The useless safety warning systems on my car would have been better utilised wanring me about vehicles in this blindspot , not just right next to me or out front where I can friggin see them!
Re: (Score:2)
>"Yes, the accident was my fault, I should have done an over the shoulder full check and I normally do, but we're all human and humans make mistakes"
>" The useless safety warning systems on my car would have been better utilised wanring me about vehicles in this blindspot"
And next we will have mandates for blind spot monitors. And those don't work correctly all the time, but drivers will come to "trust" them and then NOT LOOK over the shoulder and miss things *because* they have such monitors. So th
Re:Counterproductive regulations? (Score:5, Interesting)
And next we will have mandates for blind spot monitors. And those don't work correctly all the time, but drivers will come to "trust" them and then NOT LOOK over the shoulder and miss things *because* they have such monitors. So then they will add interlock warnings on the display to ALWAYS look over your shoulder which you have to clear EVERY TIME you start the damn car. Those same people not looking will still not look, and everyone will be annoyed. It is like an arms-race.
The laws of unintended consequences is real.
I am SICK of mandatory warnings, constant alerts, and settings that reset on every car start.
Well, my vehicle has blind spot warnings, and they work very well - what is more, if I want to ignore them, I can sideswipe the idiot driving next to me. Or I can turn them off altogether, and do as I like
What do you think of Turn signals? There was major outrage when the so called nanny state mandated them on all vehicles - and get this - they had to be retrofit.
How about leaded gasoline? I remember howls of anger when the commies in guvment took it out.
Re: (Score:2)
you are a faggot for attempting this. sit down and shut up.
Did you just fart? I smell vaseline.
Re: (Score:2)
"airbags in the pillars, and thick pillars reduce visibility."
As someone who's had an accident because a car was in my large blind spot to the rear I can testify to that. Yes, the accident was my fault, I should have done an over the shoulder full check and I normally do, but we're all human and humans make mistakes. The useless safety warning systems on my car would have been better utilised wanring me about vehicles in this blindspot , not just right next to me or out front where I can friggin see them!
My Jeep has blind spot warnings, and they've been handy. If a person is in your blind spot, say passing you, a light goes on in the rear view mirror. If you put your turn signal on while someone is in that zone, it has a very loud annunciator beep.
I like it. I mean the noise is annoying, but it kind of trains you, because you don't want to hear it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is easily disproved. If more stringent safety regulations made safety worse, then you would expect to see increases in deaths in all developed nations, not just the US, because all developed nations have been increasing the stringency of car safety regulations. But you don't. It's only in the US that you see an increase. And that's because the US is super-sizing its car fleet (and replacing cars with trucks) much faster and more extensively than anywhere else, and that is much more deadly than any othe
Re: (Score:2)
that's because the US is super-sizing its car fleet (and replacing cars with trucks) much faster and more extensively than anywhere else
We should seriously increase the operator licensing requirements to drive larger cars and pick-up tricks.
Also 5x the traffic enforcement and penalties for careless operation of large vehicles. If you're caught in a traffic violation such as running a stop sign on a large vehicle it should be an instant and Permanent ban against the driver ever operating a large vehicle ag
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia has a nice table of vehicle fatality statistics. Deaths per mile decreased steadily from roughly 1966 through 2014. In 2014, there were 1.08 deaths per million miles traveled. Since then, deaths/mile have increased by around 25%.
Is it possible that new safety regulations are becoming counterproductive? Just as an example: FMVSS 214 and 226 started a phased program in 2013 that has led to airbags in the pillars, and thick pillars reduce visibility.
Another thing is that as speed limits have increased, people just push harder. Now that the local interstates are at 70 mph, people want to drive at 80 mph, which means that if you want to run at a good clip, you're gonna do 100 mph. And after driving at high speeds, they normalize quickly.
And despite what people think, many don't have the physical tools like good reflexes and a soft touch needed to drive safely at that speed. Shit happens quickly.
50 people (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to save 50 people, have the police target red light runners. Just yesterday I almost hit a Jeep which thought running a red light after almost three seconds was perfectly fine. I'm at the head of the line. My light turns green. I go. As I'm just about at the intersection the Jeep comes from my right to make a left turn up the road beside me. Braking and plenty of horn was my response.
I can guarantee, ticketing those who blatantly run red lights would go a lot further than this seat belt nonsense which, as always, will cost people money when they buy a car.
Re: (Score:3)
People hate red light cameras.
They seem to work though. When they were new people in my city were getting a lot more red light tickets than they are now.
Re:50 people (Score:5, Insightful)
Red light cameras can actually INCREASE other types of accidents, with drivers slamming on their brakes during a yellow.
I want actual police there, ticketing people. I want them going after assholes that actually/meaningfully run lights, tailgate, don't use turn signals, can't stay in their lanes, have blinding headlights and illegal color lights all over, and drive with deafening bass/music blaring.
Instead, where I am, it seems none of that matters, all they care about is going after people for "speeding" who are often just going with/near the flow while doing nothing else wrong. Why? Probably because it is easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, people are supposed to stop during a yellow and only to continue if unable to stop in time, hence the car behind is supposed already be braking at that time, not trying to run the yellow light as well. Also, people are supposed to keep the bloody distance instead of being tailgating arseholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Red light cameras can actually INCREASE other types of accidents, with drivers slamming on their brakes during a yellow.
That isn't a problem with red light cameras, that's a problem with how people in your area drive. I suspect there are also a lot of rear end crashes with people turning right.
In most places you're taught to anticipate a light changing, even if it's green. If you're gunning it to a light and it suddenly turns yellow you've screwed up, not the light. Also the guy who's not maintaining a safe distance behind you (also likely not looking ahead and anticipating the light change).
You've not highlighted a pr
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see too much brake slamming in the city, but I guess that's subjective.
Honestly, I'd rather have speed cameras here (or vigilant enforcement of limits) than red lights.
Or really sane road design. The road that borders my block is designed like a 45mph highway with a 25mph speed limit. It is definitely NOT safe at 45mph (decent amount of pedestrian crossings, some semi blond pedestrian entry where someone only looking for cars will miss, and lots of mid block entry and exit).
So, people running red li
Re: (Score:2)
Red light cameras can actually INCREASE other types of accidents, with drivers slamming on their brakes during a yellow.
Bingo! I've said that if I was in a redlight cam area, I'm locking them up if I see a yellow light. I don't know the timing of when the light changes to red, so rather than catch a ticket, I'll let the other drivers learn not to tailgate.
Re: (Score:2)
So you admit you are a horrible driver and part of the underlying problem.
Re: (Score:2)
So you admit you are a horrible driver and part of the underlying problem.
I obey the laws, and will not run redlights.
You appear to not understand that at least here in the USA, tailgating is not allowed. And running into someone from behind is always the fault of the tailgater. The fact that as the redlight cam companies shortened the yellow light period in order to hand out more tickets (PROFIT!) is why many places stopped using the cams.
It was causing accidents - and those were the fault of the person driving too closely.
Re: (Score:3)
Red light cameras can actually INCREASE other types of accidents, with drivers slamming on their brakes during a yellow.
That's because in certain places the city hired a private company to collect infractions and they reduced the yellow light time.
Nobody follows this rule anymore but I try and practice it. If the car in front of you does a panic stop and you hit them, you were too close.
Re: (Score:2)
Red light cameras can actually INCREASE other types of accidents, with drivers slamming on their brakes during a yellow.
In addition, since it is often outsourced to a 3rd party that gives the city a cut, it's not a 'ticket' so contesting it is harder; and some have supposedly reduced the yellow light time to get more revenue. The solution is more enforcement as you say, but red light cams were viewed as easy money under the guise of making streets safer.
Re: (Score:2)
Red light cameras can actually INCREASE other types of accidents, with drivers slamming on their brakes during a yellow.
No, they certainly do not. Drivers speeding and/or not maintaining a safe following distance does that.
Instead, where I am, it seems none of that matters, all they care about is going after people for "speeding" who are often just going with/near the flow while doing nothing else wrong. Why? Probably because it is easy.
That's correct, it's easy for the government to win in court when it's a speeding violation. If you want to get someone for e.g. reckless endangerment or vehicular assault then it's much more difficult and therefore potentially expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to save 50 people, have the police target red light runners. Just yesterday I almost hit a Jeep which thought running a red light after almost three seconds was perfectly fine. I'm at the head of the line. My light turns green. I go. As I'm just about at the intersection the Jeep comes from my right to make a left turn up the road beside me. Braking and plenty of horn was my response.
I can guarantee, ticketing those who blatantly run red lights would go a lot further than this seat belt nonsense which, as always, will cost people money when they buy a car.
I strongly suspect that the kind of people who run red lights are also the kinds of people who think they shouldn't wear seatbelts.
Responses here are reminding me of the 1970s (Score:2)
You are here. Many also are in the "whinging about something that's obviously a good idea" stage. They're talking about a thing going beep, I saw one person describing that in (literal) Orwellian terms
Re: (Score:3)
its not about avoiding wearing seatbelts.
its avoiding having stupid alarms go off when you put your bag on the seat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The seat is the wrong place for bags.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the bag is big enough to trip the occupancy switch, then it's big enough to cause harm in an accident, and you should belt it in. This will prevent the chime.
You're complaining about something that wouldn't happen if you did the intelligent thing to protect yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
its not about avoiding wearing seatbelts.
its avoiding having stupid alarms go off when you put your bag on the seat.
Life is sooooo hard isn't it? Protip - just click the seatbelts, leave them clicked, then that stupid alarm won't ruin your day.
These people whining about first world problems.
Re: (Score:2)
How many times have you been in the back seat? By the time I; put my arse on the seat, put my stuff on the floor/empty seat, slowly extend the seat-belt strap, feel for the receiver in the dark, feel around a third time because it's underneath me, align the tongue with the receiver, turn-over the tongue because it's upside-down, push it in, that's 20-50 seconds. The driver has to wait until I do all that before merging with traffic.
I not objecting to safety-conscious drivers, but don't belittle the very
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, I remember the Clunk click every trip [wikipedia.org] campaign of the 1970s, although I must remember it from reruns because my certain memories would be from about 1975 onwards. At the time, there was also a lot of whinging about overreach, how it wasn't necessary because they were such good drivers, etc. etc..
A couple of my favorites are the ladies who complained it would wrinkle their dresses, and the big one - everyone knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who was killed because they wore a seat belt.
You are here. Many also are in the "whinging about something that's obviously a good idea" stage. They're talking about a thing going beep, I saw one person describing that in (literal) Orwellian terms as a boot crushing the face of humanity. People - get a grip. It's a good idea - not only from the people in the back's point of view, but also from the driver and passenger in the front's point of view so they're not hit by flying bodies in an accident. They're talking about four seconds of beeping.
True - people are going into hysterics over stupid stuff. My vehicle has all manner of goodies on it, from the mandated backup cam, to lane assist to blind spot sensors, to anti tailgating radar to pedestrian sensors.
The only one I ever turn off is if I am in snowy weather, I'll turn off lane assist,
People will find a way (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't engineer out stupid or irresponsible. You only end up pissing people off. As someone who drives a nearly 40 year old SUV, whenever I travel somewhere and have to rent a car, all of the "safety" features frustrate me. How the hell do I get this damn thing into reverse?!? Oh, I have to step on the brake, pat my head, and rub my stomach in order to release the parking brake? Jesus, I just want to DRIVE THE DAMN CAR!! I've been traveling with my dog and I have to plug in the passenger seat belt to keep the damn warning lights and dings from going off every time the dog moves into the front seat. If I have to do this in the back seats, that's going to piss me off even further. What's going to happen is someone is going to start selling seat belt plugs on Amazon. That is until the nanny state mandates something like they have to be unplugged and then plugged in order to start the car. That's also going to ruin a Hollywood horror movie trope.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of *course* you can engineer out stupid and irresponsible. That's *literally one of the main goals* of safety engineering. Don't try to segue to a point about not being able to *completely* engineer out these things. Obviously, everything human is fallible. But can we reduce the number of car deaths caused by stupidity and irresponsibility? We've been doing exactly that for decades. Till 2014 in the US, when that positive trend was outweighed (literally) by the US love affair with giant cars and trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't engineer out stupid or irresponsible. You only end up pissing people off. As someone who drives a nearly 40 year old SUV, whenever I travel somewhere and have to rent a car, all of the "safety" features frustrate me. How the hell do I get this damn thing into reverse?!? Oh, I have to step on the brake, pat my head, and rub my stomach in order to release the parking brake? Jesus, I just want to DRIVE THE DAMN CAR!! I've been traveling with my dog and I have to plug in the passenger seat belt to keep the damn warning lights and dings from going off every time the dog moves into the front seat. If I have to do this in the back seats, that's going to piss me off even further. What's going to happen is someone is going to start selling seat belt plugs on Amazon. That is until the nanny state mandates something like they have to be unplugged and then plugged in order to start the car. That's also going to ruin a Hollywood horror movie trope.
Amazing how anyone drives at all with the way you make it sound... I must be a driving god to you because I choose to drive a manual transmission which means I need to operate an accelerator, clutch pedal, gear stick and steering wheel at the same time with a good degree of precision. I humbly accept your prostration at my superhuman motoring abilities.
Oh dear, you have to have your foot on the brake to put the car in drive... it's not like this is because people have been whacking it into drive without
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.amazon.com/Buckle-... [amazon.com]
fairs fair. (Score:2)
Sorry NHTSA, but if they're not smart enough to put on a seat belt, I don't want them to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
That will work for the driver, but for passengers, the result is serious brain damage or broken bones. If it's brain damage or a broken neck, the government is liable for a lifetime of home/hospital care. If it's a damaged vertebra, that's a life-time of addictive pain medication.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think sits in the back most often? Children. And yes, children may be too stupid to put on a seat belt, which is fine and normal because they're... children. This reminds the adults in the car with the children to make sure the kids' seatbelts are fastened.
God no (Score:2)
Just no. I'm OK with seatbelt laws. I'm OK with a reminder chime for the first minute the vehicle is in gear or whatever.
I already have a car that periodically dings if I so much as put my lunch bag on the front passenger seat and I want to rip the fucking speakers out and shove them up the manufacturer's ass.
Hopefully they can be disabled (Score:2)
Any new car bought in the past 10 years has rear seatbelt warnings, but they all allow you to disable them. This is because the systems don't account for all the random stuff that gets thrown into the back seat of a vehicle, and also don't deal with child seats, nor do they deal with drop-offs.
Hopefully whatever this regulation is allows the driver to dismiss the alert and/or allows the system to be completely turned off. We had it turned off for the 9 years my child was in a car seat / booster seat because
Tickets (Score:2)
A cop on a /motorcycle/ will pull you over and demand money from you for not being safe.
Many stupid people are easily fooled into not seeing this by all the added steps of abstraction that are interposed to control them.
Remember (Score:2)
Here's an argument in favor (Score:2)
Unbelted
Re: (Score:2)
No new car for me (Score:2)
I say remove all audible seat belt warnings and let evolution sort it out. The same is true for huge labels on hair dryers warning of the danger of using them in the shower and similar warnings that only server to keep s
Re: (Score:2)
Kids are the reason that audible seatbelt warnings are a good idea. Kids are notorious for removing seatbelts for various reasons including wanting to nap across the whole back seat. An audible warning alerts the driver so they can take care of the situation. Of cou
Seat belt warnings? How about (Score:3)
Need to put luggage in the rear seat? (Score:2)
I don't know about this guy, but my car has a *trunk*. Luggage in the rear seat strike me as a safety hazard anyway; in a collision they could become projectiles.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a truck you can't really use the bed for large amounts of loose items as they'll blow around or out. The bed is mostly for larger items. As such they need to go into the back seat.
And the "projectiles" bit is just spreading fear anyways. Not only are crashes not the norm, but a box of spaghetti smacking you against the head is the least of your worries in a car accident.
Re: (Score:3)
Which leads us into how many of the people driving trucks would actually be better off with a car, but that's a different rant.
The anti-truck crowd usually is pretty unaware of how often people use their trucks for truck things. Most people driving those trucks have a legitimate reason. If they have a boat they probably need a tow-vehicle on the weekend. Or they hunt and tossing a bloody deer into the trunk of a car isn't exactly a great idea. Or they need to haul trash to the dump.
Realistically even if you only need a truck 20-30 times a year, you're still going to usually drive that rather than buy 2 vehicles. Different peop
Dumb (Score:5, Interesting)
The most common way these things detect a passenger in a seat is weight - which is also caused by items or cargo in the car. I don't want to face endless chimes or buckle in a few 12 packs of sodas.
Its bad enough that my truck already thinks anything I put in the back seat is a child so I get the "check the rear seat for children" alarm. Which can be disabled, but ironically, the pop up on my screen that says not to focus on the screen while driving as it can cause accidents can not. And what usually pulls my attention to the screen? The damned pop-up that says not to be looking at it.
You vill obey ze safety nazi! (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't wait until someone does a study on how many people die because they got into an accident either because they were distracted by the seat belt chime, or was trying to put the seat belt on while driving to stop the chime.
I'll bet it kills more than 50 people a year.
My Talking Seatbelt (Score:2)
My seatbelt already talks to me: Every time I put it on it says I'm fatter than I was last time.
Data point (Score:3)
I am currently assembling a CNC mill that I 100% expect to pay for by making seat belt silencers.
Why would someone want that? Why bypass a safety feature? Because I, and a whole lot of other people, keep our bags on the passenger seat I we don't forget them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more the risk of injury to those in the front seats from flying rear seat passengers. My 2017 Ford has seatbelt chimes and it is really not an issue.
Re: (Score:3)
I had to disable mine in my 2016 BMW. Grocery bags and sometimes suitcases would trigger the passenger seatbelt warning.
I use the back seat for cargo a lot more frequently than the passenger one, I really hope implementations of this are either easy to disable or implemented as well as Ford seems to have done.
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy clips that fit into seatbelt locks, good for idiots that want their faces jammed into the console among other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)