Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!kitten
From: kitten@hao.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.consumers,net.auto
Subject: Re: But at what cost...
Message-ID: <1770@hao.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Sep-85 13:21:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: hao.1770
Posted: Sun Sep 22 13:21:14 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 09:33:16 EDT
References: <388@decwrl.UUCP> <354@mecc.UUCP>
Sender: kitten@hao.UUCP
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 55
Xref: linus net.consumers:2521 net.auto:7228

> 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
> somehow must be undesirable for someone who doesn't use belts.  But making
> the car undesirable has to be cheaper than adding air bags to it.
> 
> 1) A very bothersome replacement (fog horn for 5 minutes?) for the present
> "seatbelt not fastened" buzzer/chime, and a smarter controller for it.
> The combination should be more expensive to disable than the difference
> between this option and airbag option...
 
They did this in '74, and too many people complained.  It was a starter
interlock.  On my sister's car, I remember what a hassle it was when
the damn thing didn't work.  What if someone was following her to her
car?  I know *I'd* want to get away fast.  This is not the answer.

> 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.

> 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.  Passive belts
should be connected in a way that disconneting could not be put back.
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.

I think Scot has some good ideas...

{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
       		        !hao!kitten

CSNET: kitten@NCAR  ARPA: kitten%ncar@CSNET-RELAY


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com