Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mecc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!dicomed!mecc!sewilco
From: sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
Newsgroups: net.consumers
Subject: Re: But at what cost...
Message-ID: <354@mecc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 11:50:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: mecc.354
Posted: Thu Sep 12 11:50:28 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 04:43:52 EDT
References: <388@decwrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: sewilco@.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
Organization: MN Ed Comp Corp, St. Paul, MN
Lines: 45
Keywords: seatbelt cheaper airbag
Summary: Belt-only cars cheaper but undesirable for nonbelters?

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 (or else people will buy the
cheaper car, disable fog horn, and cut the belts).  Maybe connect the
sensors to the electronic car radio?  A few circuits in the radio can be
the controller..and bothersome noises can be emitted through the radio
speakers.  People like radio in the car, so they'd tend to not disconnect
the speakers.  What about people who want their own audio system instead
of standard radio?

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.

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.  Let's consider that now we're talking
about changing the design of the car anyway.  Can a belt be designed
to indicate if it was fastened during a collision?  How about a
"click counter" (counts number of times belt was fastened) for proof of
constant use of belt (report on insurance renewal the odometer and click
counter reading)?  Old question: If someone is injured and they weren't
using their belt is it fair to penalize [not reward?] them, and will
anyone [jury, insurance co] want to penalize "this suffering cripple"?

Scot E. Wilcoxon	Minn. Ed. Comp. Corp.      circadia!mecc!sewilco
45 03 N / 93 15 W	(612)481-3507 {ihnp4,uwvax}!dicomed!mecc!sewilco


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com