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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!kitten
From: kitten@hao.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.consumers,net.auto
Subject: Re: But at what cost... [airbags vs. seat belts]
Message-ID: <1790@hao.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 5-Oct-85 18:44:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: hao.1790
Posted: Sat Oct  5 18:44:53 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Oct-85 05:55:30 EDT
References: <388@decwrl.UUCP> <354@mecc.UUCP> <1770@hao.UUCP> <195@mmm.UUCP>
Sender: kitten@hao.UUCP
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 60
Xref: watmath net.consumers:3114 net.auto:8423

> >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