OK, first off, full disclosure; I grew up in Detroit, and thus was always torn between sympathy for the needs of the native auto industry and derision for their innate stupidity (ie: insisting on building 100,000 mile life, 15 MPG land yachts when the rest of the world was moving toward 250,000 mile life, 30 mpg practical vehicles). Further, I've always tended toward being a Liberal Democrat. There, I've said it. I'll probably be set up for early liquidation (disclaimer; I've become more mainstream with age, OR, possibly, until recently, the culture has moved toward me. One of the two). Still, this latest blurb out of the Detroit News just pi$$e$ me off. "ejection mitigation" The NHTSA rule, to be phased in starting in 2013, will require automakers to keep unbelted adults from moving more than 4 inches past the side window opening in a crash. The government says it could save 373 lives annually and cost automakers $500 million annually. You know what? we're better off WITHOUT the .00000123% of the population who are both stupid enough to be driving around unbelted and unlucky enough to be ejected. With any luck, we get 'em before they make any stupid babies.
How would they do that anyway? Would it just be something like side airbags to block the windows or would it be something else.
How about cyclone fencing inside the window openings, ala NASCAR? Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a Democrat, never mind a Dam Librull . . .
I am for most of the safety features but this one is a waste. Buckling up is the solution. Already we have airbags that are not optimal for belted occupants, putting smaller sized people at risk. This law will make auto makers further design airbags calibrated more for the unbelted occupants then for the belted ones. MSV anyone? [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Barchetta]Red Barchetta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
If this is simply a backdoor way to mandate side airbags, then okay. They should be installed in every single vehicle that comes off the line. I was in a rollover, and the combination of seat belt tensioners and side curtain airbags allowed me to escape serious injury. Note, I imagine a large fraction of those 373 lives are unbelted drunk drivers.
The idea that liberal democrats are necessarily the ones who make these rules is false as is the idea that their babies would be stupid. If you want to see what a nanny state is really like you should visit GB where liberals, labor and conservatives alike patronize the hell out of everyone living.
I often wonder, at which point do we make people take the responsibility for their actions - or in this case, inaction. I am always for making vehicles safer for those occupants that abide and use the existing safety features (seatbelts). But for someone to consciously and knowingly not buckle up and now we have to do more to protect them? I think I agree with GK on this one. Darwinism baby, darwinism!!
"ejection mitigation" The NHTSA rule, to be phased in starting in 2013, will require automakers to keep unbelted adults from moving more than 4 inches past the side window opening in a crash. The government says it could save 373 lives annually and cost automakers $500 million annually. On the face of it, I wouldn't be too dismissive of this new safety standard. Suggest you go to www.nhtsa.gov and key in "ejection mitigation" in their search engine. This safety standard (# 226) is designed to reduce the partial and complete ejection of occupants through side windows in rollover crashes. In simple terms, nhtsa believes this new standard will be met by improving side air curtains. The side impact curtains will be larger, stronger, and built to deploy in a greater variety of crashes. Frankly, that sounds good to me. Rollover crashes of vans, and SUV's bang people about, even when belted. This may, in fact, reduce their injuries. For those teenagers on a long trip, who just get tired of being belted in and unhook them, this may prove to be a lifesaver. Others will have different opinions, to be sure, but I like all the protection I can get. David
