Edge case. So tell me how many times out of 1000 does that happen. Probably less then 1 in 10,000,000
A cost increase of $2 per seat belt to make it spool out properly and not break isn’t worth it to you? I think the car maker should actually be sued in this situation. But go on defend the auto industry and say that a seat belt that breaks off in a severe accident is fine.
How many times does that happen? Facts, not fears, please!
1 Like
C’mon, you think he really has any facts?? (Sarcasm intended) All he ever goes on is blown out of proportion, taken out of context, 1 in a million, events, kinda like the evening news shows or maybe even investigative reporting. ( more sarcasm…sort of).
6 Likes
I sure do. I also know there are cars without airbags still on the road. There are even cars from the 70’s with little to no crumple zones still on the road. And even though the information about crumple zones has been out there for decades, people (some of them even come right here to post about it) still insist that those old big cars that didn’t bend in collisions were safer.
You’re talking about an edge case involving systems that have already been changed. It’s simply not much of a blip on anyone’s radar, and continuously railing about it is nothing more than tilting at windmills.
This is where the dishonesty comes in, because you already acknowledged that the technology has been changed. You seem, therefore, to be suggesting that manufacturers should issue recalls on older vehicles to change their technology. By that logic we should recall cars without airbags or crumple zones and fix that too. Hey! If you have an '82 Caprice Classic just pop down to the Chevy dealership for a brand new Malibu!
Old tech is old tech. Manufacturers have no obligation, nor would it make one whit of sense, to update every old car to beyond the standards in place when they were built.
4 Likes
They committed fraud by making a major change to how seat belts work, which allowed the vehicles to perform well on a specific crash test, and failed to disclose any of this to customers. There is not a single mention in any owner’s manual about how a 120 pound person and a 240 pound person will receive vastly different levels of protection and injuries in a moderate speed front end crash. Neither is there any mention that the protection provided by a seat belt only in case of a non functioning airbag is vastly inferior to what the previous generation of vehicles provided.
VW got in trouble for reducing diesel emissions during the EPA test, but reverts back to more emissions outside of the test. Isn’t designing a vehicle to do well in a specific crash test also cheating?
Any manufacturer that fitted seat belt load limiters to their vehicles which don’t have a limit on how much it can spool out have put customer safety at a very low level. A cost increase of only a couple dollars could change this.
You know those words that say “Objects in mirror are closer than they appear”? That’s there to protect vehicle makers from litigation. There should be another warning about how modern seat belts are designed to work with the airbag system, and offer significantly inferior protection in case of a non functioning airbag.
I don’t know a single person who has ever heard of this major change in how seat belts work.
All seat belts offer interior protection in the absence of an airbag. That’s why airbags are required now. Why would we need a warning that if a safety system (the air bag) fails the result will be diminished safety? Should we also insist on a warning that water is wet?
As to designing to the test, if we don’t want manufacturers doing that then we should write the tests better. Of course they’re going to design to the test, because even if they design something that’s overall safer, if that design fails the test they still fail.
And again, we’re talking about edge cases here, not something that rises anywhere close to the level of a recall unless you also think 1950s cars should be recalled for non-collapsible steering columns.
2 Likes
How about a warning label:
“The Wonderful 90s has determined that driving may be hazardous to your health”.
4 Likes
But that’s only in the State of California, right?
I did the calculation! If a 170 pound person (or crash dummy) can survive up to 45 MPH before being seriously or fatally injured by botting out the restraint system, then a 120 pound woman can survive up to 53.6 MPH!
Part of the reason why there are more fatal crashes for men has been solved!
It’s also important to understand that there is a difference between being tall or big boned and fat. Being fat doesn’t make your body stronger and doesn’t increase your chances of survival. A 120 pound person who is so fat that they weight 200 may not benefit from a stronger load limiter.
45×√(170÷120) = 53.6 MPH
Regarding the load limiter issue, I want to say that I’m not so much opposed to the concept of a load limiter for improving safety. I’m opposed to load limiters which don’t have any limit on the amount of belt they can spool out. The sheering metal track type load limiter that lets the whole seat belt spool slide up a certain amount is okay. They top out at probably around 20cm of seat belt being spooled out. It would help if the load limit were adjusted to the weight of the driver, but having a limit on the belt release eliminates a lot of the problems; for instance fatal crashes resulting from dual impacts where a limiter with no spool out limit would release the seat belt by the same amount twice. It already spooled out enough from the first impact for the driver to touch the steering wheel, so the seat belt is basically ineffective during the second impact.
I guess the fact that men tend to be more aggressive drivers, and that men drive about 60% more miles than women on average has nothing to do with it…
According to some, men should have lower fatalities because men are better drivers! Men’s bodies have more blood, stronger necks, and generally hold up better to injuries! It also helps to be taller in side impact crashes.
Please explain how a 120lb. person can weigh anything other than 120lbs. And don’t try to rationalize about g-forces, if they were on another planet or even in space. Because that statement is such BS even a 5 yr. old could disprove it. Or can people weigh 2 different amounts in your little world of artificial facts and mis-information?
1 Like
You’re not familiar with body mass index? If a 120 pound person jumped off a roof and landed in the grass, and then that same person gained 80 pounds and came back and jumped off the same roof again, in which case do you think the person would be more likely to be injured?
A small 120 pound person has a skeleton that can only handle so much before bones break and ribs crack. If that person gains 80 pounds, that’s a huge increase of mass that the person’s skeleton has to hold. The fat does nothing to make the person’s body stronger. Over weight people (high BMI) have a higher rate of fatalities in car accidents. I think I may have even linked to the study that shows this at one point. Low BMI also had higher fatalities if I remember correctly, but I can’t figure that one out.
Similar to what Dale Earnhardt used.
Just install for driver and passengers. That might ease your fear.
Why did you use Dale Earnhardt as an example? His harness broke and he died. I guess it’s a good example of how easily he could have been saved right?
Here is a car maker that did a better job with the load limiters. Suzuki with the S Presso. Notice how the driver’s load limiter has a release limit to prevent the driver’s neck and chest from hitting the steering wheel, but the passenger’s has a longer release limit. There’s a youtube link part way down that page. They seem to be not wanting to share the crash test dummy data.
I guess Toyota and Kia couldn’t be bothered to make a load limiter with a seat belt release limit even when European vehicles like Renault were doing it.
You are sooo full of crap. if they are so fat that they weigh 200 than they weigh 200. They are not a 120lb. fat person. Or are you try to say a person who’s body should only support be able to 120 is actually 200 
either way your still full of it. Skew your data all you want.
Now that’s surprising, you have an answer for everything else.
P.S. I know this will probably be flagged, but I’m only saying what almost everyone else is thinking.
5 Likes
You know the SNOWMAN’s motto never let facts get in the way of his nonsense. 
If it gets flagged it will not be by me.
2 Likes
Yeah a 120 pound BMI person who gained 80 pounds.
You are laughably flaunting your ignorance again. What is a 120 lb. BMI person Body mass has to do with weight and height, not just weight, ie. a person who is 120 lbs and only 4’6" tall has a BMI of 28.9 (high end of overweight) and a 6’6" 120 lb person has a BMI of 13.9 (undeweight). WTH is 120 BMI person supposed to mean
1 Like