I agree. But big bro’s got to look after us.
I still find it hard to believe they can’t make the headrests comfortable, possibly even more adjustable, while still meeting current safety standards. Hell, it’s a cushion on two metal posts, basically. Not an overly complex piece of automotive engineering.
Unfortunately, ours is a litigious society. If they did emphasize comfort over safety, then the first guy who got whiplash because of the compromise would sue the guy who hit him, the dealership that sold him the car, and the car manufacturer for having released a “known dangerous product.”
There was a (really dumb) restaurant that opened in New York City called Dans le Noir in which the entire dining room is pitch black. You walked to your table in the dark, ate in the dark, and left in the dark.
It’s a world-wide chain. In the rest of the world you just go in and eat. In the NYC location (before it closed because the whole idea sucks 
) they had a multi-page liability waiver for you to read and sign before they’d let you in the dark part.
An awful lot of “absurd levels of safety vs. normal levels of other stuff” is going to come down on the safety side because if it doesn’t, the vendor is going to lose millions.
I don’t know why it popped in my head, but does anyone remember the Subaru Brat with the rear facing seats in the bed? Sure, Subara warned not to use those seats with the vehicle in motion, but how do you think that would go over these days?
IIRC, Subaru bribed somebody in a Federal department (Commerce??) to approve the importation of those vehicles. They should never have been imported in the '70s & '80s, and would surely not be allowed to be imported as a highway vehicle nowadays.
The story I was told that at the time of the Subaru Brat there was a 25% tariff on trucks from Japan. By putting those seats in the bed they could classify it as a passenger vehicle and avoid the tariff.
… and I read that palms were greased in order to obtain that ruling.
I heard the same. “It’s not a truck. You can sit back there!” Haha. I just wonder how those seats would go over as far as lawsuits these days. I mean, you can’t really build something that moves and put seats in it that you can’t use while in motion. I wouldn’t think…
Rather than remove the head restraints, put something behind your back, like a thin cushion, sweater, Gokhale cushion, towel, etc. Place it so your back straightens and allows the head restraint to be close, but not pushing, against your head. You’ll have to play around with the the setup to see what works for you. I have a Subaru Forester and all I need to be straight is a very small towel to bring me a little further from the seat and head restraint so my back isn’t in a C curve. You may want to check out the Gokhale cushion. Someone has supplied the link already. Esther Gokhale, who teaches posture classes, is tall like you.
The person who started this thread is 5 foot nothing . I suspect a stealth spam here.
With nearly identical issues, Our neck, back and shoulders do not like the current headrest on these wranglers. As a side note to this, in 2008, the national safety board passed a new restriction as to how automakers design these headrest. In other words, the headrest is now pushed more forward as a means of protecting the driver & passenger upon impact. Our 2017 headrest is the only thing we don’t like about the jeep. In essence all we did was to press the side buttons, located between the headrest & seat, slide the headrest up and out then rotate facing backwards. At some point we’re hoping to correct the angle of the tempered rods in a straighter angle then it’s current position. We’ve seen videos of this being done, but would not be able to attempt this ourselves.
Perhaps, but TwinTurbo linked to the same thing myorders is talking about further up the thread. I’m letting it go but will watch. Plus myorders registered a few weeks ago.
No that’s not what I was saying. There are regulations they must follow. The regs say the head restraint must be X mm from the back of the head when being used. They allow two implementations, passive and active restraints. By their nature, passive restraints do not move so they must be positioned close to your head to begin with. Now take into account various body shapes/posture whatever. They design to the MEAN value. So someone with incredibly good posture falls outside the mean and it touches their head or forces it forward. Making it adjustable places liability on the manufacturer, so they don’t do it. For higher end applications, they have active restraints that can move into position when an accident is detected, much like an airbag. But they are costly to build and some are costly to replace after use.
Now consider that Chrysler already has active restraint technology but chose not to provide it in the Wrangler. Why? I could be wrong but they may supply it in the other Jeep variants but not Wrangler, again why? Could be cost. It might also be because the Wrangler is intended as more of an off-roading vehicle and that application could present issues for active restraints (like maybe they could get triggered in use) and so are not a good choice there. Unfortunately, people choose vehicles for looks and not for their primary function by design. So you’re stuck with the adverse consequences…
Do you know what year these regulations came into effect? It may have been stated and I missed it. I thought someone posted 2008, but I owned a 2013 f150 with adjustable headrests, so I don’t know. Only issue with those, they forced my head forward on the farthest rearward position. So the adjustability was useless unless I wanted to drive staring at my crotch.
I can’t wrap my mind around some manufacturers engineers not being able to meet the spec and provide comfort. More padding in the seat back maybe? Something. I guess it is what it is. It is disappointing that I can ride in a base model 2005 Sierra (that I now own) and think, “Wow, I really like these seats better than I did those neck crampers in that 2013 Ford.” But I got rid of the truck, so no big deal. I just hope when I do eventually have to buy a newer truck I don’t immediately notice some new government mandated atrocity that I can’t live with.
The year of implementation doesn’t really matter. The regs likely don’t specifically preclude adjustability. The risk mitigation is in the Owner’s Manual warnings to properly adjust your headrest before use. All set right? Nope. So someone gets into an accident and suffers a serious neck injury. The lawyers immediately focus on the design and see that it requires diligence on the part of the user to properly adjust headrests. Now they argue that the user is no expert and can’t be relied upon to make that decision. The car manf is the expert and so they are liable. The jury usually sides with the supposedly ignorant end-user and so it starts. The next one is easier as the same or different lawyers find the precedent and pretty soon it becomes untenable for the manufacturer to supply an adjustable headrest…the only good news is that, over time, they recoup the costs for the more advanced technology and volume leverage reduces costs further and it starts filtering down to the lower trim cars, unless it is not a technically viable option for some reason.