6 ms·

It's because the legislation originates from a time when most cars didn't have them as a legal requirement, so the assumption is that someone won't have one or

It's because the legislation originates from a time when most cars didn't have them as a legal requirement, so the assumption is that someone won't have one or be wearing it, if the car has it. That bit has never been updated. It's exactly as insane as it sounds.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
alkonaut 11y ago
I'm not sure but I think airbags do detonate on most cars, regardless of the seat belt status. It would be too complicated or unreliable to couple the two systems. However: an airbag isn't very effective (and could even be dangerous) without the seat belt, so manufacturers in Europe aren't really required to worry about the safety without seat belts. Effectively the safety regulations say: those with no seat belts are idiots breaking the law and it's not your job to worry about the safety those people. Which is completely sensible. I think optional seat belt laws as found in some parts of the US can make some sense there (owing a lot to the fact that there is no single payer healthcare...) BUT the reasonable thing to do would be to not force car manufacturers to make cars less safe for those who do wear seat belts.
- petewailes 11y ago
  With regards to your first point, they do detonate. It's a question of how. The main difference is the force with which they go off. In Europe, it's assumed you're wearing a seatbelt, so the force is less, which results in a lower likelihood of injury, compared to a US airbag. Personally, I prefer the European model - wear a seatbelt and you'll be fine, don't and it's on you.
  - ska 11y ago
    Personally, I prefer the European model - wear a seatbelt and you'll be fine, don't and it's on you. The other way around is kind of insane - you increase the risk for everybody who is using their safety equipment properly, for the benefit of those who can't be bothered.
- amatix 11y ago
  > I think optional seat belt laws as found in some parts of the US can make some sense there (owing a lot to the fact that there is no single payer healthcare...) Wat? So because the taxpayer isn't directly picking up the healthcare bill, it's somehow okay to double serious crash-related injuries and deaths[1]? [1] "Seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about half." http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/facts.html http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/facts.html
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    It's an age-old debate of "is it ok to (risk) hurting yourself?". Obviously car crashes and other injuries/deaths come at high cost to society even in the case of privatized health insurances, but the cost is at least indirect rather than direct. It's probably even true that the majority of the cost is indirect, and not related to healthcare. That said, not having a seat belt/helmet law is... well, stupid.
    - the-dude 11y ago
      In the case of seatbelts I think there is more than only thyself. You might be able to control the vehicle better post-crash, preventing injury to bystanders or passengers.
      - RyanMcGreal 11y ago
        Also, if you are belted in you are not a projectile ricocheting around the inside of the car and hitting other passengers.
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        There are always tradeoffs. In this case, risk compensation might lead a seat-belted driver to drive in more reckless fashion.
    - praptak 11y ago
      It's pretty direct unless you have a private ambulance. Otherwise it's tying up a valuable shared resource that could be used to save others whose life is in danger for reasons other than own stupidity.
mcv 11y ago
It's kind of amazing that air bags were apparently standard in the US before seat belts were. Seat belts are far older technology as far as I know.
- colomon 11y ago
  I'm not sure exactly what the grandparent was trying to say, but seat belts became mandatory new car features in the US back in the 1960s. Airbags became mandatory new car features in the early 1990s. On the other hand, I believe seat belt usage was still under 50% in the early 1990s [1], when the airbag legislation was being written. (I was born in 1970, and the first time I remember wearing a seatbelt was the summer of ... '85? Getting a ride from a high school friend to football practice every day quickly made me a convert. :) ) [1] http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2015/07/30/michigan-seatbelt-law-anniversary-air-bags-takata/30242557/ http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2015/07/30/michigan-se...
  - mcv 11y ago
    When I was a kid, in the 1970s, our car didn't yet have seat belts in the back, but in the front, they were required. I think when they became required in the back, it also became required to use if you had them, which obviously older cars didn't. But having seat belts for decades and then not expecting people to use them, that's kinda silly.
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
      I think "not expecting people to use them" is in accordance with actual facts, a substantial portion of drivers would flat-out refuse to wear seatbelts. (I feel as if this has changed in recent years, as those people age out, mellow, see reason, or die in car wrecks).
  - fluidcruft 11y ago
    What I understood was that US regulations for airbags are intended for cars that have airbags only and no seat belts at all. And that those same requirements continue to be applied the airbags + seat belts vehicles we actually encounter. (cynically, this seems entirely exactly like something Detroit would push for in order to disadvantage imports--so, although this sounds ridiculous, it rings as entirely admissible to me as "no duh" after reading that comment)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

alkonaut 11y ago

I'm not sure but I think airbags do detonate on most cars, regardless of the seat belt status. It would be too complicated or unreliable to couple the two systems. However: an airbag isn't very effective (and could even be dangerous) without the seat belt, so manufacturers in Europe aren't really required to worry about the safety without seat belts. Effectively the safety regulations say: those with no seat belts are idiots breaking the law and it's not your job to worry about the safety those people. Which is completely sensible. I think optional seat belt laws as found in some parts of the US can make some sense there (owing a lot to the fact that there is no single payer healthcare...) BUT the reasonable thing to do would be to not force car manufacturers to make cars less safe for those who do wear seat belts.

petewailes 11y ago
With regards to your first point, they do detonate. It's a question of how. The main difference is the force with which they go off. In Europe, it's assumed you're wearing a seatbelt, so the force is less, which results in a lower likelihood of injury, compared to a US airbag. Personally, I prefer the European model - wear a seatbelt and you'll be fine, don't and it's on you.
- ska 11y ago
  Personally, I prefer the European model - wear a seatbelt and you'll be fine, don't and it's on you. The other way around is kind of insane - you increase the risk for everybody who is using their safety equipment properly, for the benefit of those who can't be bothered.
amatix 11y ago
> I think optional seat belt laws as found in some parts of the US can make some sense there (owing a lot to the fact that there is no single payer healthcare...) Wat? So because the taxpayer isn't directly picking up the healthcare bill, it's somehow okay to double serious crash-related injuries and deaths[1]? [1] "Seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about half." http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/facts.html http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/facts.html
- alkonaut 11y ago
  It's an age-old debate of "is it ok to (risk) hurting yourself?". Obviously car crashes and other injuries/deaths come at high cost to society even in the case of privatized health insurances, but the cost is at least indirect rather than direct. It's probably even true that the majority of the cost is indirect, and not related to healthcare. That said, not having a seat belt/helmet law is... well, stupid.
  - the-dude 11y ago
    In the case of seatbelts I think there is more than only thyself. You might be able to control the vehicle better post-crash, preventing injury to bystanders or passengers.
    - RyanMcGreal 11y ago
      Also, if you are belted in you are not a projectile ricocheting around the inside of the car and hitting other passengers.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      There are always tradeoffs. In this case, risk compensation might lead a seat-belted driver to drive in more reckless fashion.
  - praptak 11y ago
    It's pretty direct unless you have a private ambulance. Otherwise it's tying up a valuable shared resource that could be used to save others whose life is in danger for reasons other than own stupidity.

mcv 11y ago

It's kind of amazing that air bags were apparently standard in the US before seat belts were. Seat belts are far older technology as far as I know.

colomon 11y ago
I'm not sure exactly what the grandparent was trying to say, but seat belts became mandatory new car features in the US back in the 1960s. Airbags became mandatory new car features in the early 1990s. On the other hand, I believe seat belt usage was still under 50% in the early 1990s [1], when the airbag legislation was being written. (I was born in 1970, and the first time I remember wearing a seatbelt was the summer of ... '85? Getting a ride from a high school friend to football practice every day quickly made me a convert. :) ) [1] http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2015/07/30/michigan-seatbelt-law-anniversary-air-bags-takata/30242557/ http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2015/07/30/michigan-se...
- mcv 11y ago
  When I was a kid, in the 1970s, our car didn't yet have seat belts in the back, but in the front, they were required. I think when they became required in the back, it also became required to use if you had them, which obviously older cars didn't. But having seat belts for decades and then not expecting people to use them, that's kinda silly.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    I think "not expecting people to use them" is in accordance with actual facts, a substantial portion of drivers would flat-out refuse to wear seatbelts. (I feel as if this has changed in recent years, as those people age out, mellow, see reason, or die in car wrecks).
- fluidcruft 11y ago
  What I understood was that US regulations for airbags are intended for cars that have airbags only and no seat belts at all. And that those same requirements continue to be applied the airbags + seat belts vehicles we actually encounter. (cynically, this seems entirely exactly like something Detroit would push for in order to disadvantage imports--so, although this sounds ridiculous, it rings as entirely admissible to me as "no duh" after reading that comment)