• Matt D Posted: 5/4/2011 4:42am PDT

    We just need to quite trying to protect those people not smart enough to wear their seatbelts. Why should the rest of us have to pay extra and possible get a product that may cause damage to us that do wear them just to protect the unbelted.
    And the alternative, shatter-proof side windows, how are people trapped in cars supposed to get out if they or responders can't break out side windows that are shatter proof

  • Just sayin Posted: 5/4/2011 10:13am PDT

    I AGREE with Matt D. WHY should we have to pay for the stupidity of others. They don't want to buckle up, then they take their chances if they have an accident. We have enough mandates in this country now. We DON'T need anymore! Enough is enough! Let DETROIT tell Washington- NO!!!~!~!!

  • Rolf G Posted: 5/4/2011 10:31am PDT

    well said Matt D.

  • john_v avatar John Posted: 5/4/2011 12:51pm PDT

    There have been cases in the past where personal-injury awards were reduced to plaintiffs who were not wearing their seat belts, on the grounds that they contributed to their own injuries. This seems to me an eminently sensible approach, since otherwise all of us belt wearers (the vast, vast majority of people, now) are paying for the stupidity of the minority. On the other hand, I'd like to see data on the actual incremental cost ... which may not be terribly high, since it's not an additional airbag but a redesign of an existing one.

  • fb_1510606196 avatar Carl Posted: 5/4/2011 12:53pm PDT

    Agreed that roll-overs are rare. However any impact from the side, whether directly or focused on the front or rear axle, will force the near-side passenger's head into the side glass, and possibly through the opening when the glass shatters. That is hard on your ear, neck and brain. Take it from a crash scene investigator (CxSI)

  • fb_1510606196 avatar Carl Posted: 5/4/2011 1:01pm PDT

    Good points, John. Automakers need to continue to improve their designs. The side impact backs are early in the refinement cycle. Shatter resistant glass is also a good deal now available on many vehicles domestic and imported.

  • Jeff Posted: 5/5/2011 2:57am PDT

    That works out to spending around $597,000 to prevent each inicdent (death or injury) assuming the new design is 100% successful at preventing these. Since no matter how good the design, it is unlikely to reduce the incidents by even 50% (older cars will not have them and will still be on the road for years) that means we could hand every person injurid in a rollover accident each year $1,000,000 and save money.
    Isn't this way past the point of diminishing returns?

  • fb_1510606196 avatar Carl Posted: 5/5/2011 11:36am PDT

    Hmmm--- #6. I meant to say side impact BAGS are early in the design evolutions cycle.
    Sorry