To the 20% of You Who Don't Wear Safety Belts

If people don't want to wear their safety belts, shouldn't we let them? I know it sounds harsh but these people really want to put themselves in the running for a Darwin award I think society can do without them.

Yes I know all the arguments used to justify seatbelt (& helmet) laws about how injuries cost taxpayers & insurers money but I still think we can just let the problem take care of itself.

I've always worn my seatbelt, I've never needed a law, or a seatbelt chimne to tell me to do so.

In many European countries they have a simple solution. Seatbelt use is not only the law, but if a party injured or killed in an accident is determined by accident investigators to have not been wearing their belts, their insurance company (auto insurance is no-fault) is absolved of liability - THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY! This is much like how life insurance companies in the U.S. are off the hook in the event of their policyholders' suicides.

Before this change in the insurance laws, seatbelt use in Europe was as low or lower than in the U.S., despite the INSANE speeds at which Europeans - especially Germans - typically drive. They apparently were undaunted by the certainty that if you crash a car without belts secured at 200 kilometers an hour (124 mph), you WILL bounce around inside like a ping-pong ball in a coffee can - until you are ejected through a window - open or closed, no matter - after which the vehicle is more than likely to roll over you at least once. Either way, you are BEEF JAM - case closed, forget the ambulance, just bring baggies and a hose!

[For contrast, I once actually witnessed a HORRIBLE crash on the Autobahn. A Mercedes traveling at a VERY high rate of speed - in the rain - hit the tire tread that had just peeled away from the semi tractor-trailer rig in the adjacent lane and flipped end-over-end SEVERAL times before ending up on the grassy shoulder. Both occupants were belted. All SIX air bags had deployed. The front of the car forward of the firewall had actually BROKEN OFF! After the responding "Polizeioffizieren" pried the car open, the two got out and walked away, somewhat dazed but otherwise UNHURT!]

After this change in the insurance codes, seat belt use climbed to over 90% virtually OVER NIGHT!

It appears that Europeans are at least as callow and stupid as we Americans. For just like us, they are apparently more mindful of their wallets than their lives.

That needs not only a punishment or law reinforcement, its also very important the education, that's one of the basics to make safer the roads of the future. Here in Spain the government only think in radars and tickets, and always they talk about the Swedish model, when that model is totally different and is based in a different culture than in our country. The results are there, here in Spain we have one of the worst dead rating of europe, the people has no idea of traffic education, the people don't wear the seat belt in many cases, and the only increase of safety in the roads is thanks to the Automakers and its evolution to increase the safety systems.

I read that the Alcokey of Saab will be introduced in two years in Sweden, it will avoid the possibility to lie the machine??

and in Sweden in 2010 all Saab and Volvo cars muste have speed control systems, I think that system are quite dangerous in some situations, as overtaking. At least here in Spain, the majority of accidents are in roads, with a frontal colision, many times when overtaking, and not in highway(where are all the radars, its ironical).

Saab will introduce the Double seat belt that showed some years ago??

I think that is important to design a Seat belt that is more comfortable, many people don't wera it because its quite uncomfortable.

Kudos to an early 1980's seat belt promotion program in North Carolina...instead of punishing those who were not wearing seat belts, it rewarded those who were. There was a big promotion, and those who were spotted by the seat belt spotters in a van were given a monetary prize ($20?). They were also eligible for a grand prize. It was fun, and I believe very successful but probably impracticle in 2005.

This? This is what your blog is about? With all GM's self-inflicted problems by dull management to fix, you dredge up the old 'wear a seatbelt schtick?' You "execs" are so utterly disconnected to the real world. You are going to be eaten alive by the competition.

98% of us don't have to wear seat belts because we don't have our solstice to wear them in !!

First, let me start by writing that I'm opposed to trying to reduce death rates by annoying the hell out of careful seatbelt-less drivers with your euphemistic "enhanced reminders".

I always make a point of buckling up, and I make passengers in my cars buckle up too. But I know a half dozen people who consciously refrain from using seat-belts, and one who will do so even though his minivan will not stop beeping at him.

Second, your concern for safety rings utterly false to my ears.

If you were truly concerned for safety above all else, and you honestly want to reduce deaths, then you would put a regulator on your new cars that won't let them go above, say, 75mph.

No, you might object, consumers don't want to be told how fast they can drive! Well, fancy that! Maybe consumers don't want to be told when to wear seatbelts either.

Now, I don't want GM to make riskless machines, and I certainly don't want a speed modulator, but by the logic of your seatbelt argument, eventually GM does.

And I think this is a rather slippery slope GM is on...

I want to more control over technology, not less. GM wants to use technology to save the lives of people who don't buckle up; when will you start using technology to save the lives of people who drive too fast? Is the reduced death rate worth the loss of individual freedom in the driver's seat?

Under GM's logic, a driver has no "right" to risk his own life by not wearing a seat-belt, but he does have a "right" to risk his life -- and the lives of others -- by speeding. How's that?

The fact that way too many people wrongly perceive that seat belts provide no safety value, and that others are too busy to even think about it, does not validate your sanctimonious preening about safety.

People will take risks that I -- and you folks at GM -- rightfully consider unnecessary. As long as those risks do not threaten you and me (coercive "social insurance" aside), I see no moral authority on our part to correct them. Seatbelts are one case in which a person taking on risk affects solely himself.

----------

When you win the battle of seat belts, what is next? Don't tell me "nothing".

Kevin Brancato wrote:

"If you were truly concerned for safety above all else, and you honestly want to reduce deaths, then you would put a regulator on your new cars that won't let them go above, say, 75mph."

Why stop there? Why not set speed governors at 55mph? Or better yet, 35mph? Or, HELL, lets just park the damned things and WALK! It would save tens of thousands of lives and solve our energy crunch with one master stroke!

If we need to get anywhere, we should get all those unemployed horses out of retirement. And to keep us from devolving ALL the way back to the 19th Century, when crossing the street involved wading ankle-deep in horsehockey, we'll hire Mr. Brancato and all those who agree with his thinking to follow behind and scoop up all those road apples. They seem particularly well qualified, since they must have been spending plenty of time already staring up at the south ends of north-bound jackasses.

I just HATE this "nanny-state" approach to social problems, this idea that the solution to traffic deaths is to dumb driving down to the level of the stupidest, most inept and irresponsible moron to ever be armed with a driver's license.

The problem is NOT high-performance automobiles. It is LOW-performance driving!

Folks like Mr. Brancato take as an article of faith that the ineptitude of the American driver is an immutable law of nature. How can he know that proper drivers' education with increased emphasis on vehicle control and emergency handling skills wouldn't do a lot to ameliorate this problem? He doesn't know because AMERICA HAS NEVER TRIED THIS APPROACH! But other nations HAVE!

Remember seat-belt interlocks? Well, we old guys do. You couldn't start the car unless you buckled up. Indeed, you couldn't start the damned car unless you buckled up the GROCERIES sitting in the passenger seat, too. Worse, if the car stalled - they ALWAYS stalled back then - then you had to remove the key, UNBUCKLE the belt, get out of the car (or otherwise lift your ass out of the seat) and GET BACK IN AGAIN and start the sequence all over.

These Satan-spawned "amusements" almost caused armed insurrection! People who were adept disabled the things - breaking Federal Law, theoretically exposing themselves to heavy fine and prison time if anyone ratted them out.

People who didn't know how to disable them screamed bloody murder to their elected representatives and out of fear for their jobs, if not their very lives, they forced regulators to rescind them.

This Kafka-esque insanity wasn't over yet. Automakers were then mandated by Uncle Sugar to absorb the cost of a recall for people to have their interlocks dismantled - interlocks which they only installed under government coercion in the first place!

Social engineering through the misapplication of technology like seat-belt interlocks - and SPEED GOVERNORS - though easier than upgrading the skills of American drivers - is an anti-democratic, even Fascist idea, as well as an almost comically asinine one.

I personally have had my life saved by wearing a seatbelt. Unfortunately, many of my personal friends were not so lucky. Free Will also has dire consequences for those willing to test the limits. Anyone who comes along in my car, especially the back seat, MUST wear a seatbelt or they can walk.

Driving is a RIGHT, not a privilege. You have to be certain age... You need a license... attend drivers' education. You must obey speed limits and not drink and drive. You have to register your car have it inspected, etc...

Along with RIGHTS come responsibilities...

The line that you have a "right" not to wear a seatbelt is bogus!

The people I know that don't wear seatbelts, don't wear them because they can be incredibly uncomfortable. For instance, the Chev Venture we had, (the last GM vehicle I'll ever own...a book, not a blog, in and of itself) the belts in the backseat squeezed tighter and tighter each time you inhaled, until at last you died...the boa constrictor of seat belts. Other vehicles, the belts ride way too high, are hard to lock or unlock etc. "Automatic" shoulder belts can't seem to decide when to let you out of the vehicle, or realize you are in the seat, or change their mind just as you are getting in or out of the vehicle and smack you on the head. All in all, at least a percentage of those 20%, don't wear them due to POOR DESIGN (have we heard that before?)

weirving,

Your claim to know what is in my head -- "Folks like Mr. Brancato take as an article of faith that the ineptitude of the American driver is an immutable law of nature." -- is ridiculous and unfounded.

I take the data as I see it.

And the available data (http://tinyurl.com/7sqtc) clearly show that speed VARIANCE kills people on all types of roads and in all traffic conditions; the theoretical purpose of the regulator would be to homogenize speeds at the high end of the distribution, thereby reducing the number of accidents and their severity.

However, I AGREE with the sentiments in your last paragraph: "Social engineering through the misapplication of technology like seat-belt interlocks - and SPEED GOVERNORS - though easier than upgrading the skills of American drivers - is an anti-democratic, even Fascist idea, as well as an almost comically asinine one." Well, yes! But it's an idea entirely consistent with GM's -- not my -- view of safety!

I oppose maximum speed regulators as well, and was only using the governor example to demonstrate that GM's alleged committment to safety is really just a smokescreen.

I guess I failed to include enough irony.

Having worn seat belts since 1966 (our Pontiac Bonneville had them first!), I have to agree that some belt designs can be uncomfortable (especially the nonadjustable ones built into seatbacks).

Then again, having an accident throw beltless me a windshield would be much, much worse.

I dunno... Any expert in human computer interaction would tell you that humans will just ignore predictable stimuli if they want to ignore them. What you guys really need to do is present unpredictable stimuli in response to unbuckled seatbelts. For example, when I was in high school two decades ago, my girlfriend used to think is was funny to reach over and turn off my headlights while I was driving a back road at night and yell "blackout" to scare the *&^% out of me. This might suggest just turning off the lights at a random time if the driver does not have his seat belt fastened. Or you could lock up one of the wheel brakes momentarily. Or spray the window washers after lowering the driver window and opening the sunroof. Or, you could just release the hood or the trunk. That would be interesting! People would definitely buckle up!!

I forgot to add this to my earlier post:

GM gives away Seat Belt Extenders, either 8" or 10" - and they are available for free at most GM dealerships for those "extra large people", you just have to ask for them. Being uncomfortable in the seat, wearing a belt is a whole lot better than being in traction for 4 months in the hospital.

If GM is truly concerned about seatbelt safety, then why not simply add a device that will not allow the car to start until everyone is buckled in. Oh wait a minute, you guys did that in the seventies I believe it was called Interlock and it was a total disaster. Nevermind.

I would guess that anyone who has been in a severe accident where a seat belt saved their life would support actions to try and get people to buckle up. In my case, I had a 1985 Grand Am that I liked very much. It was the first car that I had ever owned. While the old "Iron Duke" wasn't the best engine, it seemed to do okay. Then one day I was t-boned by a car that had run a stop sign. I was fortunate that I had buckled my seat belt for that trip. Before then, I would only buckle up if I felt like it. The entire right side of the car was not recognisable after that accident. The floor and the roof were also bent, leaving the passenger seat with a noticable list to port. The car had been bent enough that the passenger door jammed shut and the drivers door went flying open. The car was examined by the insurance company and declaired a total loss. I was examined by my doctor and was informed of a minor neck injury caused by the angle of the crash and other minor muscle strains.

When I went to buy a new car, I wanted another Pontiac. Unfortunatly though, GM was going through a odd safety phase and was on the one hand offering ABS on everything, and yet they were also dropping the ball by mounting their seatbelts in the doors of their cars at the same time. After just surviving an accident in a similar car where the door came open, and beling held in the car by a belt anchored on the pillar and the floor, I decided to pass and bought a Ford instead.

I hope im wrong but I predict that someday it will be mandatory to wear a motor cycle helmet when driving a car. Why not, its safer and probably would prevent some head injuries.

If people don't want to be safe, how much effort (and cost) should we put into making them safe. The safety equipment is there for them to use, and if they prefer to turn themselves into a greasy spot on the highway, so be it.

I believe wearing seatbelts is a personal issue. I've always worn my seatbelt ever since I was in driver's education until many years later. I actually don't feel safe without it since I never know if I will be involved in an accident. Yes, it's true that some of those seatbelts are uncomfortable but I don't worry about that as much as being injured badly if I didn't wear the seatbelt. When I have visited countries outside of the u.s. that do not have seatbelts built in the car, I actually fear for my life considering the rules of driving in this particular country involves a lot of lane swerving. Traffic laws are not restricted as much compared to the U.S.

Most of the comments have a tone of blaming the car manufacturers for not having as much safety features. As most of you know, most accidents are caused by the driver's themselves and not the vehicle itself. This would be different for roads that are icy and slippery that if you weren't even speeding, you will lose control of your car. Some people tend to forget everything they learned in driving school and drive wrecklessly. Then you have the drunk drivers and the people that are tired from lack of sleep and fall asleep that cause accidents. There are many factors why people are involved in car accidents in which the car manufacturers were not at fault. I believe the majority of car manufacturers are constantly working in putting more safety features in the car.

As for the comment about placing a restriction on the vehicle at a certain limit such as 75mph will not really stop accidents from happening. Again, there are many factors that happen which results in car accidents. I think there are many situations that car accidents are involved below 65mph or even within the speed limit. So when car manufacturers have labels and advertisement that say to use your seatbelt, it's meant to help diminish the chances of you being injured severely and can save your life. It is the choice of the person driving and being in a vehicle of putting on their seatbelts how they value their lives.

The complaint by people saying the reason why they don't like wearing seatbelts is because it feels uncomfortable is their own choice as well. How many times when we have been sick that we had to drink some dreadful tasting medication? Most of us did it because the medication is supposed to make us feel better. The mentality should be the same as for wearing seatbelts. Though it maybe uncomfortable for that time period, but at least you are trying to prevent from being severely injured or killed in a car accident. Accidents can happen at anytime so driving away in not wearing a seatbelt is done at your own risk.

when you get in the car, the first thing you should do is put on your seat belt. Its really not that hard, you would have to be a really lazy person to avoid doing that. I was in a car accident in October last year, my seatbelt saved my life, if i hadent put it on i wouldnt have survived. like most of the teenagers in the world or maybe just anyone..I never thought i would be in a car accident, i thought i was invincible, but i was wrong. My friend Kelsey wasnt wearing a seatbelt and it was a miricle she survived. my friend mike was sitting in the passenger seat and he fractured his vertebre and almost couldnt play soccer his last year of highschool and go for a scholorship to collage..the driver was ok but suffered minor injuries..i was air lifted and taken to the hospital..i was in shock and had a seatbelt sign..wich meant that there was a good chance i could have been internally bleeding..but THANK GOD i was ok and ALIVE. without that seatbelt there would have been no chance for me...if you read this..and you dont normally wear your seatbelt, you might not change your mind about wearing one and you might not even care about my story, but its your life so be smart about it..also, the whole thing about "seat belts being uncomfortable" if your seatbelt doesnt work..then get it fixed..i would rather pay money to get that fixed rather then dieing in a car accident any day..so please just thing about it.

hey wats up???yes i think people should wear their seatbelts because they can die and they shouldn't because htey have something to beable to save them and they decide not to do that

i own a grand am. the seat belts are to small in this car. i am not a big person but i do have a hard time getting the belt around me. i can't even wear a heavier winter coat, i would love to. i was shorted a seat belt. where can i get a longer belt from. it isn't be on my to buy one. it should be on the Gm company. i have owned other cars and never had this problelm.

Wearing a seat belt is a personal choice. The creator has endowed all humans with a free will, and the ability to make choices. This should not be left to a government nanny state to decide what's best for your health, welfare, ect. Don't wear your seatbelt if you don't wish to, BUT, be aware of the Consequences. This is the law of the earth, Do what thy wilt, but be aware of the outcome for whatever choises you make, weigh them, and determine if they are worth wasting your time and energy on. Remember, every man is a star, be blessed and rein high!

There is no denying that seatbelts save lives, but it is difficult to prove whether or not,they do in all situations.The main question becomes whether or not an indivual's right is violeted. To be forced or coerced into doing something because it makes one special interest group happy at the expense of personal freedom afforded by the constitition.The best accident is one that does not happen, most accidents occur due to driver error, not of anything else!!Consumers are not educated effciently to consquences of vehicle dynamics or lack of.Wich is safer an SUV,or a Corvette? Obviously the SUV would seem a better bet because of its mass,and because of that some feel the need to own one disregarding completely its dynamics; more mass = longer stopping distance, less stability because of its high center of gravity,acceleration and response slower because of its mass, not to mention lack of overall fuel efficiency; but its not penelized or outlawed? Why because we are supposed to be able to have free choice to by what we want. But bacause of his her free choice we force another party to not have a choice by being intimidated by the larger vehicle wich can do more damage to the smaller vehicle. In order to sell SUV's in huge quantaties we have to make others feel safer hence seat belt laws. On the other hand the Corvette with much more capilities in all areas except cargo capacity one is more likely to avoid an accident in the first place. Now since I cannot afford a Corvette, settle for a more mundane vehicle that is properly maintaned and try my hardist to avoid an accident; do not rely on false sense of security which the populas is sold on.The unfortunate situation of the the false premise of security in fact encourages stupidity, not to mention continual loss of civil liberty to the point of no return. As human beings we are all responsibel for the safety of other human beings, until we start ralizing that and work toward that end, it wont matter how many seatbelts or airbags a car has; death has no boundaries but people foolishly think so.