Auto-Forums.net

[Hachiroku]

"After many of the delays that auto-makers love, on August 15, 1973,
Department of Transportation officials finally issued a new regulation
requiring ignition interlocks on all new cars. There was now no need for
airbags, so they dropped from the picture. During this two-year delay,
however, Congress member Louis Wyman (R-N.H.) was preparing an amendment
to the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Act of 1974, which said,
"Federal safety standards may not require that any vehicles be equipped
with a safety belt interlock system." Some Hill staffers say Ford actually
wrote the amendment. With a well-timed push from auto lobbyists, the
amendment passed. The airbag and the ignition interlock were now both
dead, victims of one of the most brilliantly executed double fixes in the
history of lobbying."

____________________________________________________________


We note that our agency's previous experience with ignition interlocks
indicates that great care must be taken in requiring vehicle modifications
to induce higher belt use, to avoid consumer backlash. As of August 1973,
Standard No. 208 required all new cars to be equipped either with
automatic protection or an ignition interlock for both front outboard
seating positions. General Motors sold about ten thousand of its 1974
model year cars equipped with air bags that met the automatic protection
requirement. Every other 1974 model year car sold in the United States
came with an ignition interlock, which prevented the engine from operating
if either the driver or front seat outboard passenger failed to fasten
their manual seat belt.


In a notice published in the Federal Register (39 FR 10272) on March
19, 1974, we described the public reaction to the ignition interlock
as follows: "Public resistance to the belt-starter interlock system .
. . has been substantial, with current tallies of proper lap-shoulder
belt usage on 1974 models running at or below the 60% level. Even that
figure is probably optimistic as a measure of results to be achieved,
in light of the likelihood that as time passes the awareness that the
forcing systems can be disabled, and the means for doing so will
become more widely disseminated. . . ."

There were also speeches on the floor of both houses of Congress
expressing the public's anger at the interlock requirement. On October
27, 1974, President Ford signed into law a bill that prohibited any
Federal motor vehicle safety standard from requiring or permitting as
a means of compliance any seat belt interlock system. In response to
this change in the law, we published a final rule in the Federal
Register (39 FR 38380) on October 31, 1974 that deleted the interlock
option from Standard No. 208 effective immediately.

________________________________________________________________


DOT gave manufacturers a further choice for new vehicles manufactured
between 1972 and August 1975. Manufacturers could either install a
passive restraint device such as automatic seatbelts or airbags or
retain manual belts and add an “ignition interlock” device that in
effect forced occupants to buckle up by preventing the ignition
otherwise from turning on. 37 Fed. Reg. 3911 (1972). The interlock
soon became popular with manufacturers. And in 1974, when the agency
approved the use of detachable automatic seatbelts, it conditioned
that approval by providing that such systems must include an interlock
system and a continuous warning buzzer to encourage reattachment of
the belt. 39 Fed. Reg. 14593. But the interlock and buzzer devices
were most unpopular with the public. And Congress, responding to
public pressure, passed a law that forbade DOT from requiring, or
permitting compliance by means of, such devices. Motor Vehicle and
Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, §109, 88 Stat. 1482 (previously
codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1410b(b) (1988 ed.)).



so there...

[Built_Well]

[Chuckle.] I love how air bags are considered to be "automatic
protection" that satisfies the DOT standard. In my lil ole
accident a month ago that took out my Tercel's front end, the
air bags stayed well rested in their compartments and did
not deploy. Maybe I wasn't going fast enough--only 15 to 30 mph.

Kinda hard to classify that as **Automatic** protection.

I always use the belt, except sometimes I'd wait
from 30 seconds to a minute until I was on the road to fasten
the belt. Well the accident happened as I left the gas station
parking lot, not 30 seconds from turning the key.

We ought to bring back the interlocks. Even the fools among us
deserve to live. Thankfully my injuries were not major--a bump
on the forehead as the forehead hit the steering wheel an inch
above the left eye. But it was the biggest jolt I've probably
ever had.

Two weeks afterwards, the forehead bump was gone, but then my
left eye started feeling sore and occassionally blurring
my vision when I'd read a book or a computer screen. Happy to
say the eye's back in good shape again.

I'm amazed at something. That 1995 Tercel, even with
the front end demolished, still runs! It won't pass inspection
at all--components like the battery are knocked maybe 6 inches
back, radiator tilted, engine may not be seated in the cradle
properly--may even be knocking up against the firewall. Motor
mount may be broken. BUT gosh darn it, THAT TERCEL STILL RUNS,
and runs VERY WELL.

And the only fluid leak resulting from the accident was the
windshield wiper fluid.

Looking forward to picking up the new Corolla when the dealer
gets it in a week, but my 1995 DX automatic 4-door Tercel
only has 33,000 miles on it--kind of a shame.

Bring back those interlocks--and please don't wait 30 seconds
until you're on the road to fasten your belt, like foolish me.
Do it before turning the key.

Apparently that's as close to "automatic" protection that
lobbyists will let us get. I can say first hand
that air bags are far from being automatic.

[Hachiroku]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 05:55:07 +0000, Built_Well wrote:

[Don Fearn]

I coulda sworn Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.gts> typ'd:

[Charles @ Kankakee]

"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.30.15.29.52.195650@ae86.gts...

[Built_Well]

I'll ignore the rude comments from one poster.

By the way, I neglected to mention that the other driver
is perfectly fine--never injured because he was wearing
his seat belt, thankfully.

But I caused $2,700 damage to his SUV, the only claim ever
against my policy, which means things should have a happy
ending.

So did that service technician disable your Corolla's
interlocks without you even asking? Kinda sounded that way.

Wow, 1974--what a pivotal year. So many unnecessary deaths and
injuries in the last 31 years because legislators succumbed
to industry puppeteers. Hope I don't get sued for that--just a
guess or opinion on my part from reading the excerpts above.

But I'm glad to see it wasn't a court that ruled against the
interlocks--it was our "independent" legislators.

[Scott in Florida]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:24:22 GMT, "Built_Well"
<built_wellt@built44.com> wrote:

[Ray O]

"Built_Well" <BuiltWell@build44.com> wrote in message
news:%eZ8f.257$Nd.81204@newshog.newsread.com...

[Built_Well]

Some interesting tid-bits:

"Today, however, [about] 35 years
since the federal government required that all pas-
senger cars be equipped with seat belts, approxi-
mately one-quarter of U.S. drivers and front-seat
passengers are not buckling up."

[Yikers, that's a lot of people! One out of 4
aren't buckling up.]

Here's more support for interlocks--or at least the use
of loud reminding buzzers and internal strobe lights:

"Belt use rates in the
United States lag well behind the 90 to 95 percent
usage rates in Canada, Australia, and several north-
ern European countries."

"Properly used, seat belts can reduce the risk of
fatal injury for front-seat occupants by about 45
percent in cars and by about 60 percent in light
trucks driven as passenger vehicles"

[And that's just for Fatal injuries--I imagine
the percentage skyrockets for all injuries in
general, including serious injuries.]

Now the following is TRULY scary:

"Hard-core nonusers comprise approximately 4 per-
cent of drivers, but this same group has significantly
more traffic violations, higher crash involvement rates,
higher arrest rates, and higher rates of alcohol con-
sumption than those who buckle up all or part of the
time."

"Sixty percent of drivers in severe crashes were
reportedly not wearing seat belts. These nonusers pose
risks to themselves and to others and are therefore an
important audience to reach; however, reminder sys-
tems may not be effective."

Sounds to me like the roads are really unsafe.

I dunno. If you ask me, it just makes sense that
a car shouldn't start if the belts aren't engaged.

But at the very least, a really loud buzzer ought to
sound for *as long as the car is on*--not these whimpy
buzzers in use today. And this intolerable buzzer should
remain on for the entire length of the car trip if the
driver isn't belted. I'm guessing even somebody drunk outta
his gord couldn't ignore a loud, loud buzzer running for
even 10 minutes, let alone a whole 40-minute
drive.

Oh well.

1974--a year which will TRULY live in infamy. I think
there's roughly 50,000 deaths on the road each year in the
U.S. Multiply that figure by the 31 years that have passed

since 1974, and you come up with over 1-and-a-half MILLION deaths.
That's more than 3 times the number of U.S. deaths suffered
in World War 2, in both the European and Far Eastern theaters.

Put another way, each year on the roads, we suffer about
half the deaths as the average number of yearly war deaths
sufferred during each year of World War Two (50,000 compared
to roughly 100,000).

My gosh, we have a mini-Dubbya Dubbya Two on the roads
each and every year. Someting really needs to be done--at least
the loud non-stop BUZZER system if not the interlocks. I hope our
legislators start earning their $150,000 pay checks and do
something that counts, instead of cow-towing to Emperor Ford
or Fuhrer General Motors. I'd be damn ashamed to be a Senator
or Representative.

[Built_Well]

Oh, did I say our Representatives and Senators earn
only about $150,000 each year? I neglected to mention
that they also get about a million dollars each year
for office expenses. Not many people know about the
extra $900,000 or million each Rep. and Senator gets
annually just to run an office.

If any legislators happen to be reading--and I
doubt any are--probably getting BJ's from Congressional
pages (remember that scandal a few years back?), please
do something about these death machines that are killing
your fellow Americans at half the rate as World War 2.

[Built_Well]

My goodness, a Senator or Rep. can get a lot of
BJ's with all that office money. Don't believe for
a second that all that cash is spent on office
supplies [Chuckle!]

[Built_Well]

Let me say that my allusions to World War 2, such
as "day of infamy," "Emperor Ford," and
"Fuhrer General Motors" were all in good fun and
satire. I criticize my own government more than
anyone else's, as you can see from my
Congressional pay comments above.

I'm glad we're all friends now, American, Japanese,
German, etc. That's the way it should be. And nobody
makes better cars in the world than Toyota.

[Hachiroku]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:13:20 +0000, Built_Well wrote:

[Built_Well]

I just learned something awful. Not only did
Congress's 1974 law forbid federal traffic safety
agencies like NHTSA from requiring that car
companies use seat belt interlocks, but

the law also forbade NHTSA from requiring manufacturers
from even using buzzer warnings that
lasted more than 8 seconds!!

Now that's a true travesty!

8 SECONDS.

I'm guessing _continuously_ sounding buzzers
would save thousands of lives annually, yet they
are still outlawed. And they'd probably prevent
hundreds of thousands of injuries,

From a recent paper by the TRB (Transportation
Research Board):

"[In 1974] Congress promptly enacted legislation
prohibiting NHTSA from requiring either ignition
interlocks or continuous buzzer warnings of more
than 8 seconds."

Now that's true industry lobby evil--not even
letting buzzers do their job.

"NHTSA then implemented the requirement of
a 4- to 8-second warning light and buzzer system
[that's all NHTSA could do] that is activated when
front seat belts are not fastened at the time of
ignition. This standard remains in effect [today]."

[Scott in Florida]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:42:06 GMT, "Built_Well" <bw@bwwww.com> wrote:

We have a young Communist here!

gawd...please go to Cuba or Russia...