On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:37:17 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , -hh
wrote:

The code here says that you can remove the seat belt if it obstructs
movement (not only head, but the whole body) while doing slow an
complicated maneuvers.

so what?

Because regulators often rely quite heavily on actual SCIENCE when
setting up policies & industry safety standards.

'regulators' are motivated by money from lobbyists, and not just for
vehicles either, plus they can be bought for cheap.

the 'science' are biased 'studies' which are paid for by vested
interests so that the results are what they want and 'prove' their
product or industry is the solution.

if the 'regulators' were interested in safety, they'd mandate stringent
driver training and testing, which would save *far* more lives, and not
just while in reverse either. backup cameras don't do anything for
forward motion, which is the normal direction vehicles move.
unfortunately, if they did require driver training, the usual lobby
groups would object.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...20160617-snap-
story.html
Despite the growing prevalence of back-up cameras, federal data shows
that thisÂ*technology hasn't significantlyÂ*cut down on cars backing
into people and causing them harm.Â*
...
Indeed, NHTSA will mandate back-up cameras in all passenger vehicles
by 2018, a move it estimates will save between 58 and 69 lives each
year once every car on the road has one. AndÂ*that process could take
a while.

58-69 lives per year out of ~35,000 is noise.

But most of them will be small kids and you know the emotional loading
which goes with doing anything to small kids.

to put that into perspective, roughly 100 people are killed every *day*
in automobile related fatalities in the usa alone, much more if you
include the rest of the world.

another example are anti-lock brakes, which were supposed to save lives
by preventing skids and crashes.

it turns out that they don't have a tangible benefit, and in some ways,
they're worse:

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811182
ABS has close to a zero net effect on fatal crash involvements. The
observed net effects are a 1- percent reduction of fatal crashes for
passenger cars and a 1-percent increase for LTVs. Neither is
statistically significant. But ABS is not without effect.
Run-off-road crashes significantly increase while collisions with
pedestrians are significantly reduced, as are collisions with other
vehicles on wet roads. However, the mix of these collision types
among fatal crashes is such that the added harm and the benefits
cancel each other.

wearing a seat belt does *not* restrict turning one's head to see
what's out the side or back.

if the seat belt in *your* vehicle interferes with normal driving
activity, then it's a safety risk and it should be fixed or replaced.

Incorrect, because when the OEM was allowed to sell it, it means
that the assessment of the Government regulators concluded that
it simply wasn't a critical safety issue...no matter how loudly you
try to scream today that it is.

seat belts do *not* interfere with the ability to turn and look out
side or rear windows.

anyone who cannot see out of their vehicle on all sides, for whatever
reason, should not be driving until the issue preventing it is
resolved.

No matter what you say it is impossible, the law is the law.

it's very possible and i do it every time i drive.

If memory serves, when I asked you if your vehicle has a bench seat
(instead of a bucket) ... you never provided a clear response.

it's irrelevant what type of seats are in the cars i drive nor does it
matter since the type of seat does not affect the ability to turn and
look out the rear and side windows. you are grasping at straws.

So then, what's your response? Still waiting.

Because the topology of the seat DOES make a difference too.

no it doesn't.

And yeah, a 1969 bench seat that ends 3" below the shoulder
does allow for great visibility over the shoulder and so forth...

there aren't very many 1969 vehicles on the road anymore nor does a
seat need to be below shoulder level to see over it.

...but too bad they're no longer considered safe in accidents.

in some ways, older vehicles are safer due to their greater mass than
the typical car today.

a '60s era car will fare a *lot* better in a collision with a modern
econobox, plus since it's not unibody, it would not be totaled.

in any event, the issue is not about 50 year old cars.

Restrictions on rearward vision became increasingly evident with
the rise of head restraints built into seats. Even if you could rotate
your head like an owl, you merely end up staring at your headrest.

if a car has headrests that blocks the view out of any window, then
it's a poorly designed vehicle. *that* is what should be regulated.

the solution is *not* to add a camera, but to redesign the vehicle so
that there is better visibility.

except there's no money in that, so it won't happen.

the rear window of the amc pacer was designed for visibility, something
which 'regulators' could have mandated on all vehicles more than 40
years ago. they did not.

http://d37jf9ptvshhdu.cloudfront.net...ntfh_amcpacer-
_Read-Only_-xlarge.jpg

if safety was important, 'regulators' would never have allowed this:
https://dxsdcl7y7vn9x.cloudfront.net...-4F92-93F0-58A
E9970C330_3.jpg

if you think cameras are the solution, then remove all windows and
substitute a 360 degree virtual reality display, which without any
glass, the vehicle's structure could be significantly stronger.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens