GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,623 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The NY Times just published some additional details of the results of the recent IIHS small overlap frontal crash tests of Volt, Leaf and other small cars.

The full article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/a...ghway-safety-crash-tests-more-small-cars.html

The article concludes with the following: “We monitor the temperatures of the batteries after the crashes are done,” he said. “It has been some time since the tests, and there have been no issues.” The Volt was tested on June 10 and the Leaf on June 12.

The NY Times has a tiered subscription policy. The first 10 articles each month are free. Additional articles require a paid subscription.

KNS
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,156 Posts
Interesting article. Thanks for posting. The article that explains why it's difficult to have a vehicle get a good grade and in detail what a poor grade would mean in terms of injury. Essentially the Volt driver would not have any major injuries and the Leaf driver would have had substantial injury to the left leg. The Mazda driver? Let's not talk about that. LOL

All assuming of course that the person had their seat belt on!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,038 Posts
I owned a Honda Civic EX way back in the day and it had a passive seat belt system that was really cool. The belt was always in place and when you opened the door it simple was moved out of the way. You sat in the car and pulled the door closed and the seat belt went into place automatically. I hate belting up and frequently will leave the seat belt latched with the belt strap between me and the seat back when I am making multiple stops but the Civic eliminated that irritation.

Sure wish we could design cars with the assumption that seat belts would be worn. We could take out a whole bunch of mass and money!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Good article. Thanks.

I owned a Honda Civic EX way back in the day and it had a passive seat belt system that was really cool. The belt was always in place and when you opened the door it simple was moved out of the way. You sat in the car and pulled the door closed and the seat belt went into place automatically. I hate belting up and frequently will leave the seat belt latched with the belt strap between me and the seat back when I am making multiple stops but the Civic eliminated that irritation.
I remember those. I didn't have one but my friend's car did (I didn't like it though). Didn't they quit making seat belts that way because people weren't fastening their lap belts and the belts just across your shoulder could choke a person without the lap belt? I remember I would just forget to fasten the lap belt, not intentionally, but because the shoulder harness (passive one) was engaged.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,431 Posts
Sure wish we could design cars with the assumption that seat belts would be worn. We could take out a whole bunch of mass and money!
GM had automatic seat belts, but few drivers liked them. I have survived a few accidents and I want to use seat belts, even as a back seat passenger. When I am driving, I review each passenger and confirm that they are wearing seat belts, even my two dogs (I wrote about this at another forum post).

I believe the Government is doing too much to force passenger protection to occupants that don't want or don't care if they get any injury, then if they do, they sue the vehicle manufacturer. The only law that can finally solve this is for every buyer to sign a release that if the driver or any occupant suffers in an accident because they don't use seat belts, then the manufacturer will be 100% relieved of any responsibility, which will pass directly to the driver. When those who signed realize what will happen, either they return the vehicle and not buy it, or they will pay for their own mistakes, maybe with their own lives. No more useless lawsuits!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,038 Posts
I thought that the lap belt was included, but now you have me wondering how that would have worked... I think the shoulder belt was above the door above my left ear and the lapbelt was hooked to the door midway and it slipped around you as you slid into the car. But now I am thinking that can't be right...
I remember that I was always belted up in that car and I thought that both belts were passively latched.

On edit: Yeah, I think the lapbelt was attached to the door and moved up and down as you closed the door. It was up 6" or so when then door was open and were sliding in and then when the door closed it dropped 6" and locked. You could unsnap the lap belt at the console on the drivers right. I need to look at a 1994 Civic EX again. I just remember thinking it was slick when I bought it.


Good article. Thanks.



I remember those. I didn't have one but my friend's car did (I didn't like it though). Didn't they quit making seat belts that way because people weren't fastening their lap belts and the belts just across your shoulder could choke a person without the lap belt? I remember I would just forget to fasten the lap belt, not intentionally, but because the shoulder harness (passive one) was engaged.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,409 Posts
...
I believe the Government is doing too much to force passenger protection to occupants that don't want or don't care if they get any injury, then if they do, they sue the vehicle manufacturer. The only law that can finally solve this is for every buyer to sign a release that if the driver or any occupant suffers in an accident because they don't use seat belts, then the manufacturer will be 100% relieved of any responsibility, which will pass directly to the driver. When those who signed realize what will happen, either they return the vehicle and not buy it, or they will pay for their own mistakes, maybe with their own lives. No more useless lawsuits!
Yes but,

Signing a release is not good enough because everyone who maybe harmed in the vehicle has not signed the release.

Now, a law which states, no person harmed in any motor vehicle not utilizing available restraints shall have any legal recourse to hold anyone other than themselves liable, might work. But I'm not a lawyer so I have no clue how to read that such that it doesn't apply in this, that or the other case.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top