A recent entry in JP Cavanaugh’s COAL, about his 1968 Chrysler sparked some personal memories, and some comments, about subverted automotive safety features. In JPC’s case, that trigger had to do with his discovering how the previous/original owners of his car had “hidden” the seat belts under the seats – presumably because they disdained the use of seat belts and the damn things just got in the way. But also, as you may know, Chryslers of that age had separate shoulder belts for front seat passengers. These belts required a separate buckling system for the shoulder belt. When not in use, that belt was stowed against the roof above the front doors. As one might imagine, the vast majority of drivers simply left those belts in their stowed position and never used them; thereby subverting a federally-mandated automotive safety feature.
You can just make out the front passenger seat shoulder belt on this 1969 Chrysler. If you haven’t seen one of these systems in person, the idea is that the belts when not in use are stowed via a set of clips just above each of the front doors. Not stowing them will result in a long dangling strap in the cabin. Properly stowing them involves some amount of attention to actually clipping the belts up there. As the picture shows, even when stowed, the belt tends to hang loosely and just looks messy. You can therefore imagine why many many drivers just kept the belts up there and never touched them.
Along with the 1968 federal (US) requirement that new cars have shoulder belts for front seat passengers, manufacturers were also required to install systems that warned/urged drivers to buckle up. I’m sure that some here on CC will be able to parse the exact sequence of requirements within the relevant NHTSA regulations (which is what makes the comments here so very interesting and searchable), but the upshot is that since the late 1960s, cars in the US – and ultimately the rest of the world – have been rather insistent about telling us when we’ve forgotten to buckle up.
In the case of Chrysler’s ceiling-mounted shoulder belts, the warning system was only triggered if the lap belts were not buckled. The shoulder belt had no warning, thereby providing a pretty painless way for most drivers to ignore the shoulder belts.
Chrysler’s Master Tech film from 1972 does an excellent job of explaining how their seatbelt warning system worked, in case you didn’t already know. Even if you do know how it works, this is a fun watch for the cheesy images and the blast from the past that comes from watching a video of a filmstrip.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that I’m not the only one here at CC who spent much of elementary school/junior high as the kid who always got assigned the job of sitting at the controls of the DuKane, listening for the “Ding” indicating it was time to advance the strip. Dreams about running the filmstrip projector (as well as threading the big green metal Bell and Howell 16mm movie projector) invade my sleep almost as frequently as those about coming to school on the last day of the term, pants-less, and having to take an exam on material that I’ve never seen.
Ding!
But I digress.
By 1974, Chrysler had apparently scrapped the filmstrip presentations and switched to a film of two swingin’ 70’s ladies demonstrating the joys of attempting to start a car with the infamous one-year-only seatbelt interlock system. Let’s just say that Chrysler really got its money’s worth out of putting these two actors/models through their paces. There are bits of this video that play like a Mr. Wizard segment as the dark-haired actor demonstrates how the under-seat switch works with a disassembled seat and a spare 12v battery.
In case you don’t have a spare 20 minutes to watch this one, just zoom ahead to 4:40 when our two intrepid interlock demonstrators show how bouncing on the seat activates the switches. Good stuff.
You’ll also notice that by 1974, Chrysler had switched to what is essentially a modern 3-point belting system. This meant that finding ways to avoid the shoulder harness would be more difficult, even without an interlock system.
And so you’d think that around about then most drivers would simply suck it up and properly belt themselves so as to avoid warning lights and buzzers. Maybe. But maybe not. Not only are there currently (2022) states that do not enforce on-the-books seatbelt laws (NH being that state), but there are still plenty of people who chafe at belt usage and find various ways to avoid use of the most basic of automotive passenger/driver safety systems.
Or maybe I should say proper belt usage. These devices – readily available online by “asking your smart speaker…” – are called “seatbelt tension adjusters” and they can be used to effectively eliminate the function of shoulder belts. I’ve been in cars with folks who have one of these things clipped onto the belt so that it is locked into a fully slack position (not kept tight by the belt’s inertial retractor system). Apparently this addresses what the ads for these things call a “comfort issue”. Of course, this also means that in the event of a crash, the person’s torso would be free to fly forward without restraint. I would think that a little pressure from a belt on one’s scapula or against the neck is nothing compared to taking a bite of the dashboard or being hit by an airbag that does not expect you to be THAT close to it upon deployment. It’s amazing to me that a device like this can be legally – I guess – sold to the public.
Another commonly subverted safety device – or maybe I should say commonly ignored safety device – is the tire pressure monitoring system. I regularly encounter rental cars where the light is on when I go to pick up the car. I have heard drivers complain about “that light that keeps coming on”. The idea that there may be a reason why the car is trying to warn you of something seems not sufficient to push the drier to investigate the root cause. And so, the light just stays on causing intermittent annoyance. I don’t get it.
A similar set of thought (or not-thought) processes seem to infect some drivers who encounter service warnings, traction control systems, and the like. Some of the thinking about things such as traction control systems appears to be that “real” drivers don’t need to be subject to the nannying efforts of modern car manufacturers and that the proper approach to such systems is to try to “code them out”. Coding things out being the 21st century equivalent to Tom and Ray Magliozzi’s famous “black electrical tape”.
However one subverts the warnings or the systems, online forums are full of advice for how to perform operations such as removing your airbags and coding out the warnings/sensors, or how to eliminate brake wear warnings by chopping off or shorting out the sensors and likewise coding out the warning light. It seems that if there’s a will, there’s a way; but why is there the will to begin with?
So, that’s the question of the day…what automotive safety systems or devices have you encountered that “some drivers” feel that they could do better without and therefore find ways to subvert? And whether or not you have chosen to put up with a safety device, are there such devices that you feel that you’d be better off not having? Has someone you know invested effort un-doing a car’s as-built safety feature(s)?
It’s been mentioned elsewhere (here, previously?) that those Rube Goldberg two-part, retractorless seat belts were being supplied entirely due to manufacturer penny-pinching. Modern retractable 3-point belts were being installed by Chrysler as early as 1968 on Valiants assembled in Switzerland for that market.
The late ’80s to early ’90s GM door-mounted seatbelts. They were supposed to be kept permanently buckled, and the release button was supposed to be for “emergencies”. In real life, they were just used as normal seatbelts (or not used, I guess).
lol. Had forgotten about those belts!
Those door-mounted seat belts were a cynical workaround to the passive restraints mandate, which initially required either airbags with conventional 3-point belts OR so-called passive or automatic seat belts (and no airbags).
GM’s belts not only introduced the hazard of an occupant becoming unrestrained if the door was torn open in a crash, they were also suboptimal in terms of belt fit.
Would love to see a post on the 1990s law that required air bags or passive restraints and how companies handled it. You can’t be too critical of the GM door mounted seat belts.
And there were some cars that had both airbags and the crappy seatbelts. Ford Escort comes to mind. Would make me very nervous.
Excellent point on the door mount seatbelts I deliberately did not but a new Buick in 1988 specifically due to that substandard belt system. It was the sole reason for rejecting the purchase.
I’ve bought dozens of used vehicles since then and I’ve never considered buying a used car so equipped.
I had an “89 Chevy Corsica with those belts. I just used them as normal seat belts.
Same with my ’92 Geo Metro. One of the few cases where I’d agree the 2-door was more desirable, since in a 4-door they’d have been anchored so far forward you’d develop significant momentum before even hitting the seat belt.
Would love to see a post on the 1990s law that required air bags or passive restraints and how companies handled it. You can’t be too critical of the GM door mounted seat belts.
Remember the engine start seatbelt interlock from 1974 or thereabout? A real dandy that was disabled 10 minutes after vehicle purchase? I believe there was a red button under the hood to bypass the system for your mechanic to crank the engine remotely from the key.
Yep, what I learned from that second video I linked to is that the disable switch was under the hood; and what I read elsewhere is that the whole system was only used for one year (1974) and was easily disabled by cutting a wire. That may explain why I’ve never encountered such a system actually functioning in a car. But I do recall the hew and cry about it back in 1974.
I’m pretty sure that when the US government repealed the Seat Belt Interlock mandate, it was made legal to disable such systems that came equipped on a car. So I assume that most owners or mechanics quickly disabled those systems shortly afterwards.
Yes, it became legal to disable the interlocks after the mandate was repealed. We did not disable the system in my wife’s Corolla until we decided to sell the car in late 1978. Although I was a strong advocate of belt use from about the time Ralph Nader’s book came out, I figured that most potential buyers of the Corolla would be turned off by the interlock.
There was such an outcry against the seat belt interlock systems that Congress stepped in and voted for a repeal of the mandate. All 1974 cars had the interlock as well as early 1975 models. My wife’s ’75 Corolla, which she purchased in April of that year had the interlock; the ’75 Rabbit that I bought in July did not.
The problem was people were not used to wearing both lap and shoulder belts, and the domestics used separate retractors for each portion of the belt. The lap belt portion used a so-called automatic-locking retractor, which tightened (and locked) that portion of the belt every time the car went over a bump. This meant the belt became increasingly tight, and the only way to loosen it was to unfasten it and put it on again. Then rinse and repeat.
I had a 1987 Taurus where the front seatbelts would loosen up over time and you had to readjust them to get them to be effective. (And of course only lap belts in back). I guess that’s why they put in that feature.
Actually, what you’re describing was a different feature, a mechanism in the shoulder belt retractor to allow some slack in the belt, supposedly for comfort. Problem is as you described — the belt would become much too loose, and you had to tug on the belt for it to retract for a better fit (like an old-fashioned window shade).
The owner’s manual in my 1975 Thunderbird had a sticker proudly saying the car was not equipped with the seat belter interlock system.
Fast forward…getting into a 2022 Silverado recently (a retail model), it was impossible to place it any gear without the seatbelt on. Conversely, another ’22 Silverado (fleet model) I have driven can easily be placed into gear without a seatbelt on.
Yeah, that was my fist thought, everyone disabled them and hate was so great that the Feds gave up and repealed the reg.
Our 74 Volvo had the interlock installed and it was disabled by pulling a fuse, which left the “fasten seat belt” light permanently on
My TIPS light is on permanently on the Promaster, because the 80 psi required to turn it off is based on its maximum 4,000 lb payload capacity. I lowered it to 62 psi, and of course it rides much better now. Apparently one can get that changed by a cooperative dealer, but I can’t be bothered. I’m used to checking my tire pressures.
My xB has had a warning light about the SRS (air bag) system for years. Apparently it’s probably just a sensor or such. I can’t be bothered, again.
It sounds like the TPMS light on the Promaster is a case for “coding”. I’m guessing that with a cable, laptop, and software found online that adjustment could be made….if you cared (which you don’t 🙂 ). I’ll just say that my OCD kicks in when it comes to warning lights. They drive me crazy until I get to the bottom of why they’re on and what it takes to turn them off.
Which brings me to the airbag light on my 2008 E91. These cars have a known issue relating to the passenger seat sensor mat failing and causing the warning light to go on. There are also problems with the sensor in the seat belt buckle (female side). One or the other causes the light to go on…there has been a recall to address these but somehow my car (being at the end of its model year) doesn’t make the recall.
Now I could buy a gizmo (basically a resistor) that can fool the car into thinking that the sensors are OK and thereby keep the light from coming on, BUT no one has ever been able to answer the question as to whether that means the airbag would actually work if necessary. Much debate has ensued.
And I guess that’s the thing about some warning lights/systems. It’s sometimes hard to know if they really are important, or if they can be safely ignored.
My Transit has a similar system to Paul’s ProMaster. Unlike our Tacoma, where I can push a button to reset the TPMS warning threshold after setting the tire pressures that I want to use, the Transit does require some recoding. However I’ve read that can be done with software or cables, merely turning the key on and off 3 times (or is it 4?), then activating the left turn signal while stepping on the brake pedal 4 times (or is it the 4 way flashers and brake 3 times?). Anyway, it’s a hassle and I’ve never actually done it. I did disable the backup alarm on our Prius which was not documented in the owner’s manual but easily found online, and involved similar incantations as the Ford van’s tire warning.
I’m sure there’s plenty of folks on this forum who disagree with me, but I dislike Daytime Running Lights.
When we bought our 2010 Honda Odyssey, I noticed there was a separate fuse for the DRLs, so I pulled it out. Everything seemed to work fine, except the DRL light on the dash was lit. That was 12 years ago – I haven’t put the fuse back in yet.
So if you’ve never wondered how long a dashboard warning light can stay illuminated, this one’s been lit for 151,000 mi. and counting.
I don’t disagree with you. I personally do not like DRL, and on my car I could turn them off (I believe that this is the case because my car was produced before they became mandated in the US). This is a standard driver configuration item that didn’t require any “dealer only” access to the car’s software. And so I had them off for years.
Until recently where I’ve actually turned them back on in an attempt to increase my car’s visibility to other drivers. The number of people I encounter daily driving down the middle of the road (granted, I do live in a somewhat rural area) is shocking…and I kind of figure any advantage I can get to be observed by on-coming traffic is an advantage I will take.
I do believe in DRLs, as enhanced visibility to oncoming traffic is always a good thing, IMHO. It’s one of those things where you will never know if having the DRLs on saved you from an accident. But…different strokes for different folks.
One feature I disable is the automatic high beams. I find they often blind oncoming bicyclists and walkers, by not turning back to low beams when there are no other cars around.
They were never mandated in the US, and still aren’t to this day.
Just curious, but why do you dislike them? Not like you can see them while you’re driving.
I’d be interested in hearing why others may not like them, but for me, it is just that I didn’t like burning a bulb – and potentially shortening its life – if I didn’t need it. I do realize that seems insanely miserly (and perhaps electronically ignorant), but it’s what I thought. Until I decided that maybe I really DID need it, and I got over that. 🙂
That’s much less of concern now, because automakers are almost universally using separate, dedicated DRLs, and increasingly they use LED illumination.
My car (2007 model) still uses halogen light bulbs for the separate low and high beam headlamps, and uses the high beam for the DRLs. I think the high beam bulbs burn at lower than normal intensity in DRL mode which significantly extends bulb life, plus most of my night driving is done with the low (dip) beams so the high beam bulbs seemingly never burn out.
Just my opinion, but I find it’s more distracting to have cars driving with their headlights on. One car driving with its lights on stands out – but with all cars, it just becomes (to me) visual clutter. Sort of like how signage stands out if it’s brightly lit, but if all signage is brightly lit, it all just becomes clutter.
I find that certain things, like pedestrians or motorcycles, are tougher to distinguish if surrounded by lots of bright car lights. And DRLs also seem to make turn signals tougher to notice.
I actually think that Daytime Parking Lights would make more sense – lower intensity lights that would make cars more noticeable if they’re in shadows, etc., but without the bright DRL lights that seem unnecessary.
Other motorists think DRLs combined their new fangled constantly-lit gauges/lcd displays means their main lights are on, that’s why I hate them. It is an extremely common occurrence to see cars with no taillights on at night these days, so it’s completely counterintuitive, if not way more dangerous from a safety standpoint.
Automatic lights should be mandatory on all DRL equipped cars, I don’t object to their presence or their intention but the current state of execution is outright terrible. I also think the stylistic choices with LEDs are dumb looking on just about everything, but that’s subjective.
I think that automatic lights should be mandatory for no other reason than that they are on many cars, but not all. I’ve often commented that since I have them on both of the cars in my house that are frequently driven, we’ve probably forgotten how to turn on headlights.
Well…not really (not in MY house)…but I wouldn’t be surprised if “other people” have forgotten, and that could explain the the common occurrence you – and I (and Rick below) – have noted.
I can see everyone else’s; AND their damned fog lights. I’d prefer not to be aggravated by their photons. And I do unto others…by turning my fog lights off when it isn’t foggy, and by DISABLING MY DAMNED DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS (DDRLs)
Four freakin’ headlights in the daytime, glaring into oncoming traffic. It’s a testament to how stupid and inconsiderate people can be.
Once upon a time, I contacted GM asking for the scientific proof of the effectiveness of DDRLs. They sent me press releases.
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF, peer-reviewed and valid. There were some crap non-peer-reviewed studies from socialist Baltic countries that invite Government interference in the day-to-day activities of ordinary citizens; high-lattitude and therefore somewhat short on sunshine compared to the Lower 49.
Once upon a time, even the NHTSA had noted on their web-site that they were “disappointed” that Center High Mounted Stop Lights (CHMSL) were proven ineffective according to whatever “study” they sponsored. That info has since been well-scrubbed and replaced with the current gibberish “proving” that people who can totally miss two perfectly-good stop lights will somehow be fully aware of the third.
Most “safety” regulations imposed upon us by Those In Power are total crap; a test to see what they can get by with before we demand repeal. Let’s face it–We the People allowed our government to inflict the well-hated 55 mph speed limit on us for TWENTY ONE YEARS. They know we’re sheep, and they’re acting accordingly.
You’re quite wrong. A great deal of rigourous research done over many years by reputable, disinterested researchers in numerous countries has produced a great deal of validated evidence that DRLs work.
(it might not have been completely realistic to expect GM’s customer-relations people to be up on their scientific research; they deal in press releases and that kind of thing.)
In the first place, there is nothing such as proven ineffective. One cannot prove a negative; this is a basic tenet of science. Secondly, CHMSLs have actually proven effective. Their long-term crash-avoidance benefit (after all novelty effects have worn off, etc) is 4.3%. Your unawareness of the research does not mean it’s nonexistent.
These opinions of yours are not based in reality or facts. Cling to ’em all you like, but you really haven’t got this right at all.
Here, have a cartoon:
I don’t know that you’re the world’s foremost expert on vehicle lighting–but you’re the closest to it that I know of. Can you provide some links–or even proper titles–to some of those peer-reviewed “scientific studies” showing the effectiveness of DDRLs and CHMSLs?
Preferably from countries of similar latitudes to the Lower 49. Ideally, from the USA itself.
You are correct about not being able to prove a negative. The early NHTSA study I alluded to simply proved the ineffectiveness of CHMSLs.
Yes, I can; no, I won’t. I try to assume good faith, but the entirety of your previous comments in this thread, and your sneer-quotes around scientific studies here in your latest comment (etc) strongly signal you aren’t really interested in learning, just in shouting loudly enough to convince yourself you’ve debunked everything contrary to your beliefs. My long previous experience with arguing on the internet has taught me to avoid it in cases like this, so please find the research on your own. It’s not hidden or anything, and much of it is readily available without paying.
The NHTSA study you seem to believe you saw still didn’t “prove the ineffectiveness of CHMSLs”—not even when you acknowledge there’s nothing such as proving a negative before repeating the claim. NHTSA’s actual findings on the subject do not match what you think you remember, and every single other study on the subject, all over the world, has corroborated the finding that the durn things really do reduce collisions.
When I was younger, my thinking and behaviour was very much like yours on topics like these—car lights, speed limits, emissions controls, seat belt laws, and all the rest. I ranted and bellowed and bleated about big-government nannystate overreach and power-tripping regulators and proven-ineffective and biased researchers and freedom and liberty and junk science. Any facts or research I didn’t like because they violated what passed for my opinions or politics, I simply declared bogus. Anyone pressed me on it, I tossed out the magic power phrase, peer-reviewed. Anyone showed me rigourous research, I simply pretended I was adequately informed and educated to read it correctly and triumphantly poked imaginary holes in it. I joined organisations of people behaving the same way, which felt good, because if I was right—and I was so very sure I was!—then just think how much righter I was with others parroting along just like me! There’s at least one name for this; it’s called the Dunning-Kruger Effect. In a nutshell: the less we know, the more we think we know; the more we know, the less we know we know.
With humility; intellectual honesty and curiosity; sincerity, and hard work, it can be grown out of, then we get to go sit at the grownups’ table and participate in serious discussion. Anyhow, that’s how it worked for me.
That’s all, please and thank you.
“the more we know, the less we know we know. ”
_THIS_ beyond all doubt ! .
-Nate
I’m with you in not liking daytime running lights. For me though, it was always about aesthetics. If I want the lights on, I’ll turn them on. I also like to run with just the parking lights when it’s dusk or dawn, where you don’t need headlights, but want to be seen. Cars look cool with just the yellows on, IMHO.
I’m lucky that my 2007 Mustang gives me this option. The light switch is manual, and works just like they did in olden times.
Oddly, my ‘97 GTP was equipped with daytime runners, but if I put that manual switch between the parking light position and the headlight position, it would turn the daytime runners off and just illuminate the yellows.
I don’t mind the DLR(s) on my 2016 Civic, as they are separate LED(s) and look kinda cool. And since Civics seem to be ignored, even if bright red like mine, being seen is a good thing.
But the biggest thing about DLR(s) that I don’t like are the number of drivers that don’t realize their headlights aren’t on at night because they can see! They drive off with the DLR(s) illuminating the way, but no one approaching them from behind can see them because they’ve got no taillights! This drives me nuts, and when the days get shorter, I encounter this on my rush hour commute home at least once a day.
I agree about drivers at night might not know their headlights are not on because the dash lights are always on. There is a small green light on the dash when the headlights are on, but I don’t think it’s that noticeable. There’s got to be a better system.
Canada is talking about daytime taillights as well. I suspect mostly due to driver’s not turning on their headlights at night with the DRLs on. To be fair some like my old Acura TSX lit up the gauges all the time making you think you had headlights on if you weren’t familiar with that quirk of the car.
No, Canada isn’t talking about daytime taillights; that conversation ended a few years ago, and as of 1 September 2020 Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 began requiring all vehicles to meet one of the following:
• Fully-automatic light management wherein the vehicle switches from DRLs to full headlamps with position lights at a certain ambient light threshold, or
• Have the tail lights lit with the DRLs, or
• Not illuminate the dashboard unless the (actual, real, nighttime) headlights are on.
My 2000 Volvo offers the option of daytime tail lights. The activation switch is hidden under the light switch, utterly out of sight and not labeled. The instructions to turn on the option are buried in the ample owners manual.
I expect most North American Volvo owners neither knew nor cared about this feature. I’ve activated mine, as it’s my winter car. A bit more winter visibility has appeal.
Finally, a sensible solution to the main issue with DRLs these days; as mentioned by others, the combination of always-on DRLs and always-illuminated instruments leads to an inordinate number of cars without their taillights on at night.
I never use the seatbelts in my car. I have shingles on my left shoulder and the belt just irritates the hell out of it.I got stopped in Brooklyn, NY about 8 years ago for ‘non compliance’ so I fought it in traffic court. I merely told the judge I have shingles, and I opened my shirt to show him.He looked at it said ‘case dismissed’. It would be a $100.00 fine and a point on my license if I were found ‘guilty’. And speaking about safety devices, the HORN is the most important one. Try driving in NY without one!
I have to disagree on the horn. I almost never use it, because in the past when I did, it was more of an expression of anger after the fact — the incident had ALREADY occurred.
Yes, I do use it if I can react in time to prevent someone from making a boneheaded move, OR give a light tap if someone doesn’t move on a green light.
I honestly only use my horn to alert ihe oblivious texting driver in front of me that the light has turned green
Speaking of horns, one of the worst is the audible alert when remotely locking or unlocking the doors. This ‘safety’ feature can be easily disabled but it’s normally not done. I could actually understand it, but the flashing light alert seems to be more than adequate to tell the owner that the vehicle had received the signal; no annoying horn beep is necessary.
I like the fact that on my Tacoma it was easy to disable ALL audible alerts with onscreen menus and no internet cheat codes let alone not needing special dealer SW. I think hearing other people lock their cars with electronic chirps, or God forbid, the horn beeping, is unnecessary noise pollution. But we all have our foibles. I always drive with either DRL’s or lights on, and after reading earlier comments I guess that’s annoying to some folks. Some of the headlight habit may come from riding motorcycles which in the US have had mandatory headlight/taillight on since 1974.
I like that feature on my former Prius and current Camry Hybrid, although I’ve kept the chirps active. I also always keep the DRLs in the on position. (On both cars, the DRLs are separate, dedicated units and not weirdly styled.)
One thing I’ve noticed of late is that a lot of people will hit their key fobs repeatedly to unlock their cars, sometimes 3 or more times. Why? To make SURE every door is unlocked?
You may have hit upon the reason most people keep the lock/unlock audible alert active, i.e., they need ‘two’ notifications to convince them the vehicle is actually locked.
It’s as if the owner seeing the lights flash is not enough to confirm the doors are really locked; if there’s a visual ‘and’ an audible alert, they must most definitely be locked!
Huh ~ my 40 year old Mercedes has silent central locking, I simply reach for the rear door handle and give it a tug .
If it’s locked so is the rest of the car and best of all : DEAD SILENT ! no clicks, clacks, beeps etc. .
-Nate
My Honda only sounds this on the second successful attempt at locking, and not at all on unlocking.
Some years ago on this site there was a fantastic rant about GM’s habit (which they have not abandoned) of lighting the reverse lights on unlocking.
Lane department warning. I had this on my Mazda and it had far too many false positives to be useful. Luckily there was a “off” button.
Yes. When I’ve encountered these systems in rental cars I’ve been frustrated by the fact that they work differently in different cars. I suppose that this is a necessary byproduct of the fact that these things are still developing technologies and thus there’s no real standardization across the industry.
I’ve been in rentals that have just the warnings (lights and buzzers that it often takes me some time to figure out what they’re trying to tell me) and then others that are more active and actually try to center the car in its lane. And some of these cars may have the collision avoidance braking, but some may not. Figuring out which system which car has and then how to adjust it for your needs/desires is quite frustrating.
I have religiously worn seat belts since driver’s training in 1969. I feel naked without them on. I do have a variety of systems. The 04 Focus and 04 LeSabre are easiest to use. Just bring the whole thing over from against the B pillar across my body. Next would be the 68 Cougar and Mustang which use two separate belts with two separate buckles. The shoulder portion is stored up above. I leave that one down for me and never have a problem forgetting. The 73 Polara also has an overhead shoulder belt but it now is manually attached to the seat belt buckle. Once attached it just retracts aside the whole assembly which is helpful. To store you must separate the two belts from their common connection.
The last car with seat and shoulder belts is the 91 Mazda 626 with the automatically retractable shoulder belt. So it is like the two 68 cars in having two separate belts still. Now this system has been called a lot of names and it deserves them. Sometimes I am in a hurry out of the car and get strung up by the retractable shoulder belt because I moved faster that it. Try getting something out of the passenger seat after the door is open and having to go around the belt. This is the only car where I go around to the passenger door to remove something. Just working on the car in the driveway it is constantly moving, as the door opens and closes, so it needs to be disconnected to stop driving me crazy. Sometimes, after getting in the car, and that shoulder belt comes across I actually forget the non-manual seat belt for the drive.
Actually, and I almost discounted them just because and why was that, the easiest cars are the 65 F-100 and the 67 Parklane.
The manual lap belt latch on that generation of 626 (US spec only) was also way forward of the normal location (where the motorized shoulder belt connects to), which effectively meant the lap belt is always very loose on the inboard side – and not as safe as normal 3-point belts.
“But also, as you may know, Chryslers of that age had separate shoulder belts for front seat passengers.”
As did Ford, GM, and AMC. From 1968 until 1974.
I did like the way AMC handled the separate shoulder belt though: it had an elongated blade with a slot so that the lap belt blade passed through it before going into the lap belt buckle. In that way, you didn’t need two sets of buckles. A friend of mine’s 1968 Triumph has the same set-up.
I’ll nominate adjustable head restraints. Never, ever set to the right height, and especially not in the rear seats.
That’s an excellent example! Yes, in my opinion, head rests are never properly adjusted and I’d venture to say that a majority of drivers have no idea why the headrest is even there…aside from “comfort”.
And then there are folks who simply take them out. I’ve encountered that in that past, and it mystifies me. (harder to do nowadays since the head rests are often integrated into the safety warning system and removal would produce an error condition)
Since I rarely carry rear passengers what I used to do is take the rear headrests out and stash them in the footwells, wedged under the corresponding front seats, on the theory that anyone who would benefit from the headrest being in place would also need the legroom putting it in would free up.
My current car has low-profile ones (no more than 1″ in the down position) in back which extend far enough to be actually annoying, digging into the rear passenger’s back, unless adjusted to a higher position.
In both cases, the idea is to maximize driver visibility out the rear window when a rear passenger isn’t being carried.
Some modern head restraints seem set at a really aggressive forward position that I find really uncomfortable. I wear glasses, and pushing my head forward moves my glasses downward so that my distance vision is affected.
The headrests in my 2012 Kia Sedona have three front-to-rear adjustment positions and I keep mine set rearward, but newer models seem to lack this adjustment.
Agreed. the headrests in my 2009 Accord are so far forward as to be ergonomically dangerous. Am I supposed to stay awake because my chin is crammed into my sternum? I had to flip them backwards.
If there’s a current safety device that cannot be by-passed or ignored, it has to be the universally despised GM back-up lights that illuminate when the vehicle’s doors are opened via the remote. The issue is when the vehicle is unlocked while parked in a large parking lot, particularly when it’s in a spot near the entrance.
Imagine how many time that vehicles rolled by, looking for an empty spot, only to be startled by the back-up lights and stomping on the brake in fear of the vehicle backing out into their vehicle, only to find the vehicle empty as someone walks up to it, remote fob in hand.
Yes. Until I got used to seeing them, they also drove me nuts as a pedestrian walking by, because I kept thinking some inattentive driver had just shifted into reverse and was about to back into me.
I have noticed this as well.
Agree with this!
I am right there with you, buddy.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/curbside-curmudgeon-what-feature-on-modern-cars-bugs-you-the-most/
I experienced those idiotic lights this evening at a Von’s (Safeway) parking lot. A father was putting his son in a child seat with doors open and not seeing this until a few feet more, I slammed on the brakes initially thinking he was backing out.
My nomination? Daytime running lights. All vehicles in Canada back to 1990 are *supposed* to have them. Yet I routinely see Canadian-registered cars and trucks without them on! Whenever this happens, I mentally triage the possibilities: Either a) they’re burnt out, b) the vehicles are U.S. imports that somehow slipped by with a lackadaisical safety inspection, or c) they’ve been disabled altogether. Most of the time, I’m willing to bet on C.
What else? The door-mounted shoulder belts on US-spec Toyota Tercels and Volkswagen Golfs/Jettas of the early ’90s. (Canada was spared these.) I’ve almost never *not* seen them disconnected and defeated, at least on the passenger side. As long as the belt is there, there’s no way to put a grocery bag on the passenger seat.
Where I thought you might be going with that last bit was about one of my own safety equipment beefs. That is, the passenger seat weight sensor that sets off the car’s warning system if you have something in the front passenger seat that exceeds the system’s weight sensor limit.
I get that this is so that one doesn’t put a child seat (or a child) in the front seat unbuckled (DOH!!!!), but really??? For me, it mostly prevents me putting my backpack on the passenger seat, or a small bag of groceries there. So, I have to either move stuff to the floor (or elsewhere) OR fasten the seat belt on the unoccupied-by-animate-objects seat just so I don’t listen to the car going BONG BONG BONG my entire trip.\
I believe that early on, there were cars that had a front passenger seat airbag kill switch that was intended to deal with this…but apparently this was technology that drivers could not be trusted to use properly, and now there’s no such thing.
The most common reason for seeing a post-’90 vehicle in Canada without DRLs is that they have simply failed; the module and/or bulbs have failed. There are a few squirrels who go deliberately disconnecting them, but not a lot. Neither case gets detected, usually, because most provinces and territories don’t have meaningful periodic vehicle inspections.
Audi Q3 has Audi Non-Sense, which torques the wheel when you are out of lane. Also provided a warning and sound if it “senses” you are not in middle of lane.
Try driving I80 in orange barrel season, when 2 lanes become 1 and cross lanes back and forth for up to 10+ miles. Constant buzzing and wheel torquing.
Stupid non safety measure that you can’t completely turn off and to in order to turn off what you can, you need to do so each time you start the car. Arrgh
Your experience is exactly illustrative of what I was saying above in my response to David Saunders. I had a system like the Audi’s in a Nissan that I rented not long ago. Except in that vehicle, you could turn it off and it would stay off. But I will say it was quite disconcerting until I figured out what the car was trying to do/tell me.
Again, there needs to be standardization around these things…IMO.
I’ve sampled the Nissan system (dubbed ProPILOT) and I didn’t like how it forced the car to stay in the center of the lane.
However, I had a much more positive experience in a 2020 Hyundai Elantra rental. Hyundai’s system is much more unobtrusive; it simply helps to prevent the car from taking a curve too widely, almost as if a “third hand” has been applied to the steering wheel. There are no warning lights, beeps, or haptic (vibration) alerts, and you can easily override the “extra help” as desired.
When I had the Avalon, the ABS light came on and was on for years. In the snow/ice, I could feel the pedal pulse and it seemed that ABS still worked. So I ignored it. One winter in a severe cold spell, there was ice on the road and as the other cars and I applied our brakes, I felt the brakes pulsate and also felt the rear end locking up. It was an odd moment, having to pump the brakes while feeling ABS doing its thing to the front. I had never considered that situation. But I guess that’s why there was a light on in the dash. Duh.
Related to the lane departure alert/nudge is that when tracking perfectly straight for a specific period of time, you get a warning to ‘put hands on wheel’. The reason is when the steering wheel sensor doesn’t detect any movement, it’s programmed to think there are no hands on the steering wheel.
It’s like a punishment for having proper front end alighment and a nice, smooth, level road.
How would you like to drive that across the Nullarbor Plain?
Interestingly, if the ‘place hands on steering wheel’ warning is ignored (by not slightly moving the steering wheel, which seems counter to the intent of the feature in the first place), eventually, it will just turn off lane departure.
It’s as if the system is saying, “well, okay, if you don’t want to play, we’re just going to take our ball and go home”.
Shifter interlock. Every now and then I need a little garage space in front of or behind the car and in a perfect world I could just lean in and move the shifter from park to neutral, nut nooooo. I need to go inside, get my keys, get in the driver side, sit, put the ignition on run, put my foot on the brake, and only then may I move the gear selector to neutral.
Oh yeah and its one of those wonderfully reliable electromechanical items with brittle plastic features, so when it breaks you cannot move the shifter at all. I perminantly disabled that junk on every automatic car I own.
I have similar issues with TMPS. My Focus is currently giving me an error despite pressures being dead on which I’m pretty sure it means one of the dumb little sensor batteries is dead. I’m not taking the tires off the rim until it needs new tires so I have to be nagged about it every day until then. I’d disable it if I could, I can check my own air thankyouverymuch.
I, too, hated the automatic shifter brake interlock when introduced decades ago to the extent I’d go to the length of disassembling and removing the mechanical plunger from the floor shifter on my 1992 Tacoma so I could move from park without depressing the brake pedal. A series of manual transmission vehicles followed.
But, about a decade later, when I got another automatic-equipped (but column-shift) vehicle, I just gave up. Now, it’s second nature to depress the brake pedal before moving the selector out of park.
It is not a safety device but rather a safety label that irritates me. So I cover it.
The underside of sun visors now has a label warning about death or serious injury to a child if a deployed airbag blows its head off or whatever. At one time these labels were just stickers that could be peeled off. Now they seem to be chemically annealed to the black, gray or white surface that is used for the sun visor.
When I use the sun visor to block sun that label is obvious and right in my face. I don’t like it; don’t want to see it. Solution is a sticky backed felt (for cloth visor) or vinyl (for vinyl visor) – cut to size from a sheet in a package that can be found in the WalMart department with fabric/sewing items. Close enough in color, I no longer notice it (and the next guy who gets the car won’t either).
I drive in the west. It is always sunny. I always use the sun visor. I need it not to distract me.
I agree, nothing like putting distracting attention seeking yellow WARNING text right in front of your face with the visor down. This is the job of the salesman to tell the owner and the owner to occupants, it doesn’t need to be a constant reminder from now until the end of time
Tamiya XF-55 Deck Tan modeling acrylic is a near-perfect match for the color of the sunvisors of a gen 3 Honda Fit. No prizes for guessing how I know this.
Oh, here’s another one: the shift skip bypass on manual transmission Corvettes. This may be on other cars. I’ve never had a Corvette but have driven them. In the interest of fuel mileage the shift up from first goes to fourth, skipping 2 & 3.
This can be avoided by revving the engine to higher rpm in first or the shift skip can be removed or defeated somehow. Just a silly government inspired irritant.
Fourth generation, six-speed Camaros and Firebirds had skip-shift, too.
It was a PIA but, fortunately, it wasn’t too difficult to permanently defeat. Very quickly, the aftermarket offered a plug that went between the transmission and skip-shift controller.
GM got wise to it and they subsequently programmed the ECM to throw a code when it detected no skip-shift signal when the other parameters had been met for it to activate. Thankfully, the aftermarket responded to that little trick and added a resistor to the plug to fool the ECM into thinking skip-shift was still operational.
Ayup. Having driven a 4th gen Camaro with the CAGS still intact, I found myself fighting the thing much of the time. Initially, my reaction would be to try to redirect the shifter toward 2nd gear as it slithered toward 4th. This was just from muscle memory, and occasionally netted a “graunch” out of second gear, then a frustrated shift back to first. After awhile, I just got used to running it up higher in 1st to get past the shift blocker, though you could short-shift into 2nd as well.
Of course this isn’t a safety feature… just a method to net better city fuel economy on EPA test loops so as to avoid a “fuel-chugger” tax. In real world use, the forced 1-4 shift put the engine just a wee hair above lugging RPM, where it could grumble its way to a happier speed on level ground with a light load if you’re not in a hurry. If left to my own devices, I will often skip a gear on a six speed in normal driving- say 1-3-5-6 or 1-2-4-6, but two gears at a time is quite a jump. YMMV, I guess?
My 2014 Ram was the WORST vehicle I ever had the displeasure of driving in the winter. Standard cab, Long bed, 2WD with a posi rear end. Shouldn’t have been a winter problem but it was because of the infernal traction control and ABS system…. It literally got stuck on plowed roads with a slight grade because even with the Traction Control defeat button engaged it STILL would not let you burn out the tires for more than 2 seconds without killing all power…. Infuriating. After a month of winter ownership and having to get pulled out of my plowed driveway twice I finally called up the fuse diagram and pulled the fuse… What a difference! Absolutely great winter vehicle after that. No more abs induced overrunning of red lights, and I could gas it out of every snowdrift I encountered after that. The fuze went back in to shut the lights up on the dash 100k miles later when I sold the truck.
I haven’t turned it off, as I always forget about it, but the ‘attention assist’ / ‘take a break’ warning ‘bong’ is unpleasant. It seems to happen after driving for a couple of hours and it always makes me jump – it’s quite unhelpful and distracting, ironically.
Ugh. That’s a thing? What car?
It does remind me of the warning that my car provides when it’s (exactly) 37 degrees F outside. It’s a loud BONG!!!!! and never fails to alarm me and any passenger I might have. Like, I didn’t know that it was 37 degrees out?? 🙂
Grrr… I can’t stand that temperature alert feature! Our Kia Sedona beeps when outside temperature hits 39° – that’s not even close to freezing, and in any event, hearing a random warning beep when driving is pretty startling.
Like you wrote, I always know it’s wintertime. Might be cold out there…
It’s a Volkswagen, although I think the feature is fitted quite widely. It also bongs when it’s 39 degrees F to warn of ice. That makes me jump, too – usually first thing in the morning. And it really, really bongs if you open the door with the engine on and it’s not in park.
I wonder what the BMW engineers don’t know about ice (at 37 degrees) that the VAG engineers have figured out actually happens at 39 degrees. 🙂
The theory is that the roads will mostly be okay at 39 degrees, but that ice / slippery conditions could exist in shady spots. It’s also an early warning, which is sensible, I guess.
As a regular urban pedestrian, I notice too many drivers fail to use their turn signals. A risk, when others don’t know where you intend to go.
Not safety related, but I turn off the start-stop switch in each of my recent rentals. Don’t like the idea of the engine turning off if I sit at a stop light. I’ll jiggle the steering wheel or press the button to keep the engine running, especially in hot humid Florida.
Auto start-stop is one of the best features of my Transit. While I turn off lane departure warnings/assist, have turned off as many audible warnings as possible and wish I could turn off more without Forescan SW, I love seeing the tach drop to zero at stops, and the economy readout go to 0 gals/hour. If I want the engine to keep idling, for AC or to reduce any delay if I need to make a quick sprint across an intersection, I just ease up on the brake pedal a tiny bit. Engine starts but the van doesn’t creep forward. Works flawlessly.
You’re lucky if you can turn it off — in most GM vehicles in North America, you can’t. Owners of the Euro-made Buick Regal TourX have several blank buttons on the console reminding us that we can’t have nice things that Euro and Aussie buyers have, and one of them is start-stop disable. Aftermarket modules exist that can be wired in to disable stop-start, but they don’t let you toggle it on or off as you wish.
My US made Ford Transit does have an on-off switch but at least on mine, observing how the start/stop works a few times, one can almost always prevent it from activating with careful brake pressure application. It’s just not a big deal. But it’s one of the biggest gripes, usually from prospective owners not actual owners, on the online Ford forums.
Wow ~ so many nannies .
I had no idea .
To me the single most dangerous is the DRL’s, simple common sense fix : dash lights only come on with headlights .
Also a DUH .
I well remember those 1974 starter interlocks, they used ‘logic modules’ that apparently crapped out and no Customers wanted to $pend a dime replacing that .
-Nate
The Chrysler film I linked to has a charming description of what an “integrated circuit” is and the role it plays within the logic module. Plus an excellent demonstration of the special Chrysler logic model testing unit (as demonstrated by the dark-haired model).
Crazy that Chrysler had to produce special test equipment for that one year…that was obsolete/unnecessary after just 12 months.
You are absolutely right that the US + Canadian DRL regs were badly fumbled on that basic and simple point of failing to adequately prompt the driver to turn on their nighttime lights after dark. Other commenters are also right that just controlling the lights automatically in response to ambient light levels is the right way to do it.
I would also be in favor of a requirement that the headlights go on automatically if the wipers are turned on (not for flick wipe, which would be obnoxious and unnecessary, but if the wipers are switched to intermittent or higher speed). A lot of people don’t think to put their lights on if it’s raining during the day (or if there’s heavy fog/mist that you need the intermittent wiper sweep to brush off), although it can be almost as hard to see an oncoming car in those conditions as it is at night, particularly given the predilection for white/gray/silver/beige colors.
Completely correct. Full-lights-on-with-wipers laws have been well demonstrated to reduce crashes, even though some drivers don’t comply.
The interlock also could be defeated very simply by removing the sensor under the seat cushion. The ones on my 74 Dodge are still connected, just not in place to receive any pressure; but I ALWAYS wear my seatbelts due to having survived a crash that would have certainly ejected me except for the belt! 🙂
Just so ~
Most imports I touched simply had a wire leading from inside the seat’s padding to a connector, unplug it Et VIOLA ! .
-Nate
Yet another point in the favor of old-school analog electronics.
In my car, the issue is that a wire IS cut (or broken and therefore intermittent)…and it triggers the computer to issue a warning that just won’t stop.
Australia can rightly take great pride in the fact, that it was the first country in the world to mandate by law, that occupants of motor vehicle must wear seat (safety) belts.
It was over 50 years ago in 1969 that Australia introduced laws that were strictly enforced, requiring that safety belts to be worn at all times. With this background, imagine my shock when I first visited the USA and found many people not wearing seat belts. I even recall seeing police not wearing seat belts. Mind you I think eventually the USA followed the rest of the world even if they still refuse to adopt metric measure.
Certainly, the humble seat belt remains the single most important safety feature and only a fool would refuse to wear one if it was available. Even school buses in Australia have seat belts and so they should.
I’m American and can remember when some drivers would *get offended* if I (as a passenger) fastened my seat belt. They took it as meaning I didn’t trust their driving skill.
In my book the 4 way hazard flashers are the most ignored.
How many times have you seen a vehicle on the side of the road without the flashers on?
Or somebody is driving way below the minimum speed limit on the highway due to a flat tire, etc.?
Way too many.
The other night after dark there was a car with no lights on. I caught up with her at a stop light and told her to turn on her lights (I’ve been guilty of driving a short distance before realizing my lights weren’t on). She said they were broken. I told her to turn on her 4 ways. She replied “oh yeah, thanks”.
Another good one and an excellent point. I can’t recall the last time I saw a car disabled on the side of the road that had its flashers on…and I see a lot of disabled cars.
OK, I’m mounting up my steed, readying my lance getting ready to tilt at windmills here. I’ll probably break it into 3 different posts so as not to induce reading fatigue which might result in nodding off and become a safety hazard.
Seat belts. I’ve always worn them, I wore them before I drove and have even put them in cars that didn’t come with them. Yes, they didn’t always. I put a combined ~235K miles on cars around ’70 that came with manual adjustment seat belts, but one latch for lap and shoulder. I won’t say I adjusted the shoulder tight, I had a couple or three inches of forward movement available, but not a bunch, I was going to stop before I hit the steering wheel let alone windshield. Biggest problem with them was training myself to put them up on the holder when I took them off so they didn’t hang out the door or whatever. That must have take 2 or 3 days. After that it was autopilot, put it on, take it off and hang it up. Easy peasy.
But, I’m still against legally required belting, let alone the nanny buzzers and lights. Those are typically disconnected on my cars, along with the ignition buzzer, which I’ve been known to disconnect before I even got a project car running.
I respectfully disagree on your last point against mandatory belt usage.
Car crashes worldwide are a leading cause of death, injury, and needless suffering. Nearly 60 years of experience have shown us that mandatory belt usage laws are the only way to significantly increase belt use. Encouragement, education, and exhortation simply don’t work to get the majority of people to wear belts.
As Carl Kelsen pointed out above, credit Australia with having the first mandatory belt usage law way back in 1969.
Alright, then, how about this: no law requiring belt use, but if you’re in a crash and you’re unbelted, your auto and medical insurances don’t cover anything caused or aggravated by your failure to wear a belt—so I guess you’d best be wealthy. Oops, that won’t work, though, because you can’t squeeze money from someone who hasn’t any.
Perhaps your objection to legally-required belt usage is similar to the usual and customary argument: In a free country, I’m the only one who gets to make decisions that affect only me. Here’s the thing, though: after an initial collision or other sudden event, belted drivers mostly remain conscious and in position to control the car so as to prevent or mitigate subsequent collisions. Unbelted ones mostly don’t. That’s how a driver’s belt non-use endangers everyone around them (not to mention anyone else in that driver’s car), and that’s why it’s just as appropriate to require belt use as it is to set and enforce health standards at restaurants and fire standards in buildings. This isn’t a matter of individual liberteee, it’s a matter of public health and safety.
It’s more the concept of the less a government governs, the better. And yes I know the whole social contract thing, and understand and agree with it. Some I swear would claim their rights were being infringed upon by having to stop at a red light, I’m clearly not in that mindset. Again, as a society, much regulation is needed for the good of all. But it can be overdone also.
And I was in a situation years ago where having just a lap belt on likely prevented a severe accident. I was towing a trailer with a VW Bus, ’62, swing axle, when the trailer hitch came off the ball. Still attached by the safety chain. The jerking caused me to go from the slow lane to the median in nothing flat, but I stayed in the seat and kept it on it’s wheels. I even had tire marks from the trailer on the corner of the bus where it had spun around. Without a belt who knows what would have happened.
And do note of course, I personally always wear seat belts and always have.
Part 2.
The euphemistic named “Daytime Running Lights” which is different than using running lights during the day. Hmmm. What’s wrong here. Why aren’t there nighttime running lights?
In practice. I can write until I’m frothing at the mouth about the auto daytime high beams, albeit at somewhat reduced voltage that masquerade as a safety device. Of course the half wits driving them don’t car if they’re obnoxious to oncoming traffic, as long as they don’t bother the person driving they don’t care. But by focus they’re meant to be irritating, high beams are focused high, in oncoming traffic’s eyes. Of course the real beauty of all this is here in the US it was GM that pioneered it, at a time when they were putting astoundingly poor brakes on some of their vehicles, at least partly in the name of ABS.
I had a work supplied GM pickup truck for a time that would for the most part disengage the brakes, high solid pedal though, when it sensed any wheel, perhaps rear wheel, slippage. I nearly ran over a motorcyclist one time when he stopped short for a yellow, then red light and I’m trying to push the pedal thru the floor not to hit him with the 3/4 ton pickup and trailer I was pulling. I missed him, but not by much. But… in the name of safety they were putting daytime high beams on many of their vehicles then. Cheaper than brakes I suppose.
In the northern climes, studies indicate they may be of some value, like Norway, Finland, you know, latitude up in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Not like BC etc.
Safety marketing. Not safety, but marketing.
The problem with GM’s daytime running lights was not the concept, but the implementation. Using the high-beam headlights at reduced intensity was not the ideal solution. Particularly egregious were the DRLs on the early Saturns — way too bright and too close together.
Today, most manufacturers use separate, dedicated DRLs that are illuminated by LEDs — a much better solution and not glaring in the least.
Mike, you’re missing the mark on most of this. You’re incorrect about the research findings; about there being a thing such as “running lights”—that term isn’t used in the specification or regulation of vehicle lights, so whatever you might have in mind is exactly that: what you have in mind. You’re not right about “daytime running light” being a euphemism; about their being a marketing ploy; about there not being nighttime conspicuity lights. Your incident with the pickup truck sounds alarming, but had zero to do with daytime running lights.
You’re right, though, that high-beam DRLs are a cheap and nasty way to do it and should never have been allowed. As 210delray correctly states, most objections to DRLs are (whether or not their exponents realise or acknowledge it) objections to poor implementations, not to the concept. Some of those objections are worthy; others are contrived nonsense. Conceptually, DRLs work. There is a tall mountain of rigourous evidence demonstrating they reduce the frequency and severity of several types of crashes—no matter the lattitude.
Part 3.
Car manufacturers/knuckle draggers who like to sound the horn when locking/unlocking their vehicle. Never when they’re standing right in front of it, but perhaps when I’m 2 feet in front of it, nice and close to the horn. And apparently they know their market, even within a given manufacturer, they’ll sound the horn on something cheap, like a Chevy car or a pickup truck, but not on a Cadillac. MB and BMW? They might put some audible in, still poor form, but not the friggin’ horn.
True story. I’ve got a BIL, good guy, really he is, I think well of him. But high school dropout, then military, now driving a big rig for a living, he’s not the proverbial rocket scientist. I called him on it when he was visiting and he said he liked it, he knew it was locking. Too lazy to turn a key, push a button or even look at parking lights flashing? I know, 5 year olds love it, push a button and honk the horn. Cool! But I’m not a; 5 year old anymore. And in ideal situations, see motel rooms. Get out early and honk your horn at 5AM right in front of someone elses room because you’re too f’ing lazy to put the key in the door. Class act.
This is going back a ways, but I remember when 2 door cars got latches for the seat backs. My old car-mentor Howard disabled those on his cars, and I may have done the same thing on my 71 Scamp so that the seat backs would move forward without having to push a button or flip a lever.
I hated the interlock on Mom’s 74 LeMans, and also hated the seat belt buzzer on her 72 Cutlass. I knew lots of people who fastened the lap belt across an empty seat and then pretended that there were no seat belts at all – it stopped the buzzer. As a kid I was often allowed to pull the car into or out of the garage, and would have to do so by standing on the floor with my butt off the seat to avoid buckling up for that 20-foot trip.
Fun fact about the seat belt interlock system. It wasn’t a government idea, but rather a Ford **better** idea!
In 1971, Henry Ford II and Lee Iacocca met with President Nixon to plead for a delay in mandatory front seat airbags, then slated for introduction in the 1974 model year. The Ford executives proposed forcing more people to buckle up by mandating interlocks instead and delaying the requirement for airbag installation until at least 1976.
Nixon agreed, and we got the interlocks. This discussion is one of many thousands on the infamous Nixon tapes.
That’s a great piece of history that I had no knowledge of. Thanks!
It does seem that Nixon was a sucker for things argued for at personal meetings. (or maybe we just know that because of the tapes) Good thing that Elvis didn’t also propose the interlock devices…we’d still have them 🙂
Most of the nanny stuff on my honda is easily ignored. I will not put the car in gear without having my seat belt on. In my younger stupider days I didn’t like wearing seat belts. A serious head on collision with my head punching out the windshield and knees destroying the glove box cured that stupidity for good.
The naggy navigation system shold be an option that could be disabled, why honda, why?
My 1970 Volvo 142 had 3 point belts and I recall standing out in traffic wearing them. Was quite young at the time, always wore them though. Sometimes other drivers would give me strange looks. These did not have a roll up device and needed to be manually adjusted to the size of the person wearing the belt.
I must admit I was little envious when I saw the way the seat belts were clipped up above the window on US hardtop Chryslers, Australia was having none of that, you can see the belts hanging down on my 1969 Valiant Hardtop which do interfere with the openness of hardtop styling, but seat belts are the most natural thing in the world to buckle up when in a car in Oz and rightly so. and for a while now forklifts too.
Maybe this is a little afield of the intent of the question, but those BABY ON BOARD placards come to mind. For many years I had a scornful reaction to them, mentally filing them alongside the selfish, thoughtless behaviour one sees among those acting as though the giant stroller they’re pushing entitles them and their spawn to obeisance from cars; trucks; trains, and other pedestrians: Oh, whew, I’m so glad you told me; here I was planning to ram your car, but since you’ve got a baby with you I’ll hold off. Shortly ago, though, a legitimate reason for their existence occurred to me (dammit): in a bad crash, it might be helpful for first responders to know to look for an infant.
But I still scorn the variant that says BABY ON ROUTE. That’s not how en route is spelt, and if there’s really a baby on route, somebody oughtta go scoop it up and get it to safety before it gets hit by the cars and trucks using the route.
Speaking of variants, here’s one that has cropped up lately in my part of the world. I mean seriously, I’ve seen a dozen of these in the past couple of weeks.
I’ve always hated these stickers but the new variant just mystifies me.
At least in Australia, originally ´baby on board’ stickers were intended to be displayed, ONLY when a baby or babies were actually travelling in the vehicle.
They were displayed to inform rescuers in the event of an accident, they needed look for a baby who maybe under a seat etc. The advice was to remove them when a baby was not one of the passengers.
However, they now come in all forms and for the most part are displayed by proud parents or grandparents who want the world to know that they have children or grandchildren. Accordingly, this practice means they can no longer to be taken notice of as most times, no children will be present.
Right, then; I’m going back to scorning them. Oh, baby-on-board, eh? I will not defer to you because of it.
Since more and more safety features are being installed in today’s cars, eventually a car will become un-drivable due to all of these gadgets that have been installed to further complicate our lives.