I'm not going to endlessly go back and forth, but where do we draw the line? The guy with unchecked/un-cared-about diabetes who just got a Coke out of the vending machine is gonna cost us all, too. So is the obese guy that eats steak and pizza 5 times a week. But I personally don't think that way.

While I can appreciate your passion for safety, I sense a little tension in these last posts and I don't get why. I can name several legit reasons to not wear a seatbelt.

-I myself am a candidate. It hurts to reach around and grab it after having 4 spine surgeries.
-Claustrophobia is real, doctors write notes to patients to give to police. I have a friend who has one lol
-Massively obese people can't even use them sometimes
-People with even worse back conditions

-People just don't want to. That's their choice. And it's a dumb one, I agree.

IDK why they don't deserve to drive according to you, but ok.

 

Besides previous mandates, the auto start/stop thing usually yielded a 1-2 mpg gain for most cars that have it. I would think that was the main drive in keeping it. Manufacturers have always been struggling to raise mpg's and that was one way.

 

I don't see how seat belts cause claustrophobia.....they don't affect interior room or outward visibility any except in extreme circumstances. For really obese people, automakers offer seatbelt-extenders...they can be ordered through dealer parts-departments and/or, in some cases, the aftermarket. Airlines have had them for years. The ones shown below, for example, are for a Tesla Model Y.



Also, it's important to make sure the belts are on properly......down around the hips instead of riding high on the stomach, where they can cause internal-organ injuries. .

 

The difference is the person who got the coke out of the vending machine has a right to eat what he wants. We don't have the right to be able to drive a car, its a privilege that is extended to people as long as they agree to consent to specific guidelines, and one of those guidelines is that they have to wear a seatbelt.

We do the best we can do.

What about turning around to check your blind spot before you merge? I would imagine that must also hurt. Thats my point, if the pain of reaching around to get a seatbelt is so great you can't do that, you likely can't turn and look the way that you need to be able to in order to drive safely.

The liability for a doctor to issue such an exemption is huge, and I doubt they would really hold up.

They make extensions.

But should those people really be driving?

Not saying they don't "deserve to drive", but if they are so medically compromised they can't wear a seat belt, should they be driving? In reality this stuff is just used as excuses for people who don't want to follow the law.

 

It depends on how much stop/go driving one does. Yes, it can add a small gain in MPG in city-driving where the engine starts and stops vey often, but, at the same time, placing added wear on the starter and battery....and you should see what some of today's gel-batteries cost, even for ICE vehicles.

 

Turning around to check a blind spot I just look back. Reaching for the seat-belt is different. And it's not a big deal, I could make a deal out of it but it's fine. I just don't agree with you that someone doesn't have a right to not wear a seatbelt. And I'm on your side here, I wear seatbelts and agree it's stupid not to wear them. It's just, like I said where do we draw the line. But if I'm having a painful day and don't feel like reaching for it, it's absurd for someone to give me any flack for it.

So what's worse? Someone not wearing a seatbelt or someone speeding?

That diabetic guy with the coke---I could say he doesn't have a right to drink that because of the argument you yourself mentioned, his health care costs are going to be very high eventually. But I don't think that way, like I said.

I promise you doctors will write notes for people who have severe claustrophobia, they'll just have to sign a liability waiver. It's not some huge thing or anything but it happens.

 

You don’t have the right to break the law, and wearing a seat belt is the law. Don’t have a right to speed either.

It all comes back to we don’t have the right to drive a car at all. That’s why a police officer can breathalyze you for instance even if they have no probable cause, you agree to cooperate in those circumstances in exchange for being granted the privilege to drive.

The diabetic guy isn’t breaking the law by buying a coke. The right for him to eat what he wants is upheld in all sort of legal precedent stemming from enumerated rights in the constitution. There is no enumerated right to drive a car. It’s been held up over and over that the privilege of driving is at the discretion of the governing body.

 

You were the one talking about bad habits costing us all more money, not me. Was just giving an example.

Your opinion duly noted. You break the law every time you speed so what's the difference?

You give the government wayyyyy too much power, but more power to ya. I'm not here to tell nor judge anyone how to think.

I really don't care nor want to keep going OT.

The good news is we are hopefully on our way to stop/start being axed, hence the thread title.

 

I absolutely do, but I don’t complain about it being illegal. If I get a ticket I get a ticket. I didn’t give the government any of this power, it’s the power they have.

 

To be clear, though, I see nothing about it being axed. I don't think the thread title is accurate. What's changing is the carbon credits offered for start/stop are being eliminated. It's not like they're prohibiting start/stop. I think the manufacturers are still going to use it as a tool to help them meet mileage standards and customer preferences. I don't like the tech, but it doesn't look to me like it's going anywhere any time soon.

 

....fair enough!!

I don't care if it's legal or not. I just know it's gonna save my life or help save it in a bad wreck.

 

That’s the other thing, it’s just common sense. I want to stay alive and un-crippled!

 

Oh I agree. It's just, lol.... I move a little slower and don't get it on right away lol. Usually when I get to the stop at the front of my neighborhood which is close lol.

 

To clarify, it doesn't help meet mileage standards on the instrumented tests, because the design of the test doesn't include situations that would trigger it. It does somewhat improve real-world mileage, but in a way that doesn't show up on EPA testing. Hence the "off-cycle credit" label.

 

Thanks. You are correct.