Talk:Seat belt

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Baileehall.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Six Point v. Five Point Belts

I believe the article is incorrect in the discussion of 6pt v. 5pt belts. It doesn't really have anything to do with the anti-submarine straps being redundant.

5pt. belts have a single anti-sub strap that is anchored to a point forward of the occupant. The intention is to keep the lap belt down, so the occupant won't submarine under the belts, but also to not crush the pubic area.

6pt. belts accomplish the same thing by having two belts that are anchored behind the occupant, rather than in front. Again, the goal is to prevent submarining while not crushing the pubic area.

People argue about which design is better, and many pilots use the 5pt. system while many car racers use the six point system. In some cases the choice of the belts can be based on whether there is an anchor or anchors available in the correct locations for that type of system. In other cases, factors such as the angle of the seat and the expected direction of the crash loads can come in to play.

But I've never before seen this argued on the basis of the six points being more redundant than the five points. --97.113.81.35 (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pilots don't get to chose their restraint, it's dictated by the govt or airframer. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup of history, 6/9 2009

Cleaned up history section, and fixed references. There was dubious sourcing previously and the identical wikipedia wording (which - again - was inadequately sourced) was also present on a number of other websites. Alarming case of some unsourced, DIY author text with \{{Original research}}\ going viral on the internet.... Current section should be lean AND properly sourced. DO NOT REVERT, unless proper sourcing!! --RandySpears (talk) 00:16, 7 Sep 2009 (UTC)

Under Doctor's Orders

I have included a particular personality who had a hand in advancing seat belt, and other automotive, safety features. He is Dr. C. Hunter Shelden, neurosurgeon and one of the founders of the Huntington Medical Research Institute of Pasadena, Ca. (a Huntington Hospital affiliate) I had the privilege of knowing Dr, Shelden before his passing in 2003. I had worked with my wife as a volunteer fund raiser for HMRI and have been honored with becoming the fourth recipient of the award created in his memory for outstanding volunteers.--Magi Media (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested addition

Could someone please explain why seatbelts in cars and seatbelts in airplanes are so different. One would have guessed that they'd have converged by now, but there must be a good reason they haven't. I just have no idea what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oconnor663 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to search (computer) text and find no hint of what MATERIAL the belts are made of. I recall Clyde Soles (rockclimber/author ; _The Outdoor Knots Book_) saying that they were polyester, which has generally better UV resistance than nylon, which has better force absorption. Thinking of belts long exposed to sunlight in cars, this seems a worthwhile aspect to disclose/discuss.

again re: material of seat belts: It is the construction of the seat belt material that is special and causes the force of the impact to be spread out over time by stretching, thus reducing the stress inflicted on the human body from sudden deceleration. Likewise, this stretching only happens once and is not reversible. Thus, if you are in an accident of >10 MPH [unsure of exact MPH] it is necessary to replace the seatbelts in the car that were in use so that they will function properly in the next accident.

Some research should also be done to credit the inventor of the seat belt material (or rather the specific design of the interwoven synthetic fibers) which gives the material it's special strechiness.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeWantPhil (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"...their passage did not reduce road fatalities" What?

Under Legislation we have "The effects of seat belt laws are disputed by those who observe that their passage did not reduce road fatalities."

I have no idea what that means. It's the first sentence in the section, but seems out of context, and possibly quite POV (If I am reading it at all correctly). The single source for the whole paragraph is a print document, so I can't look it up easily. Can anyone please explain or improve it? HiLo48 (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

- It can be verified quite easily by simply looking at the fatality statistics, at least here in the U.K. When use of front belts became mandatory in January 1983, it was claimed that it would drastically reduce fatalitites. Almost three decades on, it is claimed today that mandatory belt use HAS drastically reduced fatalitites. The fact is that no such reduction which could be attributed to belts ever occurred. I do not have the exact figures to hand at the moment, but there was simply no statistically significant drop in fatalities in 1983 compared to 1982. The very small drop in fatalities which did occur between those two years on further analysis can be seen to have taken place only in the late night/small hours period, which is hardly surprising given that the introduction of the belt law coincided with a crackdown on drunken driving. The government claims over the last 30 years that mandating the use of belts has saved lives is simply totally false. 87.115.88.67 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the state of Victoria, Australia, the first place in the world to make seat belt wearing compulsory. It's simply taken as gospel here that seat belts did save lives. I must check the official history to see what evidence lies behind the claim. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Righto. Our article Seat belt legislation says they work. For example, it tells us "Studies of accident outcomes suggest that fatality rates among car occupants are reduced by between 30 and 50 per cent if seat belts are worn." HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The passage of seat belt laws does not in itself save lives, the wearing of the belts saves lives. I wouldn't expect that much change in the early years due to compliance issues (i.e., people simply refusing to wear them). Law enforcement helps but does not catch everyone. I know people even today that don't where them. Statistics are not necessarily the best indicator of effecacy. In the aviation world, where compliance is mandatory and enforced 100%, lives have been saved. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem today is that so many people have blindly accepted the "seat belts save lives" mantra that has been fed to them by various governments over the years that they seem quite incapable of accepting that it could not be true. The study in Victoria which came to the conclusion that belts were beneficial overall was later demonstrated to be flawed and unreliable. Yet so many later reports about the supposed efficacy of belts were bsaed upon that study without any real independent investigation.

Here in the U.K., the government did commission independent research after the introduction of the 1983 law making use of front belts mandatory, which was initially legislated for a trial period of 3 years. The government's own claims about belt usage are that it rose to over 90% in 1983, from a previous level which has been quoted variously at "less than 20%" to "less than 40%." Those figures cover a broad range and have to be questioned, but either way, according to the government's own figures that represents a huge increase in usage. If belts were so effective at saving lives, it would be reasonable to expect to see a significant drop in fatalities. Yet it didn't happen. The research commissioned by the government came to the same conclusion: That making the use of belts compulsory and the huge increase in their usage had no significant effect on reducing fatalties. But that was clearly not what the government wanted to hear, the report was suppressed, and the trial law made permanent in 1986 anyway. The Isles Report, as it was called, was then never mentioned again to the public by the government, and today it's quite hard to find even online references to it. And yes, for the record I am one of those who never uses a seat belt and refuses to be bullied into doing so. Certainly belts may have saved some lives, but equally there are numerous cases in which they have maimed and killed. Comparisons with aircraft are really irrelevant, by the way, since we're talking about different circumstances and aircraft belts are intended to protect against rather different effects. 84.93.165.235 (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Inventor of the seat belt

The History section suggested that the seat belt was invented by "Dorthy Richardson's Husben" until I cleaned it up. Ignoring the fact that husband is misspelled, incorrectly capitalized, and one would never create a Wikipedia article named "So-and-so's Husband/Wife/Child/Nephew", I cannot find any mention of a "Dorthy Richardson" in relation to the invention of the seat belt anywhere. I assume the author meant "Dorothy Richardson", but there's no evidence that her husband (if she had one) had anything to do with the invention of the seat belt. If no one can back up this dubious claim in a couple of months, then it ought to be deleted.--Subversive Sound (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Seat belts were apparently developed by George Cayley. --Fergie4000 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. No idea what the Dorothy Richardson line was supposed to mean.Rettens2 (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Was Vattenfall involved in its creation? On the wikipage on Vattenfall there seams to be some other info regarding the invention of the 3 point seatbelt atleast that seams somewhat contrary to what is written now? should that be added to this and how?OccasionallyConscious (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The reference cited for George Cayley ″inventing″ the seatbelt doesn′t support that claim. Says he used a harness on his glider. Pretty slim thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.46.229.2 (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

References

"Risk compensation" and "Increased traffic" are not "Legislation"

208.127.128.252 (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Seatbeltless drivers are in Audis

There's an interesting line in the section on seatbelt reminder chimes that says 8/10 drivers in vehicles with "seatbelt reminders" that don't wear their belts are driving Audi vehicles.

I don't know how to interpret this (because the cited journal article is in German). This seems highly dubious at worst and fairly off topic at best. Someone fluent in German should take a look at the cite and establish the quality of the study's methodology; I'm seriously skeptical that 8/10 modern non-Seatbelt wearers drive Audi. It doesn't sound right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.173.249 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dubious indeed. The assertion was "supported" by a ref to a Swedish car enthusiast-and-news site, but the specific link provided is no good; clicking it pulls up the front page of the news/enthusiast site. Extensive searching turns up no trace of any such an article on the site, nor does Google searching turn up any sign of the alleged study. Looks bogus; I've removed the assertion (and a couple of other dubious and unsupported ones that look like someone's ignorant hallucination). If this mysterious study ever actually shows up, perhaps it can be incorporated as a ref to support a valid statement. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#Belt-in-Seat_.28BIS.29 the words "i love you" clearly dont belong here, maybe someone who knows what they are doing can fix it. 109.192.115.151 (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. A bot had caught the vandalism, but the article wasn't displaying properly. I think I fixed it now. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

who was 1st? volvo or saab?

there appears to be contradictory information in the article stating that volvo was the 1st company to fit seatbelts to a pv 544 but then elsewhere it is stated that saab was 1st with the gt 750. is there something i´m missing or is one of them wrong? --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing information on injuries caused by seat belts during crash

This article is largely lacking in information about the injuries commonly caused by seat belts during crash situations. The section on children and seat belts mentions the injuries commonly caused by children wearing adult belts in crashes, but other than that, there's no mention of the topic. http://radiographics.rsna.org/content/11/1/23.full.pdf and http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/533761_3 are two sources that could be used as a jumping-off point. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Effectiveness?

The article is also missing a section on seatbelt effectiveness. There must have been research done over the years showing how effective, or otherwise they are. LatchWits (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Insurance industry advocacy

I think that at least some elements of the insurance industry in the past have advocated seat belts, then shoulder belts, and then airbags to reduce injuries and death, and consequent loss payouts. Does anybody have reliable information regarding this? Reify-tech (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Seat belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150503212254/http://www.volvocars.com/intl/corporation/Safety/Pages/SafetyFirst.aspx to http://www.volvocars.com/intl/corporation/Safety/Pages/SafetyFirst.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Seat belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.autoliv.com/alv/connect/Home/What+We+Do/New+Products/Night+Vision+System/3plus2+Point+Seatbelt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography

1. Hardy, Warren N. et al. “A Study of the Response of the Human Cadaver Head to Impact.” Stapp car crash journal 51 (2007): 17–80. Print. Since I plan to address the use of cadavers in car safety measures and safety ratings, this article will be helpful in providing an example of how cadavers are used in crash tests and how the information they provide is used in the engineering of vehicles and vehicle safety apparatuses. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2474809/

2. Hyde, J. (2010, August 26). How a cadaver made your car safer. Retrieved February 21, 2016 from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38868527/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/how-cadaver-made-your-car-safer/#.VspmQzYrKu4. This article from the NBC news offers a brief overview of an interesting point related to this topic; does the auto industry try to hide its use of cadavers? I am interested in looking into this aspect of my project more in order to better edit the article.

3. Bhat, G., Beck, L., Bergen, G., Kresnow, A. (2015). Predictors of rear seat belt use among U.S. adults, 2012. Journal of Safety Research, 53, 103-106. Retrieved February 21, 2016. As cadavers and dummies are used to test car safety and impact results, it is important to know who is involved in crashes and what can be done to improve the safety of this cohort of individuals. This article has a unique perspective covering rear seat belt use, rather than front seat belt use.

4. Crandall, C., Olson, L. & Sklar, D. (2001). Mortality Reduction with Air Bag and Seat Belt Use in Head-on Passenger Car Collisions. American Journal of Epidemiology. 153(3), 2019-2224. Retrieved February 21, 2016. This article breaks down a research study conducted over 5 years compiling data related to car crash fatalities and seat belt use. This is important information that could be useful to the Wikipedia article on seat belts to show prove that they indeed reduce risk of death in car accidents.

5. Ash, J. Abdelilah, Y., Crandall, J., & Parent, D. (n.d.). Comparison of Anthropomorphic Test Dummies with a Pediatric Cadaver Restrainted by a Three-Point Belt in Frontal Sled Tests. Retrieved February 21, 2016. I thought this article would benefit the Wikipedia page since there is little information on children. It also compares the results from a test dummy with a cadaver. Baileehall (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Article Lead Section

A seat belt, also known as a safety belt, is a vehicle safety device designed to secure the occupant of a vehicle against harmful movement that may result during a vehicle collision or a sudden stop. A seat belt functions to reduce the likelihood of death or serious injury in a traffic collision by reducing the force of secondary impacts with interior strike hazards, by keeping occupants positioned correctly for maximum effectiveness of the airbag (if equipped) and by preventing occupants from being ejected from the vehicle in a crash or if the vehicle rolls over. A seatbelt applies an opposite force to the driver and passengers to prevent them from falling out or making contact with the interior of the car. Seatbelts are considered Primary Restraint Systems (PRS), as they play a vital role in occupant safety. Vehicle seat belts are the three-point style belts, but other seat belt types, such as four, five, and six-point seat belts, can be found as safety apparatuses in other motor devices. These devices include airplanes, roller coasters, and recreational vehicles, for example, go karts. Seat belt effectiveness in forms of mass transit, such as buses and trains, is recently being investigated and introduced to legislation. Seat belts originated in 1885 by English engineer George Cayley and evolved several times, until 1955 when the first modern three-point seat belt, the same belt used in modern consumer vehicles, was patented by Americans Roger W. Griswold and Hugh DeHaven. The first seat belt law was enacted in 1970 in the state of Victoria, Australia after a study. Seat belt laws in the United States can be divided into two categories: primary and secondary. In the United States, fifteen states enforce secondary laws, while 34 states, as well as the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, enforce primary seat belt laws. New Hampshire lacks both a primary and secondary seat belt law. One study of injuries presented to the ER pre- and post- seat belt law introduction found that 40% more escaped injury and 35% more escaped mild and moderate injuries. Most modern cars include a seat-belt reminder light and chime for the driver, and some also include a reminder for the passenger, when present, activated by a pressure sensor under the passenger seat. Seat belt effectiveness continues to be tested, debated and improved using crash test dummies and cadavers in research labs. Baileehall (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of the article is very well written, and supported with relevant and useful facts, I was actually surprised with how much information I actually found myself learning about seat belts. The first paragraph of your article first draft seemed to me like it could use a little rewording, it was not poorly written by any means, but there were two sentences or so that I had to read twice. I thought it was cool to see wayne state get a mention, it obviously would have been cooler if it was MSU, but to see a school I grew up around and had buddies attend get a shout out was interesting. Just as a way to clean up the article a bit, would argue that either the efficiency section of the article should be removed because it is simply repeating information already in other places of the article (multiple times), or that it should be greatly expanded upon to make it relevant. Reading this article has made me realize I could use more straight up facts in my article. Because my topic is a social science topic, it seems like cold hard facts are a rarity in social sciences, and everything is open to interpretation, making for a less factual, more discussion like article. Jacobhutchinson95 (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed to be added under the sections “Homologation and Testing” or “Efficiency”:

Starting in 1971 and ending in 1972, the United States conducted a research project on seat belt effectiveness on a total of 40,000 vehicle occupants using car accident reports collected during that time. Of these 40,000 occupants, 18% were reported wearing lap belts, or two-point safety belts, 2% were reported wearing a three-point safety belt, and the remaining 80% was reported as wearing no safety belt. The results concluded that users of the two-point lap belt had a 73% lower fatality rate, a 53% lower serious injury rate, and a 38% lower injury rate, when compared with the occupants that were reported unrestrained. Similarly, users of the three-point safety belt had a 60% lower serious injury rate and a 41% lower rate of all other injuries. Out of the 2% reported wearing a three-point safety belt, no fatalities were reported (Road Safety Observatory, 2012).

This study and others led to the Restraint Systems Evaluation Program (RSEP), started by the National Highway Transport Safety Authority in 1975 to increase the reliability and authenticity of past studies. A study as part of this program, used data taken from 15,000 tow-away accidents that involved only car models made between 1973 and 1975. The study found that for injuries considered “moderate” or worse, individuals wearing a three-point safety belt had a 56.5% lower injury rate than those wearing no safety belt. The study also concluded that the effectiveness of the safety belt did not differ with size of car (Road Safety Observatory, 2012). It was determined that the variation between results of the many studies conducted in the 1960’s and 70’s, was due to the use of different methodologies, and could not be attributed to any variation in the effectiveness of safety belts. (Robertson, 1976)

Helping to improve safety apparatuses in vehicles, injury testing and seat belt effectiveness are being tested today by Wayne State University’s Automotive Safety Research Group, as well as other researchers (Automotive Safety Research Group, 2016). Wayne State’s Bioengineering Center uses human cadavers in their crash test research. Albert King, the Center’s director, wrote in his 1995 article titled "Humanitarian Benefits of Cadaver Research on Injury Prevention” that that use of cadavers in this type of research has saved and will continue to save, nearly 8,500 lives each year, since 1987, due to the vehicle safety improvements made possible by human cadavers. He also indicates that the improvements made to three-point safety belts an average of 61 lives are saved per year (Roach, 2003).

The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) was put in place by the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 1979. The NCAP is a government program that evaluates vehicle safety designs and sets standards for foreign and domestic automobile companies. The agency has put in place a rating system and requires access to safety test results. As of September 2007, manufacturers are required to place a NCAP star ratings on the automobile price sticker (New Car Assessment Program, 2013).

Automotive Safety Research Group-Office of the Vice President for Research- Division of Research. (n.d.) Retrieved March 25, 2016 from http://research.wayne.edu/about/Auto_Safety_Research.php

New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). (2013, April 5). Retrieved March 25, 2016 from https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-07766

Roach, M. (2003). Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Road Safety Observatory. (2012, April 3). Retrieved March 25, 2016, from http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/HowEffective/vehicles/seat-belts

Robertson, L. S. (1976). Estimates of Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Effectiveness and Use: Implications for Occupant Crash Protection. American Journal of Public Health, 66(9), 859-864. Baileehall (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Seat belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110226051243/http://www.hmri.org:80/HMRI_News/HMRI_News_-_May_2003/Shelden_Memorial/shelden_memorial.html to http://www.hmri.org/HMRI_News/HMRI_News_-_May_2003/Shelden_Memorial/shelden_memorial.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101029135838/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,952435,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,952435,00.html#ixzz0YgSxo3UC

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Seat Belt vs. Seatbelt

I just tried to figure out whether seatbelt is an acceptable alternative, but even if it is, the article should pick one form and stick to it. The opening paragraphs use both, which is off-putting. If seatbelt is acceptable, please add that to the opening linguistic note ("also called safety belt" stuff), but maintain the most common usage throughout the article. Kilyle (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Article needs comprehensive editing

This article has a lot of good information, but the content in this article needs to be rearranged—dramatically.

For example, the technology section has a lot of legislation information in it and not enough straightforward mechanical information. It doesn't even really describe how the spring-loaded buckles couple. From a systematic point of view, absence of an important component makes the technology section inadequate.

Reminder chime-and-light gets its own section but is not connected to the automatic section (which, as I said, has too much legislative information). Arguably, these sections chime-and-light and automatic could be combined.

In history, the Volvo and Nils Bohlin innovations deserve their own paragraph. The current paragraph is incoherent.

The list goes on, but the article in its current form is poorly organized and very difficult to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.74.28 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

legal requirements

Might be that a reference to legal requirements could be added. .. I suggest to write that some EU directives deal with such topic. (for instance Commission Directive 96/37/EC of 17 June 1996 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 74/408/EEC relating to the interior fittings of motor vehicles (strength of seats and of their anchorages) ) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31996L0037 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.56 (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2018

The article doesn't cover the fact that seatbelts are designed to stretch. Also, the fact that upgrading from inertia reel belts to webbing grabber belts is a good safety upgrade on older cars, and a legally mandatory requirement when replacing worn out inertia reels in New Zealand.

This is covered in the Crumple Zone wiki article.

Seatbelts restrain the passengers so they don't fly through the windshield, and are in the correct position for the airbag and also spread the loading of impact on the body. Seat belts also absorb passenger inertial energy by being designed to stretch during an impact, again to reduce the speed differential between the passenger's body and their vehicle interior.[22] In short: a passenger whose body is decelerated more slowly due to the crumple zone (and other devices) over a longer time survives much more often than a passenger whose body indirectly impacts a hard, undamaged metal car body which has come to a halt nearly instantaneously. It is like the difference between slamming someone into a wall headfirst (fracturing their skull) and shoulder-first (bruising their flesh slightly) is that the arm, being softer, has tens of times longer to slow its speed, yielding a little at a time, than the hard skull, which isn't in contact with the wall until it has to deal with extremely high pressures. The stretching of seatbelts while restraining occupants during an impact, means that it is necessary to replace them if a vehicle is repaired and put back on the road after a collision. They should also be replaced if their condition has deteriorated e.g. through fraying or mechanical or belt mounting faults. In New Zealand it is officially mandatory to replace worn inertia reel type seatbelts only with 'webbing grabber' type belts that have less play and are more effective on older cars.[23] Newer cars have electronically fired pre-tension seatbelts that are timed to work with the airbag firing. Buying used seatbelts is not a good idea even in countries where it is legal to do so, because they may have already been stretched in an impact event and may not protect their new users as they should. 87.113.58.193 (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what change(s) you want to make. Please make a precise request for text to add or change.

Stretching of seat belt webbing during a collision is a key part of the function of the seat belt. It is the mechanism along with load limiters that allow the seat belt to progressively decelerate the vehicle passenger, rather than abruptly decelerate them which would cause greater bodily injury. In this reference from Georgia State Physics Dept the stretching seat belt reduces the deceleration from 30g to 20g compared to a non stretching belt. Given that this stretch 'energy management' pre-dates load limiting which is doing the same job, and is in the article, I would like to suggest the information on webbing stretch be incorporated into the article.

It is seems odd to me that when even howstuffworks mentions seatbelt stretch that the Wikipedia article which should be more comprehensive doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.66.218 (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Societal attitudes towards seat belts in the days when they where mostly optional (50's, 60's, 70's)

We should talk about societal attitudes towards seat belts prior to states/countries mandating there use. From what I understand, back when seat belts were new and/or optional in their use, it many if not most people refused to wear them and many car dealers would explain how you could roll up the lap belts and hide them away based on the assumption that no one would be using them. Jay Leno, on his TV/web series programs "Jay Leno's Garage" told such an anecdote on his program. So if we can find reliable sources for how seat belts where viewed in the early days/decades of their existence on cars then we should include that info. Something else to include if source-able is the myth that some people believe(d) that a seat belt increases your risk of being fatally trapped in catches fire and explodes after an accident if your unable to unlatch the seat belt, much more so then it prevents fatal fetal head injuries. --108.239.8.149 (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Quality reference for this Wikipage from - International Research Council On Biomechanics Of Injury

I came across this very informative pdf of lecture notes and think that there is a lot of high quality information that may be useful to the editors of this page. Autoliv are long established Swedish seatbelt manufacturers. The title of the lecture is below.

http://www.ircobi.org/wordpress/downloads/irc0111/2006/BertilAldmanLecture/01.pdf

THE EVOLUTION OF THE THREE POINT SEAT BELT FROM YESTERDAY TO TOMORROW

Yngve Håland

Autoliv Research

Vehicle Safety

Department of Applied Mechanics

Chalmers University of Technology

Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.146.44 (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Ironic comeuppance for college edgelord is ironic. Not notable.

The story of a 21 year old killed in an accident not wearing a seat belt, subsequent to having written one letter to a newspaper opposing seat belt laws is definitely ironic. Lots of college students exercise their newfound skills in rhetoric by taking contrarian positions on things. That alone doesn't make one a significant activist. To be encyclopedic, it has to mean something. It has to have mattered in some way, such as affecting legislation or public attitudes, having a verifiable impact. This is just an interesting story, interesting because it's ironic. it doesn't help anyone understand the topic of seat belts.

See WP:MISCELLANY, Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, Wikipedia:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Not even vaguely encyclopedic. Removed. At least it didn't _say_ "ironically". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

1977 and 1984 studies

In 1984, the Reagan administration was still blocking late 1970s NHTSA rules requiring manufacturers to install modern seatbelts. Thus in 1984, American cars were using obsolete, decades-old seatbelts that could actually kill people and cause severe injuries in slow speed impacts (due to lap-only rear seatbelts and slack front shoulder belts). Because of this they had long ago been banned in other countries, but not here because all regulation bad.

Anyway, perhaps a safety study from when seatbelts caused severe internal injuries and death is not the best source of safety statistics. Skintigh (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Same goes for the 1977 study that provides the "fact" of "Automatic belt systems generally offer inferior occupant crash protection." Skintigh (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)