Ford demos new airbag-based seatbelt design

It's not every day that auto technology moves from the speedway to the driveway. The Detroit News reports that Ford is working on a new style of seatbelts, inspired by race car driver seatbelts, which have mini-airbags embedded inside. When the airbag is deployed, the bag tears through the seam of the seatbelt and inflates cylindrically. The seatbelt orientation has also totally changed -- a hip strap and two shoulder straps creates a four-point restraint system, centered at the rider's belt buckle. Ford officials said that this new design cuts down on pressure to the chest during impacts. However, the company does acknkowledge that this design, which may takes years to reach the market, may be uncomfortable for some people, particularly pregnant women and large-bellied folks. So make sure you drop 20 pounds by the time you buy your 2012 model Ford, ok? The countdown begins... now.

[Via Autopia]

[ben @ Sep 1st 2006 8:36AM]

Can't type, must lose weight!! Time is running out!

[Rusty @ Sep 1st 2006 8:43AM]

I know they are uncomfortable, but a seatbelt saved my life in 1985 during a rollover crash. I sustained a bruised shoulder where the belt was, but NO other injuries. I've been wearing seatbelts since they started putting them in cars in the 60's.
I've always thought the 4 point belts were better, but good grief, we can't get the general public to use the ones we have with one connection! I remember those belts that were automatic, and people STILL didn't use the lap belt. It's a personal choice.....people just don't want to wear them for some reason. I've seen story after story after story about a crash where the vehicle rolled and the passengers were thrown from the vehicle. Then it will say that no one was wearing a seat belt. Well, they took a chance now they are worm food. If I had a car option with a four point belt design, I'd jump on it. It's called a RESTRAINT device for a reason. It restrains you from bouncing all over the car, and being thrown out.

[Wonderboy @ Sep 1st 2006 8:54AM]

They're missing on the head restraint to guard against whiplash as well as the arm restraints and leg restraings so we don't dislocate something. In fact, each seat should have a built in straight-jacket so that when the car crashes your body doesn't move an inch (the straight-jackets would be especially helpful in the back seats of car to keep kids from fighting).

Just kidding, I support this 100%... too many car accidents happen every day.

[theLIPSTER @ Sep 1st 2006 9:34AM]

Well I only hope that they properly design these things... Unlike most "4 point seatbelts" that you can buy at Autozone or whereever for rice-racers... they end up doing less for you cause the top seatbelts (the ones that go over your shoulders) compress your spine with a great deal of force (usually deadly).

[shirizaki @ Sep 1st 2006 9:43AM]

I had an uncle that died from wearing a seatbelt when he crashed. The belt held him in while the car tossed and turned and he ended up dying from internal bleeding. If he wasn't wearing one he stood a better chance of living.

So I don't support seatbelt 100%. I believe it's for everyone over 18 to decide if they want to wear one or not.

But the 4 point system might be better than the 2 pointer.

[shmengie @ Sep 1st 2006 9:43AM]

well, there's always one guys who's gonna say that NOT wearing a seatbelt saved his life. and that one guy is ME.

i won't bore you all with details, but if i hadn't been thrown from my car, i would have been crushed like a tomato.

i always wear my seatbelt now, though, cuz i don't wanna get a ticket. oh, and generally speaking, wearing a seatbelt is a good idea, my story notwithstanding.

[Ebzy @ Sep 1st 2006 10:01AM]

@shmengie

Your not the only guy

My cousin had an off-head-on collision which resulted with the car spinning. He got thrown onto the passenger seat and had his legs in the air. When all movement stopped he looked at the driver's pit (where the pedals are) to see that it had caved in. Had he been wearing his belt, he would at the very least be without his legs today.

I also say that wearing a belt is a good idea because these type of accidents are rare.

[RickDom @ Sep 1st 2006 10:13AM]

I always wear a seat belt and feel far more comfortable with one than without. It's all random luck and a combination of factors. In the end, it's far safer to have it on than off. In any tossed from the car senario, all it takes is a well placed tree and it's lights out.

And shirizaki, modern cars all have 3 point, not 2 point belts.

[Jay @ Sep 1st 2006 10:17AM]

The problem with 4pt restraints is that with current 3pt restraints your opposite shoulder can move and some of the inertia can be lost that way. With 4pt restraints the only way to lose your forward inertia is to a) spread it across your chest or b) submarine with your hips sliding forward, that's why race car drivers have 5pt restraints with the anti-sub belt through your legs attaching to the main at your belt buckle.

[Lee Richards @ Sep 1st 2006 10:22AM]

Is it a big problem in the US with people 'not' wearing seat belts? I would say at least 95% of drivers in the UK generally buckle up, but that figure is probably much lower for those sitting in the back, even though the law stipulates they must wear seatbelts (where fitted) also. A certain incident in a Paris tunnel a few years ago, would have been much less serious had seat belts been warn by those involved.

[D2 @ Sep 1st 2006 10:24AM]

Im not so sure about putting airbags in seatbelts. Although there are obvious safety benefits, like others have pointed out, there are concerns as well.

Ive always been concerned with not being able to remove an injured individual quickly from a car. The more you secure a passenger to the seat, the more difficult it becomes to remove them after a crash (time is of concern anytime there is potential fire risk, minimizing movement is crucial when there is potential spinal cord injury)

This four point design apears to require two cuts to remove, whereas current belts need only one. At some point the level of restraint hinders removal.

Also makes it more difficult to look over the shoulder when parking or checking blind splot

[Peter @ Sep 1st 2006 10:56AM]

All things considered it, it is up to each driver/passenger to decide what level of comfort vs. safety they choose to take.

Not wearing seatbelts is more comfortable and having 4 or 5 point seatbelts is much better. Each person should decide for themselves.

Congratulations to Ford to actually push with something new. Since the Japanese and European domination they have been sitting on the sidelines hoping it will just blow by.

Ford should offer these seatbelts as an 3 point or 4 point options. Either offer it as a extra feature or develop the product so that you can use it as a three point or four point system. Leave it to the individual to value their own life.

As for accidents, I was involved in a roll over 5 years ago. A black stolen Mercedes, driven by someone drunk without a license and insurance hit our 96 VW Jetta. I was the only one not wearing seatbelts. I was sleeping in the back seat and woke up on the car floor. If I had a chance to revisit the past and I would probably want a 5 point harness.

[DT @ Sep 1st 2006 11:30AM]

Of course there are going to be people who are better off because they didn't wear a seatbelt. There are also people whose parachutes don't open yet they survive falls from 15,000 feet. The idea behind a seatbelt is to move you from the "less than 1% chance of surviving while being thrown from a vehicle" category to the "greater than 15% chance of surviving by remaining in the vehicle" category. (Numbers are completely made up and for illustrative purposes. The point is you're better off remaining in the car in the vast majority of circumstances).

Of course, if the car is crushed in the accident, you would have been better off being thrown, but even leaving your seatbelt off wouldn't guarantee that you are thrown clear. You obviously have no way of knowing beforehand if seatbelts or none would be better before an accident, so you want to maximize your chances of survival(not guarantee!) by wearing them.

[DT @ Sep 1st 2006 11:30AM]

Anyway, you won't be able to buy a Ford in 2012 at the current rate of their decline. It'll probably be a HyundaiFord : )

[buckle down @ Sep 1st 2006 11:32AM]

http://ahsoon.net/2006/09/01/no-seatbelt-no-excuse/

video shows what not wearing seatbelts does

[p-diddy @ Sep 1st 2006 11:33AM]

shirizaki, sorry, but that is total speculation. If your uncle was so tossed around to cause internal bleeding because of the seatbelt, don't you think his head and spine, assuming he hadn't been buckled up, wouldn't have withstood the trauma of that same tossing around. I'm not trying to be insensitive, but to say that a seatbelt made him worse off is a little hard to swallow. I see the stories here, and it's good that no one was seriously injured, but the statistics show that wearing a seatbelt is better than not, e.g., people that are ejected from cars are four times more likely to die than those that aren't. It's a law because it's a good policy based on years of statistics.

-p-

[Subtek @ Sep 1st 2006 11:51AM]

"theLipster" - The seatbelts you're describing are actually pretty safe, however.. The manner in which they are installed usually isn't. The reason spine compression occurs is due to the upper strapps being mounted somewhere lower than your shoulders. If installed properly, the upper straps would be mounted equal to or higher than your shoulders.

[Walter @ Sep 1st 2006 12:47PM]

Don't know why people bring up the small chance of being safer without a seatbelt than without. Are you trying to promote people getting killed in car accidents. Just doesnt make sense to me.

Regarding 4point belts. I thought they were not as safe as 3points due to the roll over risk. The upper body cannot shift if the roof comes down thus crushing your neck. Thats why the aftermarket 4 points are generally illegal without a rollcage. And if you have a rollcage, you need a helmet incase your head strikes one of the bars. Also the 4 points direct more energy into your neck in a headon and thats why many racers use Hans devices.

[Walter @ Sep 1st 2006 12:50PM]

edit: Don't know why people bring up the small chance of being safer without a seatbelt than with.

[Patrick @ Sep 1st 2006 1:22PM]

Yes, there are cases where motorcycle helmets or seatbelts might cause some sort of freak accident. I remember a lady once drove off a cliff in glacier national park and survived because she was thrown free of the car before it fell a thousand feet.

But... YOU ARE A COMPLETE MORON if you don't wear a helmet or a seatbelt or any other proven safety device. It's already the case that car accidents are the most likely cause of accidental death.

"In fatal crashes, 75 percent of all passenger car occupants who were totally ejected were killed. Only 1 percent of those occupants had been using a safety belt." - Says NHTSA

and

"Seventy-three percent of the people who were in a fatal crash in 2001 and were restrained survived; of those who were not restrained, only 44 percent survived." - Says NHTSA

Dying because you're stupid is the dumbest way to die.

[skype_fan @ Sep 1st 2006 1:23PM]

Pampers Design :D

[Scorpious @ Sep 1st 2006 1:32PM]

I was involved in a rollover accident back in 2001. I was wearing a seatbelt, as was my girlfriend at the time, who was in the passenger's seat. http://musicmaniac.freeservers.com/lynscar.jpg

[Scorpious @ Sep 1st 2006 1:36PM]

OMG... stupid thing cropped my comment!

Anyway, I walked away from that with a busted lip. She had a concussion and whiplash and still can't remember things from before the accident. BUT... if she hadn't been wearing her seatbelt, she would have been either ejected from the car or suffered a crushed neck vertebra.

When I was 15, one of my friends was ejected from his Mustang when he hit a guardrail at 110+MPH. The only good thing about his accident was the impact of going through the windshield killed him before he hit the muddy riverbank below the bridge... and before the 3,000 pound Mustang he was driving landed on top of him, crushing him three feet deep into the mud.

[Ben18 @ Sep 1st 2006 1:46PM]

Several years ago (probably five) the local news station here in phoenix did a spotlight on the guy who had just created these, or had gotten the pattent. It could have been more than five years ago, but if I recall he said he was trying to get every car manufacturer to install these by like 2004 or something. Well 2004 came and went and I forgot all about these. I think that new design with the position probably wasn't there when I saw it, but this is pretty cool. I showed this article to my dad, and he got quite a kick out of this, after seeing it so many years ago.

[Graeme @ Sep 2nd 2006 12:37AM]

Do a search on "risk compensation" guys! Yes, the stats show that you're more likely to survive a crash if you're wearing a seatbelt, but they also show that you're more likely to have a crash in the first place. Get in to your air bag, seatbelt, ABS, etc. etc. equipped car and you feel a lot safer than you would in a car without all these features. You feel safer, you take more risks - drive a little closer to the car in front, take that corner a bit faster, leave braking later and so on. All this increases your risk of crashing.

When they made seatbelts compulsory in the UK, the accident rate went *up* not down and it was pedestrians and cyclists that were worst affected. "Oops I took that corner too fast and mounted the kerb, I'm fine thanks to my seatbelt, but what was that mushy thing that screamed as I drove over it?"

[renae the gps expert @ Sep 4th 2006 6:10AM]

the innovations in seatbelts sound great, but that design is inaccessible to too many people. with our 'growing' population problems, this might actuallymakepeople stop wearing their belts at all.

[ken @ Dec 12th 2006 4:49AM]

think the new belts will be much better safer more comfortable and protect better than older belts that are bad and hope they do put in the 4 or 5 point restraints in front and rear seats