Ford's inflatable seat belts headed to Explorer in 2010, other whips in due time (video)
By Darren Murph 
posted November 7th 2009 6:33AM
posted November 7th 2009 6:33AM
posted November 7th 2009 6:33AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I do not see its additional benefit at work. The 3 point seatbelt I can understand, but this one I can not. The video in my view demonstrates no clear point at which this belt could be more beneficial compared the standard belt. Only a spoken word is mentioned with no statistical proof.
Seat belt will be somewhat uncomfortable. In my opinion that's a sign it should work. Making it more comfortable seems to me that you are toying with safety. Even the safety measures in roller coaster rides aren't always comfortable.
The additional benefit is clear, in that the force of the impact is spread over a wide area of the rib cage/chest. If you need an example have a woman in sneakers step on your foot, then have the same woman in high-heels step on the foot with the heel. It's all about force/square-area, so increase the square area for an identical force and you'll have less chance of injury.
As someone who walked away from a serious accident due to seatbelts and front/side/curtain airbags, I can tell you there was a nice welt from the seatbelt despite all the other devices. That being said, crushed car and not crushed me, made me a huge fan.
As for Paul's comment of "Rather than waste all that money on inflatable seatbelts that are often not worn at all, why not just install airbags behing the drivers and passenger front seats that would deploy even if the rear seat occupants didn't have their belts on", is that airbags primarily reduce your impact force into a stationary object, while seatbelts hold you from becoming a missile. Airbags only work if you are there in front of them. Ejection is a common form of injury even for back seat (and the back seat passenger missile often injures the front seat passengers). Come on down to our emergency room, we'll be glad to let you see the difference.
@henry: I feel you are missing my point. 1) For the same dollars, you can put an airbag behind the front seats or in the seatbelt. Why would putting it in the seatbelt (which may not be worn) result in fewer injuries or deaths than behind the front seat. 2) How would adding an airbag to a seatbelt have any effect on rear passengers becoming missles? 3) If this is such a great idea, why don't they add them to the front seats?
always wondered why seat belts are made of the same material in all cars. why not pad them with some soft material???
Lexus is going to use them? So that means Ford doesnt exclusively hold the rights to this technology? Thats certainly good news.
I understand the argument of spreading the load over a larger surface area. This reduces the impact on the nek, thorax and abdomen. However looking at the video I do not see any improvement of the restraint of the back seat driver. The body still seems to be "moved around" like a shaking a baby. I do not think an airbag at the rear of the drivers seat would improve the safety of a back seat driver if he/she doesn't wear a seat belt. In a direct frontside impact the back seat driver will be moved forward. In this case you have to consider the biomechanics of the body. I think what will happen is that the head will hit the back side of the drivers seat first. A head will hit the deployes airbag which cause the head to move back. Meanwhile the thorax will still move forward. This results in a hyperdorsalflexion of the neck which could cause serious nek injury.
What I would suggest is a technique demonstrated in Demolition Man with Silvester Stallone. During the crash the whole car is injected with sollidifying foal, which immediately restrains the movement of anyone sitting in the car and cushioning the crash. If such a technology was invented we could perhaps slowly think about the need for a seat belt.
Adding to Paul's argument. If indeed the new rear seatbelt is not warn consequently is could pose a danger. Imagine a crash, and not wearing the seat belt in the rear. The belt will go off, thus perhaps propelling you forward due to the explosing or even causing a back injury due to the explosive force on the back!
If this belt were implemented it would have to effectively be installed for a frontside crash, as this is the most effective direction in which it works. We still do not know what the effect is on a diagonal or side impact to the seatbelt wearer. The biomechanics are perhaps different and pose a danger.
In the video, they comment that the belt is activated by the buckle, so if it is not worn, then there is no deployment.
Except in really small cars, rear passengers to not generally hit the back of the front seats. The front seat needs airbags to prevent you crashing into the dashboard/wheel.
Of course that foam doesn't exist, so uh...
What's ultra-luxurious about the LFA? Yes, for a car of its class it could be less comfortable... the Gumpert Apollo comes to mind, where you can't adjust the position of the seat, either you fit, or you don't. Or the Ariel Atoms, Caterhams and Radicals, which lack seat padding and sound deafening. But ultra-luxurious? I'd call a Maybach ultra-luxurious. A Rolls. But a LFA?
Point taken.
Small cars are ever increasing, certainly in europe.
Well, as long we're on the subject this point popped into my mind. It can not hurt to think out of the box.
I think she needs more toolbars in her browser
This could be a good idea, if the seatbelts are always worn correctly. But, I remember that when I was a kid I didn't always wear the seatbelt the way it should have been worn. I remember sometimes putting the seatbelt behind me so all I had was a lapbelt, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who ever did this.
If they wanted to increase safety a nice 5 point harness would be more effective. This seems more about preventing cracked ribs or welts, then actually providing more restraint in a collision. Airbags save lives because they keep your noggin from hitting solid objects at high speeds. I have never met someone who died or was permenantly injured from a welt or cracked rib. Yes it hurts, and yes it sucks, but these things have trade-offs.
1) Seatbelts are not fixed in place like front airbags. These things are pulled out and retracted all the time and by kids no less. These things are going to far more prone to failure and replacement than a regular airbag.
2) They will be bulkier than a regular seatbelt, which will lead to less usage
3) Infant car seats will still often use these seatbelts, so there will undoubtedly need to be a way to disable them to accomodate that.
4) Kids carry stuff on their laps, like silly little happy meal toys and Nintendo DSi's, you think it is deadly to have some little gizmo come flying forward at 50 MPH in a collision due to inertia, what happens when this thing propels it to 250 MPH
5) more cost to repair the car in an accident
6) an explosive device within a few inches of the passenger (airbags use explosions to inflate, not pressurized gas canisters)
7) Hearing damage, everyone feels the pressure when someone closes the door on a car, what about when 10 airbags go off at the same time? Do crash dummies have simulated ear drums?
That seems like a lot of trade offs to prevent a bruise, welt or cracked rib.
More shit to make our cars heavier. Instead of creating more and more technology, how about teaching people how to drive better BEFORE giving them a license?
Yo dawg. I hear you like safety so I put airbags in your seatbelts so you can something something
i want foam in the doors hans devices and custom fit seats in my car then we are talking about true safety
For those who don't understand why this is agood thing, I'll give a little anecdote for you. I was behind a guy driving a sports car (viper) who went from 45 to 0 running into the back of a semi because he wasn't paying attention. I got out to help. The only person in the car was the driver, and the seatbelt basically sliced his body in half at the waist and cross chest (not really, but he was gushing out blood from there and it crushed his body). The seating area was clear enough after the crash for him to have survived if only the seatbelt didn't kill him.
Increasing the surface area the seatbelt applies to the passenger greatly reduces the strain on the person. Double the area = half the force per square inch, and so on. It is a very good idea and reduces deaths in high-speed accidents.
why dont we just wear airbag vests that inflate when we get in a crash?
....as long as it doesnt pop my head off
These have been in planes for years now. The newer Cessnas have them.
Fellow kids, did you know that we are growing and developing, and the world around us is changing?! I know now because I have watched that video. I am scared now.
...
Mom, Dad, pleeease let's buy a next generation ford explorer right now, so we can be a happy family, pleease!
Why don't we make the belts a little wider and add a little padding to it?