New GM Seat Belt System – Major Annoyance, NHTSA Mandated?
Tim Esterdahl | May 27, 2014 | Comments 14
Does it seem like GM has been in the news a LOT lately? Have we written a ton about their issues? Yes and yes. In the midst of their recall nightmare, comes news of what could be a major annoyance for consumers. Coming to certain GM trucks will be a new system that won’t let the truck drive until the front occupants are buckled up. We call it an annoyance, what do you think?
GM is planning on introducing a new seat belt system in select 2015 models. This truck won’t go anywhere unless you and your front passengers are buckled up.
The new safety initiative came to light last Monday. It calls for introducing the new “belt assurance system” to select 2015 models including the GMC Sierra, Colorado, Silverado and Chevy Cruze. The system will not let the vehicle shift our of park until the driver and front passenger are buckled in.
Let’s state the obvious first. Yes, we are in favor of safety. And yes, seat belts do save lives. However, truck owners don’t always need their seat belts. There are plenty of times when a truck is used in the field for repairing fence, loading/unloading hay, while hunting or other work situations. Also, there are times when you need to simply back in or pull forward for getting the best spot to load your truck or hook up your tow. With GM’s system, all of these times, you would need to have a seat belt on.
GM says the system uses sensors to detect a passenger through its module that turns the airbags on and off. When it notices a passenger, it will communicate to the brakes and transmission to prevent the driver from shifting into gear until the passenger is buckled.
Sounds simple, right? What could go wrong? A LOT of things. Imagine not being able to drive your truck because a sensor went bad. With GM’s history of quality issues, we can only imagine what else could go wrong.
Our larger peeve is GM is looking for owner feedback before it becomes “standard,” according to an Autonews.com story. What does “standard” mean to us? It means the NHTSA could see this as a good idea and set a mandate for all automakers to use it. Yes, this means it could filter its way into Toyota products.
Last week, we said we are in favor of keyless ignition. It makes a LOT of sense and has a history now of working well. This system? Well, we applaud GM’s efforts to encourage seat belt usage and there are plenty of times when driver’s should be buckled up. This just doesn’t seem like the right way to go about it.
What do you think? A good idea or a dud?
Related Posts:
Filed Under: Auto News
I think it is a good idea, but with one addition: provide the option to override the driver side and perhaps the passenger side. By default, have it on. For those who want to turn it off, let’em.
Also, I like the idea of GM listening to their owners…
LJC,
Nice jab at Toyota! LOL.
-Tim
Thanks 😀
This is just the tip of the iceberg if Toyota decides to come out with a Cummins Tundra as diesel owners are much more critical than us half-ton’ers.
Imagine hitching a trailer alone… in and out of driver seat to go and see you are an inch off and adjust. This system would suck to say the least.
If such a thing moved forward, to me, they should have it enabled by speed. No, not as in truck shuts off at 15mph if not belted… but is limited to first (preferably 2nd) gear and reverse without the belts done up.
How many trucks are used on a job site or farm where they are off road all day moving here and there at slow speeds. If this system is evoked as reported, it will be defeated by people leaving the belts latched behind them or get a separate latch to plug in from scrap yard without belt to plug in.
The best safety device is the worst if defeated or not used. Now, my truck beeps to annoy me if belt not done up, add this system, plug the dummy latch in to allow truck to move without belt, don’t bother putting actual belt on after as no beeping and the pain of removing the dummy and putting real belt doesn’t seem worth it to just go down the road for coffee.
Toyrulz,
I don’t mind this system for other vehicles like cars and SUVs. What got me was GM’s implementation list is for mostly trucks. They are targeting customers who don’t want it. Doesn’t make sense to me.
-Tim
Tim, how many at the Fed have ever used a truck to work for a living? Move a few bags of portland cement or bricks at a construction site 20 feet and make sure the seat belt is on.
In another 10 years, a person is going to need a fire resistant suit, helmet and fire extinguishing system in their pickup.
The 1/2 ton truck isn’t a truck any more. It seems Americans have lost their inalienable right to screw up their own life and to pay for the devices in the process.
Current seat belts and the laws that enforce them currently work as intended.
This new government (GM) mandate is a solution to a problem that does not exists.
It cost a lot of money, does not produce any benefits.
It only reduces productivity for all persons using a vehicle, whether it is for work or play.
To say this is a “dud” is an understatement; what is bad news for us all are the reasons behind the insanity. It has nothing to do with building safe reliable vehicles.
Randy,
Agreed. I like being safe and all, but let the laws work as they are intended.
-Tim
What happens when my wife or I as passengers need to unbuckle while driving on long trips to tend to the children briefly? Does the truck shut off? Can I have an override switch? Agree that it seems to be too much nanny and big brother. I hated the clutch start switch when that came out in the 80s. While it was a great safety tool that has likely saved lives and several bumpers, it was annoying. This seatbelt kill switch idea is just assinine.
Brian J,
Good point! My wife constantly has to unhook her belt to give one of my kids a juice cup or switch a movie over. Would we have to pull over every time? That would be incredibly annoying.
-Tim
I think it is a really stupid idea, but what else could you expect from GM and the government? They seem to have a firm grasp on stupid ideas!!
My rapidly fading memory recalls a time when, perhaps at government “request,” an interlock system was employed which required the seat belt to be fastened before the engine would start. It was back in the previous century about late 70’s or early 80’s (?) when seat belt usage was slowly being made mandatory across the country.
Steve
I should add that it only lasted a year or two, on account of a great negative response from the purchasing public.
Steve
If can be disabled by willing dealer when purchasing new truck, fine with me. If not, won’t buy it or somehow override system by hopefully installing one of my dummy extension clips I have if fits from prior year GM trucks. I got a few in the basement and called extension seat belt buckles about 6″ long for us fatter people to get the seat belt buckled easier.