New laws to make cars more kid-friendly set to pass
My son asked what would happen if his finger were in the path of the electric window when it closed. I suggested we stick a piece of Red Vine licorice in the window to find out. The results weren't pretty, though to this day I'm still finding tiny bits of red licorice stuck in the channels of the window frame. Boys...
In a move aimed at preventing incidents like these in vehicles, a bill was sent to President Bush earlier this week with brand new safety regulations for automakers. Under the new bill, power windows would be required to automatically reverse themselves if resistance is encountered from a finger or, say, a Twizzlers. Some high-end automakers already include this type of window safety system in their vehicles, thought they are not currently mandated industry-wide.
A second provision says that there must be a minimum standard for driver visibility to the rear of the vehicle, presumably to help parents avoid backing up over Timmy's Big Wheel... or Timmy himself. Automakers could meet this new rule with additional mirrors, cameras, or sensors to the vehicle. New uses for Infiniti's Around View Monitor come to mind. The third and final provision is designed to prevent accidental shifting of vehicles out of park, and would likely turn your floor-mounted shifter into the auto-equivalent of a child-proof lighter.
The entire auto industry is reportedly behind the legislation and it's obviously already passed both houses of Congress, so analysts expect the President to sign it without any changes. While these new laws will undoubtedly make vehicles less dangerous for children, an alert driver still remains the most important piece in the safety puzzle.
[Source: Automotive News, sub. req'd]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Seoultrain 6:18PM (2/15/2008)
single-spacing does not suit autoblog...
Reply
geo.stewart 6:20PM (2/15/2008)
I dont know. let's legislate the requirement to engineer common sense and alertness into the car and out of the people...
what is that movie coming out where some idiot wakes up in the future and is the smartest person because of all the technology allows everyone to be stupid? I think it may be a prophetic movie.
I dont know. it may be time to develop a technology to replace politicians because they are a greater danger to our society than the idiot talking on the cellphone and cant be bothered with watching where their kid is.
Reply
geo.stewart 6:21PM (2/15/2008)
increased technology = increased parts = increased weight = decreased fuel mileage = CAFE hit.
Reply
JW 6:24PM (2/15/2008)
That seems unsafe if they make the windows roll back down due to resistance; what if someone had their windows down and was being robbed or chased and ran back to the car, the culprit only has to push down on the windows...
Reply
JMC 3 6:29PM (2/15/2008)
Wondering what it will add to the cost of a 4 dr.
Reply
Atropos 6:35PM (2/15/2008)
Law after law after restriction after feature after law....
I'm amazed that children of my generation, who horsed around in the back seats of cars w/ no seatbelts on at all, managed to survive.
Go figure.
Reply
L.Wood 6:37PM (2/15/2008)
Dumb and Dumber is becoming our new reality. We have elected the dumb and dumber to represent us in our government, and then we wonder where all of this dumb and dumber legislation comes from. I guess we are getting what we deserve, and the collapse of the United States as a viable experiment in freedom will make for interesting reading during the next millennium.
Reply
david 6:38PM (2/15/2008)
Ugh, more regulations, just what we need.
I've had my fingers caught in car doors and windows a few times when I was a kid. Guess what, I still have all eleve... I mean ten fingers!
Why, might one ask? Because it hurt like hell and the next time I closed the door or raised the window I made sure that my fingers were not in the way.
If our society really wanted to see these changes, chances are automakers would be implementing them in all their designs.
So is this going to require that ALL vehicles require these now? I can understand a mini-van to a certain extent, but I'd sure hate to see these things be required on some of the larger trucks, or nice sports cars. Furthermore, what if someone is single and doesn't have kids? Do they have the option to remove these things?
Reply
Carlos 6:40PM (2/15/2008)
My girlfriends tC already does this. I think my mom's Maxima does it also...
Reply
Bob 6:48PM (2/15/2008)
Agreed. Somebody be sure to pass this along to the folks screaming that the new CAFE regs weren't enough.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan off anyone getting their fingers caught in the windows, or God forbid, having children backed over, but at some point this absurd feature creep has got to come to an end. ABS and airbags, good. Around View Monitors, ridiculous.
Reply
KazO 6:45PM (2/15/2008)
Vehicles need to have naturally better outward visibility, not cameras and other technology. I don't know if it's for the sake of style or some way to meet side-crash standards, but a lot of today's cars (Chrysler LXs are a good example) have teeny tiny glass areas and super high beltlines, often along with bigazz pillars (FJ Cruiser, anyone?) and tiny mirrors that make looking out for Timmy and his Big Wheel impossible.
Anti-trap glass isn't a bad idea (one of my cars has it), even better if that makes express-up more commonplace.
Reply
Creative Guy 6:52PM (2/15/2008)
Needs a little more proof reading. Thought instead though, express instead of expect.
Reply
YouFaceTheTick 6:54PM (2/15/2008)
Waste of time and energy enacting such laws.
Reply
Adam 7:18PM (2/15/2008)
IIRC VW already has the window feature and has for years (my '99 Jetta had it).
Reply
vintage 6:35PM (2/17/2008)
Christ. I want to move to a country where the government doesn't treat us like mentally retarded kids.
Guess what? If your kid is stupid enough to roll the window up on his fingers, he's only helping Darwin along. I hate all this safety crap.
Reply
HotRodzNKustoms 6:57PM (2/15/2008)
Some of my friends and I did a test like this... using our heads in automatic reversing tailgates trunks and sliding doors. What we found was the power tailgate on the Gm trucks hurt the least while the power sliding doors on some of the Asian manufacturers hurt our heads the most.
Yes a brilliant test I know but we were bored.
Reply
zoom_x2 7:05PM (2/15/2008)
Rear visibility has to have a min. standard?
So whats gonna happen to the Elise, Enzo, Murcie, and practically the rest of the mid-engined exotics?
And how about some real laws that make people take advanced driving courses and prevent people from doing things other than driving.
Safe cars don't make safe drivers.
Reply
chrisdavis 7:10PM (2/15/2008)
All these things sound like good features for all cars as long as they legislate a goal and do not legislate the technology. Fingers caught in windows is bad, backing over children is bad, and unintentionally shifting out of park is bad. Given an elegant solution to each goal, why would anyone in their right mind not want these things? Sometimes the negativity here baffles me. And what difference does it make if you do or don't have kids? You can't expect people to think of all of these things when they buy new cars and have a huge check list with them. Depending on the wording of the law, I say "good job." I'd rather not have someone run over my kids because they thought really thick C pillars looked cool in the showroom.
Reply
paul34 7:24PM (2/15/2008)
Yup, a lot of new cars these days already come with this feature. As you said, the tC does too (I own one as well).
The moonroof also has jam protection.
However, I feel the initial test was very unfair. A twizzlers? Last I checked a twizzlers offers significantly less resistance to being squished than a finger with a solid bone in it.
I don't think a car that even had jam protection in it would reverse with something like a twizzlers.
I can just see the age of ultra-sensitive jam protection come in. A slight wind while you're trying to close the window, and dooowwwn it goes again!
Reply
Kaptain75329 8:04PM (2/15/2008)
chrisdavis,
You are missing the point entirely. Someone running over your kid didn't do so because of that cool C pillar, something like that would happen because the poser in the driver's seat wouldn't be paying attention *and* you -- the alleged parent -- would have to be even more self-absorbed than you are now to allow the ankle-biter to be hanging around the blind spot of a TWO TON CAR in the first place.
Your cute hypothetical scenario demonstrates both you and the driver wanna-be to asinine idiots of monumental proportions.
The solution here is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY; not more contradictory government interference that costs money to implement for practically no return.
What you call "negativity" on this post, I call awareness of the concept. Wake up.
Reply