What's interesting is that I now know something that the engineers designing the system should have known but apparently didn't, or knew and didn't care about. So sometimes (or much of the time?) users do know something the engineers don't.
What's interesting is that I now know something that the engineers designing the system should have known but apparently didn't, or knew and didn't care about. So sometimes (or much of the time?) users do know something the engineers don't.
This is a tradeoff.
You can have a pure pay-out based locking retractor (centrifugal clutch). Or you can have a pendulum-based mechanism, or a combination of the two.
If you have the pendulum-based one, you'll be less likely to false positive based on the movement of the occupant but more likely to false positive based on deceleration of the vehicle.
The combination is best, because you can be relatively insensitive to individually occupant movement and vehicle deceleration and still actuate reliably in a crash. But it still will false positive.
In any case, "not annoying the user" is prioritized beneath "saving lives in a crash" by regulators, and hence the auto industry.
I'm guessing you brake rather abruptly in this situation if this is something you routinely encounter.
Your tag line reminds me of all the times I've pondered how bad these complaining drivers must be.