Hacker News Reader

Comment by pests | Hacker News Reader

It’s interesting how the seat belt comment sets the time this was written. Seat belts have been required for basically my entire life and I, nor anyone else I know, think twice about them.

But here it’s being used as a familiar pain point the author assumes everyone deals with.

View on HN

Fun fact, Volvo created and patented the three point safety belt in use today after years of R&D and testing expenses, but immediately made it free for all other car makers.

I wonder if companies would do that today without heavy incentives. I can’t imagine for example a VC backed company doing that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brentdykes/2025/01/28/the-data-...?

I mean, a modern example might be the various companies open-sourcing LLMs (e.g. Meta). I don't think "public-mindedness" is exactly the right explanation, it's probably driven by strategic thinking... but then, maybe the same was true of Volvo.

In the same vein, at Volvo's factory outside of Gothenburg they have the obligatory museum. It's just that they don't showcase old, famous models. The museum is entirely built around car safety and how Volvo has worked with it. It is interesting with a company that has been so dedicated to their core values for such a long time.

Aren't Volvos the cars that are (or were) so rigid that collision shocks were transmitted rather too directly to passengers ?

I think that was a problem with many if not most cars before modern energy-dissipating crumple zones were developed. The front was built rigid to prevent the engine block from entering the cockpit and crushing the driver/passenger (which was a big safety problem at some point) but turns out that too much rigidity wasn't a good idea either…

    > I wonder if companies would do that today without heavy incentives.

Didn't Tesla give away all of their patents at some point?

Offhand, they made the charging system related patents free to use because a standard charging system is a great thing for any vehicle.

Doesn’t this fall under “commoditise your complement”? It’s good business for Tesla to do so.

Dumb question. How exactly do you make something "patent free"? Do you get the patent (so no one else can troll with it), the promise not to enforce "violations"?

They used to advertise the fact their CEO's wife was a nurse, and she lobbied them to prioritize safety.

Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPgDgNtOouo

Some more background:

https://www.volvocars.com/en-ca/news/safety/let-your-head-re...

If SV developed seatbelts:

SaaS - seatbelts as a service, available in 3 packages:

- Starter: 4 tightenings* per day, $2.99/mo

- Standard: 6 tightenings* per day, $5.99/mo

- Premium: unlimited** tightenings, $9.99/mo

*Once exceeded, belt will remain slack. Check your local laws. We will not be held liable

**Subject to a fair usage policy. Policy may change at any time. Please check before driving

All plans support a maximum of 2 occupants. Please subscribe to additional plans for more occupants.

Definitely an artifact of its time. I have older family members who still resent seatbelt laws, who still have those "buckle only" defeat devices that stop the chiming. "The government can't tell me what to do" can be such a deeply ingrained attitude!

It ain't just older people, either. A lot of friends in my age group and younger default to not putting on their seatbelts, and only do so if I explicitly tell them to do so (or if they notice my truck beeping about it).

My state doesn't require rear belts but I still wear mine when sitting in the back and encourage others to do the same. My sibling had a classmate in high school who got thrown out of the rear window while the car was in a roll, crushing and killing him.

It's a little crazy to me that people are perfectly comfortable going 80+ down the freeway with no belts on in the back. Like the two seat backs are enough. It reminds me of the "no smoking sections" in restaurant that were sectioned off by a half wall.

I would refuse to start or continue a journey if any passenger behind our beside me won't wear their seat belt.

Old UK safety video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWLmoeoHrP4

I don’t understand what happened in that video.

Are we supposed to believe that the front seat will somehow move forward from the force of the rear passenger hitting it? And this force will be so great that it will crush the front driver’s skull against the steering wheel? Is that really the take-away here?

If so, that’s a PSA about poor engineering and design of the driver seat and less about rear passenger seat belt safety.

I have no particular knowledge of this topic but from this 1998 BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/128684.stm :

    > It is estimated that if all rear seat belts were worn, 120 deaths and
    > 1,000 serious injuries could be prevented each year. Back seat
    > passengers are three times more likely to die in an accident if they
    > are not strapped in, according to the AA.
    >
    > The organisation says each year more than 50 people in the front seats
    > of cars are killed after being hit by back seat passengers who were
    > not wearing seatbelts.

edit This 2018 article from the RAC also says it's real: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/drivers-warne...

Kinetic energy increases with the square of the velocity, so in a head-on collision everything not buckled on the back seat becomes a missile heading towards the passenger seats. Even a bag with a laptop is dangerous and you should put it in the foot compartment. And that's like 3kg while an average person will weigh around 70kg.

In New Zealand, the driver is responsible for ensuring all passengers are wearing seatbelts, and I believe (someone please correct me) that they can be held libel if any passenger is not wearing one.

Even the folks up front need to be wearing one. That's how my cousin died: got thrown through the windshield in a head-on collision.

I wear my seatbelt 100% of the time and demand all my friends and loved ones do, too. I also resent seatbelt laws because they are abhorrent. Nothing should invoke state violence without a victim.

That said, and more on topic: this isn't so much about laws as it is attitudes; plenty of people even today don't bother to wear seatbelts.

I have a friend who spent a few years skydiving. He thinks he's a fantastic driver but well let's just say opinions vary. He will happily speed on the freeway and dive between cars like a maniac. What's funny is his pre and post attitude towards seatbelts after skydiving. He's now all about safety equipment and using it every time, probably because a backup chute saved his life. Even so, he's a skeptic about Automatic Activation Devices (AADs) since they came after his time. It's funny how being personally impacted changes your attitude, and then the next safety device comes along and people are back to not trusting it.

    > It’s interesting how the seat belt comment sets the time this was written.

I was surprised by this comment, as the PDF version that I read was undated.

During my search, I found there is a whole Wiki page dedicated to this paper! Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_10:_Rules_for_Dev...

That Wiki page says 2006.

I'm reminded of a clip that went viral a couple years ago with footage from the 80s containing people describing the recent expansion of DUI laws as "Communist"[1]

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xcQIoh3FQQ

I still find seatbelt laws to be one of the most ridiculous examples of government overreach. People think the government shouldn't be in their bedroom, but for some inexplicable reason have no problem with the government being inside their car.

I am struggling to take this comment seriously. How do you feel about requiring minors (< 18yrs old in most places) to wear a seat belt? Do you also think that crash test safety is an overreach of gov't... or speed limits?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com