You're welcome John.

 

Not to belabor the point, but what about future owners/drivers/occupants of the car?
While the chimes may be an annoyance to the current owner/driver, wouldn't the removal of a warning system potentially put others at risk?
I'd be willing to bet that the rate of non-use of seatbelts in cars with audible alarm is significantly lower than in cars without the alarm.
It's been proven that seat belts can reduce the risk of serious injury or death in an accident.
By extension, removal of the audible alarm could have a direct effect on the survivability of the driver or passengers of the vehicle.
Imagine starting the potentially tragic chain of events that leads up to a fatality...just because one wanted to silence an alarm?
Sorry, but for the benefit of others, please just buckle the passenger seat and leave the alarm. You might just save someone's life!

 

That's a good point.

To provide a contrarian view, I think it's Darwin at work. Everyone should put the seatbelt on before you start the car. If you don't, you are gambling with your life.

Most seat belt alarms go off after a few minutes, so in the end, if someone isn't going to wear one (and depend on Mr. Airbag), that is what they are going to do.

The dash light is still going to be there, regardless.

My advice to this guy is if he wants to drive without his seatbelt, just get a belt clip and leave if snapped in all the time. And stock up on healthcare insurance.

 

My opinion is: no (to the first question).
Rationale: it is not required by law to have an audible warning. Because of this, there is no illegal tampering of a warning device. I see no liability in disabling this, until it becomes law.

That said, I am a not lawyer and could be very wrong.

To further the point, how the heck did people survive before these warnings?

I don't think we need to dispute seatbelts being good. Disabling the audible alarm does not indicate that same person will not use a seatbelt. If it did, the alarm should not turn off until a seatbelt in plugged in.

My bottom line it -- if there is the option to turn it off, each and every one of us bought the right to use that option when we spent $30,000.

Interestingly enough, in some areas it is required to have your wipers on while it is raining, why don't I have audible warning for that? (I am sure there are many more examples.)

But I am done. John was able to get the information he needed.

Mike

 

1st - I have had 2 close friends of mine killed in 2 different car wrecks BECAUSE they had their seatbelts on! The people in the car that did not have them on were thrown out and lived with minor injuries. I understand that this is not always the case, but if zebrajeb does or does not wear his seatbelt is his decision! I dont wear mine and never will, its not hurting anyone else but me if I wreck so I dont expect people to preach to me about it. Whether it is or is not against the law, its still my decision.

2nd - Where can I get that fancy Toyota software to interface with my car? Now THAT would be sweet!

 

I call Bravo Sierra on this post.

People are not "killed" because of the seat belt - they are killed in spite of them because of the severity of the accident. People thrown from vehicle are many, many more times likely to die - because their exit is through a glass window, and their body mangle to fit through the window opens, as well as landing on the ground or an object.

 

I disagree, they WERE killed as a result of wearing the seatbelt. I agree that is not what would normally happen, BUT the seat belt held them in the car while the people that were thrown out lived basically unharmed. if they were all wearing seatbelts, I know for a fact they would all be dead! I am VERY glad they were not wearing them... It may have been the impact into a tree or a fire or whatever that killed them, but the seatbelt held them in the car. I sorta see your point, but if I hold you under water until your dead...I feel its not that water that killed you, it was me.
Either way I am NOT arguing that seatbelts kill more people then they save...but there are times they are at fault for people dying. I don't feel thats an opinion, its a fact.

 

I guess it comes down to the odds.
[quessing]
90% of the time seatbelts saved someone who otherwise would have died in an accident.
10% of the time seatbelts killed someone who otherwise would have been able to survive the accident.
[/quessing]
Take your pick.
I heard of someone who drank a gallon of vodka and lived and another who drowned while drinking his morning orange juice.
I've seen people who ran across a highway and lived and know of someone killed standing on the corner waiting for the light to change.
Hey, it's your call.

I don't think there should be laws nor should people be required to keep the audible alarm.
However, it is a system that increases the utilization rate of seatbelt usage.
Increased seatbelt usage saves lives.

All I'm saying is that your decision will absolutely put someone else at greater risk of being killed in an accident.
But if the noise bothers you...

 

I agree with most of this except " However, it is a system that increases the utilization rate of seatbelt usage."

and All I'm saying is that your decision will absolutely put someone else at greater risk of being killed in an accident.



I don't think you could come close to finding any evidence to support this. I believe someone said that after a few minutes the alarm will shut off, so if someone was determined to not wear their seatbelt then they would either wait for the alarm to silence or figure out how to disable it. They wouldn't just put it on to satisfy the alarm. Also not all vehicles have those annoying alarms. My last vehicle didn't. So you can't say that if it is disabled he ill absolutely be putting someone at greater risk. All vehicles would have to have the option for you to say he definitely would be.

I do believe that in most cases seatbelts save lives. However, I do believe that in some instances they are a contributing cause to death. This is being said with 13 years of experience as a medic on multiple accident scenes (more than I care to remember).

 

I've seen many people hear the alarm and put the belts on, I know I have.
I draw my conclusion based upon that cause:effect.
I extended the logic to assume that if some will react to the alarm, others might, or will.
If others will react, than it stands to reason that they are presumably 'safer' than those that don't hear the alarm and stay unbuckled.
I'm not trying to change the mind of someone already determined to disable the alarm
I'm trying to persuade someone who might be thinking about doing it.
It's just playing the odds.
It's just like a 'righty lefty' switch in baseball.