SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,732 Posts
Re: NHSTA Penalizing Volvo for being too safe (VolvoD)

Easy solution.<p>Have Volvo integrate the child seats permanently as an option. Imagine 1, 2 or 3 of these seats in the rear. When the seats are no longer needed install the regular seat. There are people out there that would buy it - money isn't an issue when it comes to the safety of their children.<p>Just look at the publicity Volvo will get out of this.<p>Go for it. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://********************/smile/emthup.gif" BORDER="0">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,953 Posts
Re: NHSTA Penalizing Volvo for being too safe (VolvoD)

I think the "model specific" car seat is a great idea. Mostly, because it is so difficult to find a car seat that fits properly. And many retailers will not let you test it before you buy. And then if it doesn't fit, many will not allow for a return. I wonder if those people that pick up their car via OSD will be able to purchase these seats, or if you would be able to order one online.<p>NHSTA may come to regret this decision. Maybe they should ask that car makers include a list of specific car seats that fit properly. There are few things that can be made "one size fits all" and it really does.<p>I would venture a guess that most car seats in this country are installed improperly, and not checked on a frequent enough basis to insure it can do it's job.<p>As far as rear facing until age 6, now that's not something I've seen discussed. There are many kids that get turned to front facing too soon. Parents need to be the ones that get educated on car safety. Many look at it as an inconvenience. For this reason alone, I'm not so sure this would work in the US. <p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
487 Posts
The article states these will not be allowed in North America, but last I checked, we in Canada have our own rules, so maybe we will be able to get them here.<p>If not, there is always the internet.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,169 Posts
Re: (Pinstripe)

There's nothing anti-Volvo about this.<p>Consider this: Child seat standards change. Integrating one seat model into a car that lasts 10 years isn't a very good idea. It almost guarantees that the device will be used past its best-before date.<p>Also, NHTSA isn't being anti-Volvo. Such a claim would only have merit if the rule were being applied unevenly. The fact that it is enforced doesn't imply partiality.<p>Third, the article doesn't support the topic of the thread. Where does it say that Volvo is penalized for "being too safe"? Lemme guess, an "unnamed company source"? Oh, that's an impartial source!<p>It's funny how the same fans who laud Volvo for its safety record cry foul when a safety-oriented organization like NHTSA rules against their favorite brand.<p>That's not being safe, folks. It's being brand loyal.<p>Big difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Re: (RearWheelPaul)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>RearWheelPaul</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Consider this: Child seat standards change. Integrating one seat model into a car that lasts 10 years isn't a very good idea. It almost guarantees that the device will be used past its best-before date.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>First off, these child seats aren’t integrated into a car, they’re paired to a car—there’s nothing keeping a parent from swapping out their Volvo seat for a new, improved ACME seat down the line. That said, I fail to see how your scenario isn’t in play for any other child seat out there, paired to a car or otherwise. It’s the parents’ responsibility to stay on top of this stuff and know that the seat they bought for their ten-year-old daughter is no longer applicable to their newborn son.<p>A more relevant scenario is presented by the comment on the article:<br><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>JKT</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Car seats need to be compatible with all cars so that they can be swapped between cars as necessary. Imagine the parent whose Volvo breaks down and who then cannot get her baby home because a non-Volvo comes to pick her and her child up. This regulation exists for a reason and should be maintained.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>I think it’s a valid argument, but I don’t agree with the conclusion—I don’t think the NHTSA should be regulating this. Now granted I know nothing about child seats and their reality, so I’m open to being convinced otherwise.<p>The article didn’t explain what about these new seats make them Volvo-specific, but here’s my reasoning: LATCH (or Isofix or whatever) is a contract between consumers and manufacturers. It allows—and if it doesn’t it SHOULD allow—consumers to pair any number of compliant seats with any number of compliant vehicles. If Volvo is selling a non-LATCH-compliant seat, it is the purchasing consumer who should recognize they are no longer part of that contract and their purchase may very well not be interchangeable with other vehicles. The consumer might choose to take on this risk for the potential gain of a superior child seat that, for whatever reason, could only be made outside the LATCH specification.<p>Volvo’s R&D shouldn’t be shackled to a spec; if nobody is pushing the spec’s limits, it’ll never advance. It is, however, Volvo responsibility out of their commitment to safety to lobby for such advances once they have a tangible, viable product with demonstrable benefits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,074 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Re: (RearWheelPaul)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>RearWheelPaul</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">There's nothing anti-Volvo about this.<p>Consider this: Child seat standards change. Integrating one seat model into a car that lasts 10 years isn't a very good idea. It almost guarantees that the device will be used past its best-before date.<p>Also, NHTSA isn't being anti-Volvo. Such a claim would only have merit if the rule were being applied unevenly. The fact that it is enforced doesn't imply partiality.<p>Third, the article doesn't support the topic of the thread. Where does it say that Volvo is penalized for "being too safe"? Lemme guess, an "unnamed company source"? Oh, that's an impartial source!<p>It's funny how the same fans who laud Volvo for its safety record cry foul when a safety-oriented organization like NHTSA rules against their favorite brand.<p>That's not being safe, folks. It's being brand loyal.<p>Big difference.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>You sir, are of course wrong. The fact that most child safety seats are designed to fit most vehicles means that now you are now comprimising on what should be a very specific design.<br>If I drive a Volvo, why am I being forced to buy a seat that is not designed to work best specifically with my vehicle?<br>Now Volvo has a seat that is designed to work in a Volvo. I FAIL to see the problem. If some idiot wants to try to put a Volvo car seat in a Buick, that is not my problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
Re: (RearWheelPaul)

Respectfully, Paul, you are being either anti-loyalist or anti-Volvo. Likely both. In either case your post is a baseless, misdirected attack on Volvo for the sake of criticizing its customers.<p>First, it is true that car seat engineering, as with most products, advances and models become comparatively less effective with the passage of time. The general rule, per my most recent parenting-motivated research, is that no seat should be used more than three years. Their plastics break down while baking in cars; they are subjected to stresses in routine driving. But it is an vastly-overreaching statement to say <br><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>RearWheelPaul</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><B><I>Integrating one seat model into a car that lasts 10 years </I></B>isn't a very good idea. It <B><I>almost guarantees that the device will be used past its best-before date</I></B>.</TD></TR></TABLE><br>The majority of parents, especially those who are buying Volvos for safety reasons, know that child seats have to be changed out. Such parents are commonly part of the hyper-conscious culture of parenting. To say designing a seat to work with a car almost guarantees misuse is baseless and ridiculous and criticizes Volvo for what would, in your scenario, be a parent's negligence.<p>Second, though you are correct that <br><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>RearWheelPaul</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">NHTSA isn't being anti-Volvo. Such a claim would only have merit if the rule were being applied unevenly. The fact that it is enforced doesn't imply partiality.</TD></TR></TABLE><br>you miss the mark in saying that Volvo is not being penalized.<p>The reality is that a car-specific seat offers real advantages that the NHTSA regulation inhibits. Search any of the forums on recent model Volvos in the FWD & AWD forum. You will find a thread asking which car seats fit that particular model. It is a reality that some seats -- "universal fit" according to the <br><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>RearWheelPaul</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">safety-oriented organization like NHTSA </TD></TR></TABLE><br>-- do not fit certain cars. The angle of the seat bottom is wrong, or the head restraint interferes with the top-tether, or the quasi-bucket seat bottom is to narrow, or there is not enough room behind the seat-back of the front seat. (Ironically, Britax seats, deemed by many to be God's gift to child car safety, are often the worst offenders.) Volvo has offered a solution to this: their seats for their cars. Moreover, not only do they fit, but they enable what is the universally agreed better arrangement of rear-facing up to a much older age.<p>So, no Volvo is not being penalized. But it is being prohibited from offering to their customers, current and potential, what is undeniably a safer arrangement. Thus, when<br><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>RearWheelPaul</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the same fans who laud Volvo for its safety record cry foul when a safety-oriented organization like NHTSA rules against their favorite brand</TD></TR></TABLE><br>they are <br><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>RearWheelPaul</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">being safe, </TD></TR></TABLE><br>not<br> <TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>RearWheelPaul</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">being brand loyal.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>You have made very clear in innumerable posts your disappointment, frustration, and annoyance with Volvo. Some of that is opinion, which is entirely individual. Some of it is empirical and correct. But in strafing the brand with gunfire, you inevitably take down those who appreciate it as either blind or ignorant. In this instance, a government regulation that aims for safety for all is trumping greater safety for those individuals who would buy it. To be dissappointed, or frustrated or annoyed at that is informed consumerism.<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>RearWheelPaul</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Big difference.</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,383 Posts
Good job we can get them in Europe. I think for NA they should integrate them and allow people to swap them out later on like stev vanveit suggested.<p>Why does RearWheelPaul continue to come on these forums when all I've seen from his comments for last few months have been anti-Volvo... Is he really that miserable and lonely that his only satisfaction comes from trying to annoy Volvo owners, who in the first place are hardly pompous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Re: (Pinstripe)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Pinstripe</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The article states these will not be allowed in North America, but last I checked, we in Canada have our own rules, so maybe we will be able to get them here.<p>If not, there is always the internet.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>doubtful, our pitiful canadian government follows the us standards most of the time. I know we have slightly different laws on car seat but i ery much doubt volvo will bring them in.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,169 Posts
Re: (pktojd)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>pktojd</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Respectfully, Paul, you are being either anti-loyalist or anti-Volvo. Likely both. </TD></TR></TABLE><p>I am a Volvo driver. <p>Being a loyalist doesn't enter into the equation for me any more than being an anti-loyalist. I find either notion as absurd as those who are self-confessed Volvo "fans" (let's not forget that the term "fan" is short form for fanatic).<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>pktojd</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> In either case your post is a baseless, misdirected attack on Volvo for the sake of criticizing its customers.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>I can only go by the information presented here. There is sufficient information to make the following logical hypotheses:<p>Hypothesis #1: Volvo didn't know about NHTSA's standards. <p>Hypothesis #2: Volvo chose to ignore NHTSA standards in the hope that they could work a loop-hole to corporate advantage.<p>The first hypothesis (they didn't know) suggests incompetence. The second hyopthesis (they ignored them) suggests risk tolerance in their decision-making.<p>I don't believe Volvo to be incompetent. If they were, they'd consistently screw-up the thousands of NHTSA and DOT regulations to which they must adhere. Volvo doesn't have a track history of this magnitude of failure. From this, the first hypothesis can be rejected.<p>This leaves the second hypothesis, that Volvo took the risk of developing a product without due diligence to NHTSA regulations. Evidence of this is apparent. If they did develop a product with proper attention to NHTSA regs, this problem wouldn't exist. It is from this perspective that the second hypothesis is the most plausible of the two. <p>I don't know how much was spent in engineering and product development. Since no tangible results were forthcoming, it represents a waste of resources -- at a time when the company can least afford them.<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>pktojd</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">you miss the mark in saying that Volvo is not being penalized.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Volvo isn't being penalized. They either developed a product in ignorance of NHTSA standards or chose to gamble that NHTSA wouldn't enforce its standards. In either case, the fault lies with them.<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>pktojd</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">But it is being prohibited from offering to their customers, current and potential, what is <B>undeniably a safer arrangement.</B> </TD></TR></TABLE><p>Undeniable? On what basis do you make this claim?<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>pktojd</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You have made very clear in innumerable posts your disappointment, frustration, and annoyance with Volvo. Some of that is opinion, which is entirely individual. Some of it is empirical and correct. But in strafing the brand with gunfire, you inevitably take down those who appreciate it as either blind or ignorant. </TD></TR></TABLE><p>I haven't "strafed the brand with gunfire". I've pointed out good and bad decisions when they arise.<p>This latest incident is consistent with what appears to be some rather silly decisions on the part of the company. Added to this is Volvo's attempt to transform <U>their</U> product development error into public relations capital by criticizing NHTSA.<p>Disappointing. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/rolleyes.gif" BORDER="0">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Re: (RearWheelPaul)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>RearWheelPaul</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't know how much was spent in engineering and product development. Since no tangible results were forthcoming, it represents a waste of resources -- at a time when the company can least afford them.<br>…<br>This latest incident is consistent with what appears to be some rather silly decisions on the part of the company. Added to this is Volvo's attempt to transform <U>their</U> product development error into public relations capital by criticizing NHTSA.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>“No tangible results were forthcoming”? You say this as if Volvo only ever intended to sell these child seats in the US. I agree with you that this is no accident; that they chose to design outside the NHTSA regulations. But why should an international company restrict their R&D to only products that conform to any given country’s standards when that same product might be of real benefit to other, less regulated countries? <p>Now that Volvo has created these child seats—knowing full well they may not be allowed in the US—why shouldn’t they at least try to sell them in the US rather than assume they can’t? They worst they could be told is “no” and that’s exactly what happened. And like you said, it gives them a chance to receive PR capital for criticizing the NHTSA (though certainly not founded on a “product failure”). Chances are Volvo’s criticism will generate its fair share of free publicity for their new child seats and potentially—though certainly doubtful—get the NHTSA to reevaluate its stance on this particular regulation; a regulation with which, as described above, I don’t agree.<p>EDIT: Also, can we please stop with (anti)loyalist back-and-forth pissing match? It’s irrelevant and distracting to actual topic at hand.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,169 Posts
Re: (exizldelfuego)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>exizldelfuego</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">“No tangible results were forthcoming”? You say this as if Volvo only ever intended to sell these child seats in the US. I agree with you that this is no accident; that they chose to design outside the NHTSA regulations. But why should an international company restrict their R&D to only products that conform to any given country’s standards when that same product might be of real benefit to other, less regulated countries? </TD></TR></TABLE><p>First, North America is a very large market -- one that Volvo ignores at its peril.<p>Second, R&D costs are recouped more quickly if you're able to sell to mass markets. <p>Third, your post suggests that Volvo would market a safety innovation in "less regulated countries". This doesn't make very much sense for any company that aspires to sell the safest possible products. Should not Volvo aspire to produce products that meet the most stringent requirements?<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>exizldelfuego</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">They worst they could be told is “no” and that’s exactly what happened. And like you said, it gives them a chance to receive PR capital for criticizing the NHTSA (though certainly not founded on a “product failure”). Chances are Volvo’s criticism will generate its fair share of free publicity for their new child seats and potentially—though certainly doubtful—get the NHTSA to reevaluate its stance on this particular regulation; a regulation with which, as described above, I don’t agree.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>If you are correct, this is nothing more than cheap grandstanding on Volvo's part. <p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>exizldelfuego</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Also, can we please stop with (anti)loyalist back-and-forth pissing match? It’s irrelevant and distracting to actual topic at hand.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>I agree. Please note that pkjold raised it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,169 Posts
Re: (RearWheelPaul)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>RearWheelPaul</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Third, your post suggests that Volvo would market a safety innovation in "less regulated countries". This doesn't make very much sense for any company that aspires to sell the safest possible products. Should not Volvo aspire to produce products that meet the most stringent requirements?</TD></TR></TABLE><p>here's a good example of this...<p>"Volvo wrote to NHTSA to inform the agency that Volvo is planning to introduce a car (the Volvo S/V 40) into the United States for the 2000 model year (MY). <B>Volvo explained that the car does not have the reinforced tether anchorage hole that all vehicles must have to be sold in Canada.</B> <I>(The manufacturer only plans to sell the car in the U.S., and not sell it in Canada.)</I> The manufacturer said that it cannot install user-ready tether anchorages by September 1, 1999 in these vehicles. Instead, Volvo suggests that the effective date for the user-ready tether anchorage requirement be two years from the date of the final rule, or be phased-in such that after 1 year, 60 percent of a manufacturer's vehicles would be required to be equipped with the user-ready tether anchorage and the rest of the manufacturer's vehicles required to comply with the requirement a year later.<p>NHTSA has decided to phase-in the user-ready tether anchorage requirement for cars over a two-year period to provide Volvo time to equip its S/V 40 model vehicles with the anchorages. <B>However, the agency does not agree with Volvo's suggestion that only 60 percent of a manufacturer's vehicles should be required to meet the requirement in the first year.</B> Volvo did not provide any information showing that the models will comprise 60 percent of Volvo's vehicles.<p>In addition, NHTSA believes that the 60 percent figure the manufacturer requested is too low because one of the model types of the S/V 40 is a sedan. <B>NHTSA believes that a user-ready tether anchorage is not difficult to install in a sedan. </B>The reinforced tether anchorage hole can be drilled into structure behind the rear seat, such as that on or around the package shelf. <B>The agency believes that Volvo can expedite installation of the user-ready tether anchorage in at least the sedan versions of the model to meet a September 1, 1999 effective date. </B>Accordingly, this final rule specifies that beginning September 1, 1999, 80 percent of a manufacturer's passenger cars would be required to be equipped with the user-ready tether anchorages and the rest of the vehicles required to comply with the requirement a year later. The tether anchorage requirements for LTVs become effective September 1, 2000."<p><A HREF="http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/Cars/rules/rulings/UCRA-OMB-J08/FinalRule.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/Cars/....html</A><p>All of which is to say that companies frequently present themselves to the public in a much different manner than they do to regulatory bodies.<p>Regulatory bodies, such as NHTSA, remain a consumer's best friend. They set, encourage, and enforce practical standards.<p>Volvo, as companies go, is pretty good wrt safety. But like any company, it will play the rules to its advantage. This advantage is frequently measured in terms of loss/profit.<p>SSers should keep this in mind when blinded by brand loyalty or misinformation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Re: (RearWheelPaul)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>RearWheelPaul</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">First, North America is a very large market -- one that Volvo ignores at its peril. Second, R&D costs are recouped more quickly if you're able to sell to mass markets. Third, your post suggests that Volvo would market a safety innovation in "less regulated countries". This doesn't make very much sense for any company that aspires to sell the safest possible products. Should not Volvo aspire to produce products that meet the most stringent requirements?<br>…<br>If you are correct, this is nothing more than cheap grandstanding on Volvo's part.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Armchair economics aside, North America may be a very large market but it’s not Volvo’s only market. And developing a child seat that it can’t sell in the US due to a technicality is hardly ignoring it. Volvo absolutely should—and, as these child seats demonstrate, does—build products that not only meet but exceed stringent safety requirements, but that’s not the point of contention the NHTSA has with these seats. Their issue is with the interoperability of these seats with vehicles other than Volvo’s own; an issue, as I’ve argued, should be left to consumers.<p>Increased regulation doesn’t necessarily equate to increased safety. The situation we have here is a safety standards body laying down and enforcing a regulation that is actively preventing safer products from reaching the market. That Volvo receives free press for criticizing this regulation is certainly a boon, but their criticism serves greater purpose by bringing this regulation to the attention of the media, consumers, and hopefully the NHTSA itself. I believe this regulation needs to be significantly rethought, if not tossed outright.<p>The only way Volvo’s criticism can be “nothing more than cheap grandstanding” is if it comes out that Volvo could just as easily have developed these seats with interoperability in place but didn’t due to some sort of vendor lock-in conspiracy. If this is the case, I completely stand with you. But I think we can give Volvo the benefit of the doubt here.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,169 Posts
Re: (exizldelfuego)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>exizldelfuego</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The situation we have here is a safety standards body laying down and enforcing a regulation that is <U>actively preventing safer products from reaching the market. </U></TD></TR></TABLE><p>This is conjecture on your part.<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>exizldelfuego</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">But I think we can give Volvo the benefit of the doubt here.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>See my last post.<p><A HREF="http://forums.swedespeed.com/zerothread?id=117738&postid=1233523#1233523" TARGET="_blank">http://forums.swedespeed.com/z...33523</A><p>My level of trust is a function of the degree to which companies' statements and actions align.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Re: (RearWheelPaul)

You’re right—it is conjecture on my part. I haven’t seen the studies or the research Volvo went through in developing these seats. I haven’t seen these seats in action. I also don’t share your corporate distrust. In a market where, on so many factors, Volvo is currently just “good enough” and their only traditional market distinction is safety, I fully expect them to serve everyone’s—including their own—interest by developing safer products. So yes, when Volvo says these seats are more safe than more traditional seats, I’m going to take that at face value. And even though we might not see it, I expect Volvo will market these with demonstrable proof backing up its claims.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,169 Posts
Re: (exizldelfuego)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>exizldelfuego</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">YI also don’t share your corporate distrust. </TD></TR></TABLE><p>It's not distrust:<p>"My level of trust is a function of the degree to which companies' statements and actions align."<p>I think a former US President had it right when he once said "trust but verify".<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>exizldelfuego</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">And even though we might not see it, I expect Volvo will market these with demonstrable proof backing up its claims.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>If they market them with demonstrable proof, we will see it. Otherwise, it's not exactly "demonstrable", is it? <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/biggrin.gif" BORDER="0">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Re: (RearWheelPaul)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>RearWheelPaul</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If they market them with demonstrable proof, we will see it. Otherwise, it's not exactly "demonstrable", is it? <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/biggrin.gif" BORDER="0"> </TD></TR></TABLE><p>You’re right: the Internet sees all! <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/eek.gif" BORDER="0"> What I meant was “we, the US market, might not be the recipients…”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,732 Posts
Re:

Looking at the photo of the new seat shows that it is quite possibly anchored to the rear of the front seats and the base is not anchored by a traditional seat belt. In addition the front seat appears to act as a protected rollcage.<p>In light of NHTSA standards all Volvo would need to do is add the additional missing components to comply. Yes this would add additional costs but producing two seats one for North America and one for the rest of the planet would be cost effective and Volvo would be in a win win situation.<p>Testing or seeking out NHTSA reaction is okay in my book. Volvo got their answer rather quickly. Now on to stage two complying with NHTSA standards.<p>The important thing here is the safety of our children and Volvo seems to be leading the way once again.<p>Bring it on.<br>
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top