Mandatory Onstar?

[mountie]

Back in the 60's they added seatbelts. Did YOU ask for them? That added cost to the vehicles. So did safety glass in all the windows. What about radial tires? They were optional but then became mandatory. Did YOU ask for that? I mean come on, they could put a solid front axle back on all 4x4s as that would be cheaper. Just the ride and handling wouldn't be as good. But did YOU ask to pay more for independent front suspension? Cars and truck manufacturers have been doing things like this since Henry Ford said "They can buy a model T in ANY color they want as long as it's BLACK".
And please don't say I'm for OnStar. I'm actually one of those that hates the idea that some cop (not a good one but one with an agenda) or a nerd living in a basement can find and shut off my truck with me in it. Lock the doors etc. So me personally I'd like it removed, but I'm also against seatbelts in some cases (highways-yes, slow off-road no). But I don't see either of them being removed anytime soon.
Would it have been better to just hide it in the cost as a regular feature? Sure, and most wouldn't bat an eye. But instead they didn't and now YOU think you should be able to say what they do. But as I've shown, they do what makes them $$$, what the government demands, and what the majority of customers want. Not what a small minority demand.
That's not to say that if enough people complain it can't change. But hell more should complain about our corrupt government and demand change as that's costing lives and way more than $1600 for 3 years of OnStar.

Try holding yourself in a forward collision, not wearing a seat belt. Your body weight is about 6 times your weight when accelerated. EVEN in a slow collision.

Seat belts...... Back in the early days they only had lap belts. In an accident even when wearing the lap belts, your teeth were still knocked out against the dash / steering wheel.

Technology discovered, adding a shoulder belt avoided torso & upper injuries.

Education about collision safety showed the consumer that a proper seat & shoulder belt saved injuries. A good thing that some regulations were added to the automakers.
( But many other regulations were political ).......

You can't cheat safety.

 

[MSU BullDAWGz]

Try holding yourself in a forward collision, not wearing a seat belt. Your body weight is about 6 times your weight when accelerated. EVEN in a slow collision.

Seat belts...... Back in the early days they only had lap belts. In an accident even when wearing the lap belts, your teeth were still knocked out against the dash / steering wheel.

Technology discovered, adding a shoulder belt avoided torso & upper injuries.

Education about collision safety showed the consumer that a proper seat & shoulder belt saved injuries. A good thing that some regulations were added to the automakers.
( But many other regulations were political ).......

You can't cheat safety.

Did you even read all what I said? I said on things like a highway where speeds would be faster and forces stronger than people could overcome I said yes you need seatbelts. But what about slow speeds? Off angle 4 wheeling. I've seen 4x4 rollovers where people died because of seatbelts keeping them from being able to fit down below window height and had head decapitated. I've also seen where they weren't wearing a to seatbelt and lived because of not wearing a seatbelt. And if you actually look up the origins of seatbelts it was an abundance driver tired of searching for dead people in car crashes. He wanted the bodies to be left in the wrecked vehicles. Didn't even consider if it would save or cause injuries. But I agree and I wear them when I'm going on roads that exceed 35 mph. But not on back roads where you might need to be dodge a deer or cow and hit the ditch and roll over. And yes I've rolled a blazer and hit deer so I know first hand.

 

[mountie]

I am sorry for my poor communication..... I was agreeing with you.....
I was commenting on the safety issues back in the day, and many people didn't get the safety "regulations". Back in the '70's, me and my friend required passengers to wear the seat belts when it wasn't popular.

My bad

 

[MSU BullDAWGz]

Not mad at all, and I definitely didn't want to turn this into a thread about safety devices on GM vehicles. I just wanted to give some of the thousands of things either added to or never used in the making of these vehicles. Another example of both safety and cost is did GM ever ask us if we wanted a full sized suv that couldn't tow as much because of adding unibody instead of a full frame? Unibodies cost less and are safer (though I could argue that) than full framed vehicles. Every car manufacturer makes decisions on profits and what they think the majority of us want. IMHO this is nothing to get mad over as OnStar is here and most likely here to stay. I don't even think it's an option now but I remember when a radio was optional. I could install Jenson 6x9's and an Alpine radio way cheaper than the factory radio and speakers and have way better system. I don't remember cries of outrage back in the 80's for that. I just ordered my 81 Z-28 and my 89 IROC Z-28 with no radio and installed more 6x9's in both than even the so called best installers in town (they said I can't fit em in the dash or doors, their wrong).
Besides I personally don't understand why anyone would buy a new car. That $90,000 suv just lost $10,000 in value the moment you drove it off the lot. Buy it from a trade in where it's 6 months to 2 years old. But luckily there's enough suckers so some of us can get a $100k Suburban for under $60k and just a few thousand miles on it. Hell that's enough to buy a really nice 1yr old car for you mistress. (J/K kinda) LOL

 

[mountie]

I can understand the use of Onstar if you drive around the country a lot, so if something unforeseen happens in a non-cell " out in the middle of nowhere", Onstar would be a life saver.

But for me, Onstar would be like having to pay for a second cell bill.

 

[MSU BullDAWGz]

But what I'm saying is there are many things on these vehicles that we don't want. Someone in Alaska might not need A/C and me living way down South, I sure don't need heated seats and mirrors. But many options we may want come bundled in with options we don't need or want. But if we want the in nicer gmc grill and more luxury Denali instead of a Chevy then you should have all the bells and whistles. And for $300-$533.34 a year for OnStar (that's ¢.84-$1.46 per day) isn't that bad of a deal. Besides it's not just a phone or i-tunes. Many other features and electronics use it too. All those will be turned off too if OnStar is cancelled.

And all this is from someone who doesn't want anyone tracking him. Regardless if it's the government, big brother, big tech, Google or GM. I'd prefer no OnStar at all with crank windows, minimal electronics. That's why my next project is an LS swap in an 85 K20