| Components - Details | |
|---|---|
| NHTSA Complaint Number: 999084898 | Incident Date: Jun, 08 1999 |
| Consumer's City: MIDLAND | Consumer's State: MI |
| Vehicle Transmission Type: | Manufacturers Name: SAAB CARS USA, INC. |
| Model Name: 900 | Model Year: 1996 |
| Vehicle Involved in a Crash: No | Component's Description: Seat belts:front:anchorage |
| Vehicle Involved in a Fire: No | Persons Injured: 0 |
| Vehicle's VIN#: YS3DD58B3T2 | Date added to File: May, 23 2021 |
| Date Complaint Received: Jun, 08 1999 | Complaint Type: IVOQ |
| Incident Reported To Police: No | Purchase Date: Mar, 31 1999 |
| Was Original Owner: No | Anti-lock Brakes: Yes |
| Number of Cylinders: 0 | Date of Manufacturer: - |
| Was Vehicle Towed: - | Description of the Complaints: The complaint here is that a provided safety device, the seat belts, have inadequate webbing length to accomodate larger occupants. i have contacted saab's customer service center and was advised that while seat belt extenders were available for this model, the cost would be $250 each. we consider that cost-prohibitive to enable use of a manditory safety device. we have purchased other new and used vehicles for more than the last decade such as from gm and seat belt extenders were readily available at zero cost. i can entertain purchasing these extenders for a reasonable amount, such as $50/each, but $250/each is outrageous and quite frankly shouldn't be necessary as the belt webbing is quite short to begin with. saab's position as of this afternoon is they will offer $100 off on a pair of these belts. still, $400 out of pocket to enable a manditory-to-use-by-state-and-federal-law safety feature in a car is absurd. saab's statement was we suggest you try out the car before you buy, and that something like this should tell us not to buy. that misses the whole point of why these safety belts were required in the first place. i am now going through a local reference obtained from the national mobility equipment center (thanks nhtsa for suggesting it!) and they are looking at alternate solutions which are expected to be less in cost. but the point here is why are vehicle manufacturers allowed to deny customers the effective use of manditory safety items because of exorbitant extra pricing, such as seat belt extenders at $250/each when the problem could be avoided simply be lengthing the seat belt webbing in the first place, at a likely cost of less than $10? i think that as a safety issue if nothing else, vehicle manufacturers must provide, at reasonble cost, whatever is necessary to enable use of manditory lawfully-required safety features if the "standard" is not comprehensive to cover customers. *ak |
