Huh, you assume they wouldn't? And even if they for some stupid reason were not wearing belts, because kids will be kids, the dual pane glass is nice to have in that case. I don't get the contrarian reply.
MIAMI (AP) — It appears three children were wearing seatbelts when they were ejected from a church van in a fiery, Jan. 3 crash that killed seven people on Interstate 75 in Florida, according to a report released Wednesday.
www.yahoo.com
From your article:
The van's driver and front seat passenger wore seat belts but weren't ejected. T
he van rolled over several times. At least eight other people were injured.
"While seatbelts remain an indispensable safety tool, they are not infallible," said Jason Levine, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety. "The reality is that in certain rollover circumstances —
particularly for large vehicles like passenger vans — seatbelts by themselves are not enough."
Glass is not a restraining device. It's not sold, tested or marketed thusly so although the dual pane laminated rears have other beneficial characteristics (as you pointed out), restraining occupants is a bit far fetched. In fact there is an opposite and more probable concern, which is that it's very difficult for trapped rear occupants to shatter and exit the vehicle, even with the safety hammer (as evidenced in the video you posted. )
Stepping back, the MYP/M3 have basically none of the characteristics of the vehicle in the linked article. It's low with a stable heavy mass, making it almost un flippable based on standardized tests and anecdotal data. The van is high, tippy, heavy, and likely had no shoulder restraint and only a lap belt in the rear rows, like the majority of passenger vans I've been in recently (mostly hotel and airport transport ones).
Not dismissing that it'd be neat but that specific reason for wanting it struck me as something out of left field. I too would like the dual pane rear glass, mainly for more sound isolation.
