[Braxton1980]

The rear seats of almost all new cars are bench seats though. Is side impact safety requirements the same or apply the whole side of the car?

I believe airbag requirements prevent this because the middle seat would require a console mounted airbag where infotainment systems normally live

[hinkley]

I suspect GP is misremembering why bench seating went away. Bench seats for the driver can lead to steering errors which can result in crashes.

[Braxton1980]

There are other reasons too.

1. Cars that offered manual options needed a center console. Japanese imports would always have a manual version, even if that version wasn't in the US. Same with European.

The only one alternative is a column manual shifter which is horrible to use.

You couldn't use a forward floor shifter unless you want to shift between the legs of the person in the middle.

There are dash mounted shifters but would probably hit the middle person's knees. Not sure since these are rare and usually European (fiat multipla) /Japanese

2. At a point a US safety requirement was all front passengers needed either an airbag or a automatic shoulder seatbelt, basically it ran along the door with a motor when the door closed.

Automatic shoulder belts were cheaper than airbags so manf usually picked that option but don't work with middle seats since they need a door/column for the rails.

3. Minor, but, additional side safety rules increased door thickness. Both sides pushed in more making it uncomfortable. Fine in rear but front, as you mentioned, is a danger to steering.

4. Smaller import cars due to gas crisis in 70s that US companies (eventually) copied that combined with reason (3) made the middle seat basically useless

[rpcope1]

> 1. Cars that offered manual options needed a center console. Japanese imports would always have a manual version, even if that version wasn't in the US. Same with European.

Maybe in cars, but even when trucks still had a manual option, the S10/Sonoma as well as the full size GMT400 had a bench seat in the 90s/00s and a floor manual shifter, and it all worked pretty well. None of them shift like a Porsche, but especially in the full size trucks the center of the bench wasn't too bad if you weren't a large person, and they're generally pretty pleasant to drive.

[Braxton1980]

You're right though that a truck could offer a floor shifter manual or a column auto because it's an easy conversion.

European cars did have the 4 on the floor but that's dated and these didn't have an automatic for the US (afaik).

I'm looking at the period when bench seats died though. A major change in car sizes and the dominance of imports.

[hinkley]

> You couldn't use a forward floor shifter unless you want to shift between the legs of the person in the middle.

I’ve been in one of those. And I may or may not have been the child stuck sitting there. Mercifully only a couple times, because I was horrified. It felt like a child had the power to get us into an accident. 0/10 would not recommend.

[stevage]

I had an experience travelling across Kyrgyzstan recently in the middle front seat. The gearstick was just to the side of my leg, but changing gears invariably meant hitting my leg with it. It was a long 10 hours.

[gibspaulding]

Hah, I was thinking of the fond memories I have of sitting in the middle seat and my dad letting me operate the shifter for him.

[Braxton1980]

You're 100% right, they are used in semi trucks where it's not usually an issue.

It's also a horrible shifter experience even for regular commuter cars where performance isn't a priority. Considering how it's one of the three constantly used controls in a car it would likely hurt sales in a sedan.