Rear seat belt supplier?

[64R]

Is there anybody out there making period correct rear seat belts for Riv's? I have a 64 and I'm sure I've seen seat belts listed at a site like CARS in the past but can't find anything now?

 

Thanks

[petelempert]

There is a supplier in east Texas called Snake Oyl products. They refurbished the buckles and webbing on a Cutlass of mine. Did a good job. PRL

[RivNut]

'64's had a unique buckles, 1 style, but two different manufacturers; they don't interchange.  Period correct, but not Buick OE, seat belts can be found at Wesco Performance.

 

http://wescoperformance.stores.yahoo.net/ll60.html.  

 

If your car was built prior to Jan. 1, 1964, seat belts would have been an option or even a dealer installed item.  The belts could have been any kind.  My '63 has aftermarket belts, installed by the original owner, and they're very similar to the ones I've linked.

 

Ed

[64R]

Thanks for the info! Mine didn't come with the rear belts, still optional at that time. It's just nice to have them for the odd time I have a couple of extra people in it. I'm sure many of the worst drivers on the planet live in my area so it's worth having them.

[RivNut]

Rob,

 

There's a couple of "1964 Buick" seat belts on eBay right now.  If you search the archives, you'll find a thread where I posted a page from the shop manual that tells you where to find the dimples in the rear seat area to drill the holes for the seat belts.  They're easy to find.  I bought attaching plates from Wesco.  

[64R]

Thanks Ed, knowing the exact spot to drill the holes is a bonus!

[John_S_in_Penna]

Do you really feel you need them?

 

Today, people's prevailing thought has been trained

to be afraid without a barrage of restraints,

but hundreds of millions of cars and car owners

have been perfectly fine without them.  Even now,

some states (such as mine) don't require belts for

rear passengers.  And antique cars in your state

are likely exempt from current well-meaning seat-belt laws.

 

And no, folks, don't point out the few examples of

wrecked lives as a dissuasion.  Those are minuscule statistics.

Because 10 people in a state caught a certain disease,

don't be afraid to travel in that state!

Edited June 16, 2015 by John_S_in_Penna (see edit history)

[RivNut]

I'm hoping that "John_S_in_Penna" is speaking only for himself and not for the majority of members of the forum.  If only he could identify himself as a real person, not just as a user name, he might be taken more seriously.

 

Ed

[John_S_in_Penna]

That posting is serious, and deep.  Ponder it, please.

It speaks to how thoughts and fears create mandates.

I know no car enthusiast would intend to write

unkind comments.  Fellow Riv owners, especially

elected office-holders, are ambassadors for the ROA!

 

It's interesting to look at the history of

seat belts and other passive-restraint systems.

 

In the 1950's and 1960's, most people felt perfectly

safe without them.  When air-bag systems were first

being mandated by governments, the stated reason

was because people often weren't fastening their

seat belts.  In other words, air bags were promulgated

as a safety feature in lieu of seat belts. 

 

In 2015, in contrast, many states mandate seat-belt use

(at least in the front), and many people feel uncomfortable

without seat belts, shoulder belts, front air-bags,

and side air-bags.

 

When we come to 2050, and everyone is wearing

race-style harnesses, would someone criticize a fellow

hobbyist who felt perfectly safe with only seat belts,

shoulder belts, and 10 airbags?  See how the prevailing

thought governs people, for better or for worse?

 

Everyone must think for himself.  One of our 50 states

has no seat-belt requirements at all;  22 states do not

require use of rear seat-belts.  Now there's even talk in some

circles of requiring restraints for dogs!

Issues can be debated interestingly, can't they?

Edited June 18, 2015 by John_S_in_Penna (see edit history)

[RivNut]

I speak only for myself.

 

If you would, please find some facts that tell us how many people riding in the back seats of the older 50's and 60's era cars were killed or injured in an accident and compare those to what happens in a car built today.  If you remember your 7th grade science class, youll remember Newton's first law of motion.  "An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force.  An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."  This law is often called the Law of Inertia.

 

When that kid sitting in the back seat of a car traveling at 70 mph, the kid is doing 70 mph.  When the car hits something, that kid is still traveling at 70 miles per hour and will continue to do that until he encounters an unbalanced force - the back of the seat, the back of your head, or the windshield - whichever is in his path of motion; most likely his head will be the first thing to contact that unbalanced force.  If the unbalanced force is attached to the car, i.e. a seat belt, the kids stops his motion when the cars motion is stopped and his head remains attached to his shoulders rather than being the first thing to hit the windshiled.  

 

I guess it's the choice of the driver of the car what happens to the passengers he's transporting.  Me myself.  I'd rather be safe than sorry.

 

Oh, we still don't know your name, location, or qualifications.

 

Once again, I'm speaking only for myself and not as a representative of any group.  Therefore, I'll only sign my name and leave my signature block off this post.

 

Ed Raner