seat belts,your thoughts

[Guest leadsled1953]

personally my years of driving in demolition derby has taught me a lot about what a seatbelt does to keep you from getting hurt. with that being said my 50 desoto doesnt have belts.i have big issue with the big washer school of seatbelt thinking. putting a bolt through a thin piece of floor doesnt seem very safe in the grand scheme of things.i look at cars from the 60s and it looks like the seatbelt mounting points are plated. so when i do put seatbelts in the desoto i will definitely talk to someone who can do that for me. i also agree about the if he hadnt been wearing a belt he would be alive today isnt true ..i have only seen that one time in my life.and that was such a freak thing that it couldnt happen again if you tried to repeat it 1000 times.i do believe that seatbelts save lives.but if you drive like an idiot and drive too fast you will die no matter how many safety devices your car has.

[Shop Rat]

but if you drive like an idiot and drive too fast you will die no matter how many safety devices your car has.

Sadly, you don't have to drive like an idiot, drive drunk or distracted, or drive fast to die. All you have to do is cross paths with someone that fits those descriptions. It is what happened to my friend in Fla. She was being careful but the guy that was young, drunk and flying wasn't and now a young girl that was to marry my friend's son is dead and the rest of the folks in my friend's car have their own injuries to deal with, some of them will leave them with lifetime issues, and both families deal with the loss of Jennifer from their lives.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Shop Rat (see edit history)

[Guest leadsled1953]

ShopRat,sorry for your loss.sadly so many times those who drive like idiots take the inocent with them.

[Shop Rat]

ShopRat,sorry for your loss.sadly so many times those who drive like idiots take the inocent with them.

I went back and added a little bit more information to my post. I realized it wasn't clear enough. My friend was the driver of her car and the least one hurt. The girl that died was to marry my friend's son.

But thank you for the kind thoughts. As I understand it Jennifer was a lovely young lady and she will be missed by many people.

Back in early 1969 when I took Driver's Ed as a high school senior "Defensive Driving" was the new buzz word in driver training. Now if you don't drive that way, and even if you do, you are at risk from those who feel no matter what we should look out for them. Every day we see someone blast through a red light or stop sign. Bill sat in the car while I went into the bank. It sits on a corner of a main and a side street. He counted that four of the ten cars that went through did not stop at all and of those four two didn't even put on their brakes.

Just today some idiot in a big white new Lincoln came barging out of a hospital parking lot and expected me to slam on my brakes to let him out. NOT happening. He thought that because he was in a Lincoln and I was in my PT Cruiser he was more important. Sorry dude, I am driving down a through street and you can wait. Had he pulled to the edge of the exit and stopped with his blinker on I would have let him out. Not!! And that moron had the guts to blare his horn at ME like I did something wrong.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Shop Rat (see edit history)

[Guest windjamer]

Susan I will try the adjuster,but I bet my clouths pin works as well.

[joe_padavano]

I'm very skeptical of anything that modifies how a seatbelt fits. Belts are tested in a specific configuration. A clip or other device that makes the loose will only serve to increase the severity of injuries. On cars with inertia reel belts, the use of a clip can defeat the action of the inertia reel. This is a BAAAAD idea.

It's simple physics. The tighter the belt, the less inertia your body builds up in a crash and the less energy that must be absorbed by the belt (and the places where the belt contacts your body). Race car drivers and fighter pilots will tell you that belts need to be as tight as possible. Yes, part of that is to keep the driver/pilot in place under high G manuvers, but it is also important to minimize injuries. This is why newer high-end cars actually have pyrotechnic belt tensioners that pull the belts tight when accelerometers sense a crash.

[Reatta Man]

You know, if this thread keeps going, someone is going to come in here and say something like this:

"After reading these comments, I started wearing my seat belt more often. The next day, I was in an accident. I don't think I would have survived without it. Thanks."

THAT would make this forum worth all the effort that goes into making it work.

Joe

[Shop Rat]

A clip or other device that makes the loose will only serve to increase the severity of injuries.

The one that I am talking about does not make the belt looser. It repositions the shoulder belt so that it does not cut into the driver/passenger's neck. Many people will not wear a shoulder belt for that very reason. It is uncomfortable to have that webbing edge rub. The child booster seat that I bought for the kids I baby-sit for has a slot to do that so that the belt does not catch the child in the neck.

Many vehicles, and I think they all should, have the adjustment built into the frame of the door where the shoulder belt hooks in. You can slide it up and down to get a better fit.

For eleven years Bill raced a Legends racecar pretty much every weekend from April through October. He flew the car :eek:, jammed it straight into a cement wall and various other wrecks. Thankfully he never rolled it. He did that back in the 60's with his Sportsman class racecar. He used a Simpson five point harness and every time he could he tightened it down. The worst thing he did was the first time he took it out he made 3/4 of a lap and slid it into the wall and cracked a rib. I got him a NASCAR level gel seat liner and he never got hurt again. Belts do work. They do need to be tight. But they also need to be comfortable or folks will not be inclined to wear them. The auto industry should be making more of an effort to help with that. People come in all sizes and shapes and they should design for that.

The bottom line is everyone here has family and friends that love and care about them. Do all you can to stay safe.

[Shop Rat]

Susan I will try the adjuster,but I bet my clouths pin works as well.

Thanks wj. We can't afford to lose nice people like you.

[Tom400CFI]

Thirdly: baby seat. I wanted to be able to transport our new baby in the car, and baby seats require seatbelts. No seatbelts=no baby in car=less fun in owning this car.

I don't think that's right. If the car is grandfathered out of needing seat belts, then it's also gradnfathered out of child restraint laws. Now YOU may have personal feelings about brining your chiled in a car w/o child restraints, but the law shouldn't prohibit you from doing it. I just when the rounds about that w/a Vermont Sheriff. Read more here...

Utah Vettes - For the most hardcore, "car guys".

4th post up from the bottom. In the end, I won. I was right, and incredibly (I'm being sarcastic now) it's still O.K. for kids to ride in antique cars!!

With our moronic, petrified society, I'm betting it will be legislated out of existance before long I'm done driving.

[Dave@Moon]

When investigating child restraint laws in PA I noticed that no exception whatsoever was made for the car's age. You've got no choice in transporting a toddler or infant, you must have seat belts with properly installed child seats.

I doubt PA is alone.

[MCHinson]

PA may not be alone, but NC does exempt antique cars from child restraing systems.

While I am a great supporter of wearing seat belts and restraining children, in NC an antique car owner is not required to put children in safety seats in a car that was built prior to mandatory seatbelts.

Here is the exception clause in our child restraint statute, NCGS 20-137.1

"( The provisions of this section shall not apply: (i) to ambulances or other emergency vehicles; (ii) if all seating positions equipped with child passenger restraint systems or seat belts are occupied; or (iii) to vehicles which are not required by federal law or regulation to be equipped with seat belts.

[Tom400CFI]

When investigating child restraint laws in PA I noticed that no exception whatsoever was made for the car's age. You've got no choice in transporting a toddler or infant, you must have seat belts with properly installed child seats.

I doubt PA is alone.

Well that is BFS. Exactly how is one to put seat belts into a 100 year old car? And do it ina way that is "engineered" (the only way that is meaningful)? With out destroying the car? Can't do it. In fact, home installing a seat belt OPENS YOU to liability, b/c it "implies" safety to a unwitting passenger...when it's not an engineered and tested system.

So what that means in PA at least? Kids can't ride in antique cars. BS!!

Let's legislate ourselves right out of quality living. Seriously. It you REALLY want to be "safe" and that is what the legislature is for, right?...then it's best to stay home and do nothing right? Now THAT is high quality living right there! B.....S.!

-Tom

[Shop Rat]

In the end, I won.

I am not sure why you argued for something that is dangerous beyond belief.

My question to you is, would you transport an infant, toddler or child in one of your vehicles without them being in a car seat, booster seat or seatbelt as normally required by law? (This is not in an emergency situation where it is life or death and no other way to transport them to a hospital or E.R. Just a regular go down the road drive.)

I can tell you I would not. I even spent my money on a top quality Graco brand full back and side protection booster seat for the kids I baby-sit for that are old enough and tall enough to ride in it by law. I would have to borrow an infant carseat from the parents.

This is one area that I personally feel that anyone transporting children of any age should do what is safest not what the law "allows".

[Tom400CFI]

I am not sure why you argued for something that is dangerous beyond belief.

"Dangerous beyond belief", huh? Really??? Come on now.

Why don't you whip out some statistics for me, and show me just how dangerous riding/driving is and has been, in brass era cars! I would bet ANY amount of money; I'd bet both my Corvettes, that the statistics are at least 100 times safer/better than for ANY modern car. Want to take me up on that bet?

Beyond the statistic I challenge you to produce, I can cite countless examples of things that are perfectly legal, and not (yet) culturally considered "taboo" by the zealots. Countless. It's "trendy" right now to "Look out for the children!!"...when in most cases...the kids are going to be JUST FINE. Just fine.

So how unsafe is my proposition...really? Not very.

My question to you is, would you transport an infant, toddler or child in one of your vehicles without them being in a car seat, booster seat or seatbelt as normally required by law?

NO! First, it's not necessary, as designed by modern cars. Second, the statistics for "daily driving" in a modern car are much WORSE for accident rates than for brass era cars. BECAUSE Third; people become complacent driving a modern car, in modern, every day traffic.

I can tell you I would not.

Yep you can. Doesn't pertain to 100 year old car touring, however.

This is one area that I personally feel that anyone transporting children of any age should do what is safest not what the law "allows".

Tell us how to go about that then. My question stands form my last post. How do I:

1. Install seat belts in a 100 y/o car, that...

2. are engineered to work and are tested to prove it (Crash testing) and...

3. Don't destroy the car?

How do I do that?

P.S. Did you even scan the link I posted?? Did you see the other families (in my pics) touring in '10 era Packards? Believe it or not, they had fun....and The made it out alive!!!

P.P.S. I argued for it b/c I know it IS safe, I know our son was NOT in "danger beyond belief" and I also knew that if I didn't "win"...our fun, our family time, our life experience, and our trip would have been OVER. We didn't fly to New England and drive 4 hours to VT to sit in a hotel room. Would you? I can tell you that you would not. Or maybe....?

Edited July 29, 2009 by Tom400CFI (see edit history)

[MCHinson]

I will have to say that I do not have seat belts in my 1929 Model A Phaeton. I have chosen to keep it all original, and I don't drive it much, and I am extremely careful all of the time, especially when carrying passengers (including my 11 year old daughter). Life is not without risk. It is impracticable to install seat belts in this open car in a manner that it will look good and substantially improve the safety of the car. This is my choice, and it is also legal in my state.

Dave, I am no expert on PA law, but I think you may be wrong about your statement about there not being an exception in PA law that applies to most antique vehicles.

Assuming Google Documents has the correct current PA law on Child Restraints, there are exceptions in PA law for pre 1966 vehicles as well as any seating position in a vehicle that was not originally equipped with seat belts.

Powered by Google Docs

[Tom400CFI]

(including my 11 year old daughter). Life is not without risk.

...And there it is. The MAN! That is right. Your daughter has a better, richer life b/c of those experiences. I know I did, growing up around brass era cars...and riding in them too. And I'm still alive!

[padgett]

Have been wearing seatbelts for over 45 years now. Always felt that in an incident it would keep me in the driver's seat and the passengers out.

Also in autocrossing found that my times were faster if a friend helped get the harness as tight as it would go.

You do not need to be in an accident for them to be useful.

[Dave@Moon]

Dave, I am no expert on PA law, but I think you may be wrong about your statement about there not being an exception in PA law that applies to most antique vehicles.

Assuming Google Documents has the correct current PA law on Child Restraints, there are exceptions in PA law for pre 1966 vehicles as well as any seating position in a vehicle that was not originally equipped with seat belts.

Powered by Google Docs

The regs cited here are the correct ones. They were changed since I last bought an antique in PA, and have been adjusted to allow for cars that have no seat belts. In 1997 when I bought my Buick this exemption did not exist, and I kept my kids (then 5 and 1 year old) out of the car until I had belts installed.

Even if it was legal, however, I would never dream of riding my kids on public roads in a car while not properly protected. I've seen too much death. I graduated high school in May 1976 in an exploding-growth suburb. By the following May exactly 20 members of my graduating class (of 803) were killed in car wrecks, 9 in one accident on graduation day.

That accident was famously called the "9 mph accident" in the press because a smashed speedometer showed that was the speed of one of the cars at the moment of impact. It (a brand new Olds 98 with 7 occupants) was hit head on pulling out from a stop sign. A '73 Formula Firebird with 6 kids (and 2 mini-kegs) in it was doing 110 mph returning to the same party the Olds had just left. The Firebird occupants all were lost. All three kids in the front seat of the 98 were killed as well, 2 kids in the back seat were permenantly disabled, and 2 survived their injuries (the only 2 rear seat passengers wearing seat belts).

For months both cars were put on display in my town as a reminder. We still lost 11 more kids over the next year, either drunk driver or street racing victims.

If that can happen to you at 9 mph at a residential 4-way stop sign, you can't be careful enough not to wear the belts. If I hurt myself by not wearing them I'd be upset. If I lost a kid that I didn't need to, I'd be suicidal.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Dave@Moon
bad grammar (see edit history)

[Shop Rat]

We didn't fly to New England and drive 4 hours to VT to sit in a hotel room. Would YOU/ I can tell you that you would not. Or maybe....?

I would never put a child in a "passenger vehicle" that was not equipt with what the law normally requires to keep them safe. Period.

We took our 1974 Mercedes up to our friend's house and took their six year-old son for a ride. The car had new seatbelts in it and I put the booster seat in so that he could ride in it. And all Bill did was drive him around the housing developement. They weren't even out on main roads. But we love him enough to keep him as safe as possible even for a short ride in his own neighborhood.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Shop Rat
To add a photo. (see edit history)

[R Walling]

This could end comments from a few...

snopes.com: Seat Belts

[Tom400CFI]

I would never put a child in a "passenger vehicle" that was not equipt with what the law normally requires to keep them safe. Period.

But we love him enough to keep him as safe as possible even for a short ride in his own neighborhood.

Me neither, and if you re-read my posts, that is not even remotely close to what I was advocating. I would never put a child in a "passenger vehicle" that was not equipt with what the law normally requires to keep them safe. Period....either. I'm totally with you on that.

Fortunatley there are exemptions to the restraint laws, which still makes it viable for a kid to ride in an old fashioned car that doesn't, didn't, and can't reasonably have belts.

We love our son enough to stirve to treat him to extraordinary, life richening experiences...while simultaineously considering his safety and well being at all times.

You never did answer any of my questions...

Since you seem to have mised it (somehow), I'll be more clear: I absolutely advocate the wearing and proper use of seat belts and always have. I wear mine and have since I was 16. Our son is always in a booster seat and belted, in ANY modern car, and the car doesn't move until he (and all occupants) are belted with a *click*. However, when the car doesn't and can't have belts that severely limits the options, if restraint laws are in place and enforced. The options are to condemn the child to missing the experience, OR engaging in the experience applying common sense, reason, caution, and most of all, observation...we'll choose the latter and create a life experience for us all.

Again if you can explain how to put seat belts in a 100 y/o car that are proven to work...I'm all ears. Again, statistically speaking, you are way, way safer riding in a 1910 car w/no seat belts than you are in a 2005 car with seat belts (and air bag(s), and auto locks and ABS, and active handling, and...)

By your posts, it seems to me that you're implying that we should have not gone on the tour, not taken a family vacation to VT, and not created a great, and memorable experience.

Look at the picture that you posted of the boy in the Mercedes. Look at the kids smile! In the interest of his safety, you should have denied him that experience and kept him safely stowed in his room. I mean...you never know "what could have happened" on that short little drive around the block. Of course I don't believe that for a second, but I'm making a point.

The irony of this topic on this board is incredible. It's an antique car board. Our antique car doesn't, didn't, and can't have belts. That means that if there isn't an exemption to restraint laws, no kid could ever ride in the thing. We have a kid. No kid in car = no adults in car = hobby is finished. You're advocating (it seems) for something that is self defeating! Moral thinking that ends the very hobby that is the foundation for this forum. Crazy.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Tom400CFI (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

Again if you can explain how to put seat belts in a 100 y/o car that are proven to work...I'm all ears.

Carriage bolts through the wooden floor. Every one of us has seen it a hundred times.

As for the "proven" part, no one is foolish enough to test crash their Winton to prove a point. It's simply common sense to anchor them to the most stable component available.

Again, statistically speaking, you are way, way safer riding in a 1910 car w/no seat belts than you are in a 2005 car with seat belts (and air bag(s), and auto locks and ABS, and active handling, and...)

Baloney. If you limit your focus to how many people die every recent year driving a 1910 car, you'll get a very small number. If you do a true analysis based on fatalities per driven mile, I seriously doubt the modern car would lose out. And I can guarantee you that statistics from 1910 won't compare well to today's cars.

Limiting the focus of your attention does not change reality.

[keiser31]

I am amazed that there are so many out there who still debate whether using seat belts are safer than not using seat belts. Of course they are safer! Even if the laws are only there so that we do not have to scrape "non-users" off of the road, they are a good idea. Logic dictates that the more you can do to keep from bouncing around the inside of a car like a "BB in a boxcar" in a wreck, the safer you are. They even have seat belts for pets, now. Do people really think that it's about government regulations and ONLY about government regulations?? I think that they are a great idea. My wife would not ride in my 1967 Dodge A100 compact pickup until I installed a set of belts. Being about 6" from the flat windshield and flying through it did not appeal to her, so I installed some lap belts. I want my wife to feel comfortable and safe when she rides with me. She prefers that I install shoulder belts also, but it is a little bit technically challenging to do so in that vehicle. I still may put some in.

Edited July 29, 2009 by keiser31 (see edit history)

[Tom400CFI]

Carriage bolts through the wooden floor. Every one of us has seen it a hundred times.

Not me. Not in 38 years of being around brass era cars.

It's simply common sense to anchor them to the most stable component available.

That would be the frame, not the "wooden floor". I assume that you actually mean the "floor" of the seat, though right? I mean, who would bold seat belts to the floor boards, in front of the seat?? In our Hupp, the "floor" of the seat is 1/4" wood. Who is that going to stop in a real crash? To get any hope of a decent anchor, you'd need to go through the seat base, through the bottom of the body under the seat, and into the frame. In many brass cars, you'd have to also go through the gas tank! Not practical, not engineered by any means, and probably why there are exemptions in the law. Not to mention that your still out in teh wide open, no doors, no roof, windshield, -no structure for protection at all. A modern car or pick up could drive right into you (like your body) whether you're belted or not. Probably another reason why there are exemptions in the law.

If you do a true analysis based on fatalities per driven mile, I seriously doubt the modern car would lose out. And I can guarantee you that statistics from 1910 won't compare well to today's cars.

Possibly, due to the extremely low miles driven on brass cars and high miles in modern cars...but I still highly doubt that you're right. Actually, I'm sure that you're wrong. How about we use a better gauge and use percentages of people killed in brass era cars/year vs. percentage killed in modern cars? The low miles driven in brass cars IS...part of what lowers the risk! Why it's "O.K." in some people's minds to take that small risk for the enjoyment realized. I don't think anyone would advocate using a 1910 car for a daily driver...for the safety aspect alone. As for 1910 statistics vs. todays I'm sure that they're not good; people were new to driving period, new to machinery, traffic laws were sparse, roads were terrible, and people were just as likely to become complacent then in a "modern car" as they are now, in a "modern car". Now, you take an old car out and you have the benefit of modern roads, signage, traffic laws, plus, the constant reminder that you're drivign something special which requires special attention...and the people around you will realize that too. In their eyes, you're not just another "Chevy Malibu" driving invisibly down the road. Not comparable at all.

Limiting the focus of your attention does not change reality.

Nice try, but sorry. Show us what reality is. What are the statistical chances of getting killed, if you go for a ride in a brass era car, compared to if you go for a ride in your 2006 Prius. Edited July 29, 2009 by Tom400CFI (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

Nice try, but sorry.

I knew that. Like the guy in Roger's link you'll believe what you want no matter what, like the invincible smokers and helmetless motorcycle riders.

It's not for those people that the statistics are complied, or for whom rest of are posting here.

[Tom400CFI]

you'll believe what you want no matter what

And you don't? Certainly, we're both entitled to that.

Just so we're clear, here...what exactly do you think that I "believe"?

[R W Burgess]

Ok guys, I think you've pretty much covered everything!

If you had read the article last year about the Classic car being hit by a fellow running through a stop sign, you'd realize that, no matter what, early antique cars do not always come out on the winning end of an accident, seat belts or not.

In my opinion, the safest way to drive in today's traffic conditions, is to do so very carefully. Be aware of your surroundings and try to be prepared for anything. They is no safety device in the world that can protect you from STUPID, and STUPID is everywhere.

So be smart and drive smart!

Wayne

[Guest sarah_9]

Hello,

Seats belts are for the safety of the people who are sitting in the car, and it is very useful for the person who is driving the car, though some time you may find it problematic , but one should were seat belt while driving.

Regards,

sarah_9

Approved Traffic School