Sign in to follow this  
windjamer

seat belts,your thoughts

Recommended Posts


Benefits of AACA Membership.

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 by Tom400CFI (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by keiser31 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Tom400CFI (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this