jan arnett (2)

Proposed law on safety equipment in California

Recommended Posts

That should put the brakes on hot rods, restomods and custom cars being sold in Cali. 

 

Unless the car is equipped with a roll cage and airbags.

 

No problems with restoring a car to its original condition, however. You should just be able to show the car is in the same condition as it left the factory when new.

 

As I see it, this is a good thing for us originalists. Less cars will be restored-modified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess this will pay for the $60,000,000 Hart is being sued over something non-automotive.

 

Life in the fast lane; if you can't drive, park it.

 

Bob 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt he'll prevail in a lawsuit. There's no way to build a car to protect people from being stupid. The article says the car had airbags, which I seriously doubt, but it did have a cage and 5-point belts which is better than it had when it was new. Just the litigation might be enough to put the company out of business, but I'm not sure that anyone can legislate what kind of car you can build. And he just as easily could have ended up like that driving a brand new OEM Dodge Demon or Bugatti. There's no car built so safe that someone can't turn it into a coffin. 

 

I like Kevin Hart, but this is probably his agent/publicist trying this stunt. The courts will toss it before they get a settlement but maybe not before the company is out of business. I don't care, because putting that much power in an ancient car and then selling it to a rookie is a mistake, but it isn't their responsibility to save people from themselves.

 

I think maybe Ford had the best solution when they were selling the second-generation Cobra R: bring your SCCA competition license to buy it or don't come at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the statement that concerns me and I am already putting seat belts In my Moon.

 

"The California Highway Patrol is still investigating the crash but talks of changing the laws revolving around classic cars are already in the works. If this legislation is approved, that means that all cars, no matter how old, must have seatbelts or harnesses installed to be legal and road worthy. While safety is no doubt a priority, these classics have been around for decades without any of these features. Also, this means drilling holes into million-dollar Concours cars."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hart's Cuda had been converted to a two seater. There was no rear seat, only two front buckets, yet there were three people in the car. Who's at fault? Once again, the money sucking celebrities and their lawyers screw the rest of us. People with more money than brains should not be allowed to own cars like this, or other high powered equipment.

 

Of course, the other problem is that politicians are all morons. Who does the engineering to ensure that any belts or safety equipment are installed properly? How many crash tests need to be run to verify that the installation is correct? Who is qualified to inspect these installations? Will the owner need to provide engineering justification of the design and installation?

Morons.

Edited by joe_padavano (see edit history)
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The seller of Kevin Hart's vehicle was an INC or LLC. Hence, if the lawyer who set up the INC or LLC was competent the sole asset to go after is the liability insurance which is likely limited to $1 million and that $1 million has to be spread over all defendants not just one. Further, in CA if a customer demands a custom vehicle without the protections then he can't come back crying later when he is in a bad accident due to his own negligence or cry to the seller if he gets into a vehicle and lets his pal negligently drive the vehicle. 

 

If CA forces seat belts in classic vehicles that would be sad.  I am sure that Jay Leno would not be happy about being forced (by a liberal installed government run by the most liberal Governor in the USA) to install 1970s looking seat belts on his very costly Dusenberg collection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, joe_padavano said:

Hart's Cuda had been converted to a two seater. There was no rear seat, only two front buckets, yet there were three people in the car. Who's at fault? Once again, the money sucking celebrities and their lawyers screw the rest of us. People with more money than brains should not be allowed to own cars like this, or other high powered equipment.

 

Of course, the other problem is that politicians are all morons. Who does the engineering to ensure that any belts or safety equipment are installed properly? How many crash tests need to be run to verify that the installation is correct? Who is qualified to inspect these installations? Will the owner need to provide engineering justification of the design and installation?

Morons.

If this is so, and the third person in the car had no seat to sit on, and this "third person'" was not hurt, then seats are the problem. 

Edited by 1937hd45 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a similar discussion a while back. Many of us do our own restorations. Let's say we sell one of the cars that we have totally restored and the person that purchased it has an accident. Can they sue us for something pertaining to the restoration, brakes, steering etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, 1937hd45 said:

If this is so, and the third person in the car had no seat to sit on, and this "third person'" was not hurt, then seats are the problem. 

 

All three were hurt. The info on the car and the accident was published by Motor Trend.

 

This is what the former back seat area looked like.

 

002-rear-interior-storage-compartment-de

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twin battery boxes.  I guess she was in the "Hot Seat".

 

002-rear-interior-storage-compartment-de

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ever happened to Darwin? The nanny state is asinine. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 61polara said:

Twin battery boxes.  I guess she was in the "Hot Seat".

 

002-rear-interior-storage-compartment-de

 

 

MUST have tunes to drive by no doubt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jan arnett (2) said:

This is the statement that concerns me and I am already putting seat belts In my Moon.

 

"The California Highway Patrol is still investigating the crash but talks of changing the laws revolving around classic cars are already in the works. If this legislation is approved, that means that all cars, no matter how old, must have seatbelts or harnesses installed to be legal and road worthy. While safety is no doubt a priority, these classics have been around for decades without any of these features. Also, this means drilling holes into million-dollar Concours cars."

 

On  those high end vehicles you mention the owners will just register them in a different state other then California where the rules don't apply (yet)

 

3 hours ago, 46 woodie said:

We had a similar discussion a while back. Many of us do our own restorations. Let's say we sell one of the cars that we have totally restored and the person that purchased it has an accident. Can they sue us for something pertaining to the restoration, brakes, steering etc?

 

On the Bill of Sale "condition as is" should eliminate the sellers responsibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John348 said:

 

On  those high end vehicles you mention the owners will just register them in a different state other then California where the rules don't apply (yet)

 

 

That would depend on how the law is drafted.   Of course, it's also illegal for residents to register their California-based cars out of state, but that's another discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One should no more have seat belts in an earlier open antique (even a touring car for crying out loud!!) than one should have seat belts on a motorcycle!!!! Only an idiot would put seat belts on a motorcycle.

 

It should be mentioned that crash testing in the mid '60s found that many of the seat belts installed in new cars in the late '50s and early '60s often did more harm than good.

 

Even in enclosed body cars, not just '20s, but '30s, '40s, and even most '50s cars, without full crash engineering adding belts, even with shoulder straps, is as likely to make them more dangerous as it is to provide any reasonable protection in a crash. Full crash testing and engineering would HAVE to be done for virtually every year make and model and body style individually! That would be many tens of thousands of cars to spend many thousands of dollars EACH just for a computer level engineering! Actual crash testing? Many times more expensive yet, likely many tens of thousands of dollars PER CAR! Who in the world could actually afford to pay for that? Not that 99 percent of politicians care at all, YOU will have to pay for it. The result would be the end of the collector car hobby anywhere such laws would be enacted and enforced. Only "politically connected " "chosen ones" would maybe be exempted.

 

I'll shut up now before I wander further into the political afield.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it makes anyone feel any better, whenever I am in California with a car that has a Bijur oiling system, I always lube the chassis and dump the oil on the ground. I love explaining it's stock, and thus perfectly legal. I like to leave a large carbon foot print.......😎

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not over-react here. There's no proposed law, just some moron with a blog speculating that someone, somewhere, is probably drafting legislation and he picked California because that's where the accident happened and that's where all the people who don't fact-check will believe it is happening. If such legislation ever appears before a deliberative body, it will have no prayer of passing. Nobody is going to force you to put airbags in your 1911 Wankerwagon. This is all a knee-jerk reaction to a high-profile accident and a bunch of lawyers and publicists angling for position to claim the millions of dollars in settlement money. Nothing more. There are surely opportunistic government people who will want to tag along for some free publicity, but none of this has a chance of becoming law.

 

I don't doubt that the coming years will change how cars are built, sold, and used, but there's just no way to ween ourselves off gasoline, not in the immediate future and probably not for a generation or two. It's much too late for that--we're screwed and we've already proven that we aren't willing to suffer a little now to help anyone in the future. We will surely cut down on fossil fuel use, and along the way alternatives will present themselves and they will seem like the end of the world to many people until they aren't, and life will go on. Remember how catalytic converters and unleaded gas were just the end of everything? Yeah, tell that story to the guy driving an 800-horsepower Dodge that came with a warranty and passes emissions tests in all 50 states.

 

We are a nation of 350 million people and nearly 500 million cars, almost all of which are powered by gasoline. You aren't going to change the infrastructure, production, distribution, and ownership of automobiles overnight, particularly for lower-income people. Besides, do you honestly think the oil companies will let gas stations disappear? I'm no fan of those *ssholes, but I at least know they're on my side when it comes to burning gasoline in an automobile.

 

Untwist your panties, unclutch your pearls, and relax. Deal with the problems as they arise. Right now, there's no massive movement to take anything away from you--if they didn't take guns away from people after a school full of children was murdered, they sure as hell aren't going to take our automotive toys away because a movie star crashed his car.

 

Relax and be open to sensible changes rather than embracing an all-or-nothing attitude. Personally, the more electric cars I see, the happier I am. More gasoline for me, and if demand drops sufficiently, it'll get cheaper, too. And if that means my daily driver is eventually an electric car, well, worse things have happened. We'll all survive.

 

This is a non-issue. Calm down. Nobody's coming for your cars and you'll all be dead before the world decides you're not allowed to get behind the wheel and have fun.

 

 

Edited by Matt Harwood (see edit history)
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

I doubt he'll prevail in a lawsuit. There's no way to build a car to protect people from being stupid. The article says the car had airbags, which I seriously doubt, but it did have a cage and 5-point belts which is better than it had when it was new. Just the litigation might be enough to put the company out of business, but I'm not sure that anyone can legislate what kind of car you can build. And he just as easily could have ended up like that driving a brand new OEM Dodge Demon or Bugatti. There's no car built so safe that someone can't turn it into a coffin. 

 

I like Kevin Hart, but this is probably his agent/publicist trying this stunt. The courts will toss it before they get a settlement but maybe not before the company is out of business. I don't care, because putting that much power in an ancient car and then selling it to a rookie is a mistake, but it isn't their responsibility to save people from themselves.

 

I think maybe Ford had the best solution when they were selling the second-generation Cobra R: bring your SCCA competition license to buy it or don't come at all.

This one is fairly safe with no roll cage, seat belts or air bags.

law inforcement.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Let's not over-react here. There's no proposed law, just some moron with a blog speculating that someone, somewhere, is probably drafting legislation and he picked California because that's where the accident happened and that's where all the people who don't fact-check will believe it is happening

 

THIS^^

 

It is a badly written article that makes no sense, and was probably not proofread, if it were even drafted by a human. From the article:

 

Quote

In addition, the driver, Jared S. Black, and the backseat passenger who sustained minor injuries, have also hired lawyers due to the lack of safety equipment in the car which is said to have a roll cage, airbags, and five-point harnesses.

 

How on earth could a roll cage, airbags, and a five point harness be construed as not enough safety equipment? And yet, the article is accompanied by pictures that clearly show a steering column and wheel that closely resembles a stock Cuda/Barracuda/Challenger item from the early 70s, and cannot possibly have an airbag in it. I see no 5-point harness either. Maybe it is tucked out of the way somehow, but getting the anti-submarine belt out of the picture would have been a challenge.

 

Quote

They believe the addition of these safety features would have prevented their injuries.

 

But the article just said the car had those features......

 

Quote

TMZ contacted 10 different custom car companies to see if they would still offer cars without safety equipment considering the Hart crash, and 8 out of 10 said that they still would.

 

The car is a 1970 according to the article. A 1970 model would have had safety belts originally. Such a car without them wouldn't have made it past it's first traffic stop in Washington, where we have a compulsory seatbelt law, and where belts are required in cars built after January 1 1966 (IIRC), and any earlier car that had them as originally built (IIRC) has to be equipped.

 

Am I really supposed to believe that in 2019 California is more lax on vehicle safety regulations than Washington?

 

 

 

Edited by Bloo (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Bloo said:

Am I really supposed to believe that in 2019 California is more lax on vehicle safety regulations than Washington?

 

Sadly, yes. California has no annual safety inspection requirements. When I lived there, I personally witnessed a car that had ball joints so worn out that when it bumped over a railroad crossing, the spindle separated from the lower control arm and the car slid to a halt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have annual inspections in WA either, except for emissions in certain areas, (no serious rust problem though). I have heard of such things as ball joints coming apart here too. It doesn't happen much, but it could.

 

Washington has been notorious for restrictive vehicle laws throughout history, and what the HAMB calls a "traditional" hot rod, for example, would have been illegal here in more ways than I can count in the 70s.... The hot rod guys have got a lot of things changed here, for instance blue dots are OK now, you can run without fenders if it isn't raining, and I have seen lots of hotrods and ratrods lately that are really low to the ground and have no bumpers.

 

That just scratched the surface. You don't necessarily need a windshield in WA, but you DO need wipers..... (unless that has been changed in recent years). There are plenty of other things.

 

But that was the 70s (just using that time period as an example) and this is now. AFAIK Californians pay an annual fee on YOM plates. They actually have BACK FEES if they don't license a car for a few years. They have emissions testing on some cars from the 70s still (see markV's Cadillac thread), and so on. They are definitely more regulated on vehicles in 2019 than we are here in Washington State. I have a hard time believing the CHP would let "no seatbelts" slide on a 1970 car, but I don't know for sure what California law says about that. Maybe some Californians can comment.

 

 

 

Edited by Bloo (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY state requires seat belts in cars 1965 newer. also no one under 18 can legally ride in a car withoout a seat belt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

Let's not over-react here. There's no proposed law, just some moron with a blog speculating that someone, somewhere, is probably drafting legislation and he picked California because that's where the accident happened and that's where all the people who don't fact-check will believe it is happening. If such legislation ever appears before a deliberative body, it will have no prayer of passing. Nobody is going to force you to put airbags in your 1911 Wankerwagon. This is all a knee-jerk reaction to a high-profile accident and a bunch of lawyers and publicists angling for position to claim the millions of dollars in settlement money. Nothing more. There are surely opportunistic government people who will want to tag along for some free publicity, but none of this has a chance of becoming law.

 

I don't doubt that the coming years will change how cars are built, sold, and used, but there's just no way to ween ourselves off gasoline, not in the immediate future and probably not for a generation or two. It's much too late for that--we're screwed and we've already proven that we aren't willing to suffer a little now to help anyone in the future. We will surely cut down on fossil fuel use, and along the way alternatives will present themselves and they will seem like the end of the world to many people until they aren't, and life will go on. Remember how catalytic converters and unleaded gas were just the end of everything? Yeah, tell that story to the guy driving an 800-horsepower Dodge that came with a warranty and passes emissions tests in all 50 states.

 

We are a nation of 350 million people and nearly 500 million cars, almost all of which are powered by gasoline. You aren't going to change the infrastructure, production, distribution, and ownership of automobiles overnight, particularly for lower-income people. Besides, do you honestly think the oil companies will let gas stations disappear? I'm no fan of those *ssholes, but I at least know they're on my side when it comes to burning gasoline in an automobile.

 

Untwist your panties, unclutch your pearls, and relax. Deal with the problems as they arise. Right now, there's no massive movement to take anything away from you--if they didn't take guns away from people after a school full of children was murdered, they sure as hell aren't going to take our automotive toys away because a movie star crashed his car.

 

Relax and be open to sensible changes rather than embracing an all-or-nothing attitude. Personally, the more electric cars I see, the happier I am. More gasoline for me, and if demand drops sufficiently, it'll get cheaper, too. And if that means my daily driver is eventually an electric car, well, worse things have happened. We'll all survive.

 

This is a non-issue. Calm down. Nobody's coming for your cars and you'll all be dead before the world decides you're not allowed to get behind the wheel and have fun.

 

 

 

One question. What dose a 1911 Wankerwagon look like? I can't find one on google images.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a tricycle arrangement with a long hood having a single aimable headlamp and dual individual cockpits in pods containing the rear wheels. The American version can only run for seven minutes between recharges.

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