What about the old cars that dont have sholder straps, some didnt even have lap belts?
Will they be required to install them?
My 69 doesnt have a solder strap, was it an opton in 69?
T.C.

I've always assumed that certain cars are "grandfathered in" and if they didn't come with belts, you can get away with not wearing one. However if it has 'em and you're not wearing one, you'll get popped.

I don't know around what year that car manufacturers started putting them in regularly, but I know my '70 has them.


BTW, I really hate this campaign. I call it anti-Darwinism...

As far as I know, I believe older vehicles are grandfathered in since they were not required by law to have them at the time of manufacture.

My 64 does not have any seat belts. It makes me uncomfortable when I drive it. I have lap belts to put in but am thinking of a design similar to newer convertibles so I can put the shoulder mount seat belt in.

my 68 Olds Cutlass convertible and 67 Caddy only have lapbelts.
As long as you're wearing them, there's nothing they can say (at least in CT)

As far as I know, I believe older vehicles are grandfathered in since they were not required by law to have them at the time of manufacture.

My 64 does not have any seat belts. It makes me uncomfortable when I drive it. I have lap belts to put in but am thinking of a design similar to newer convertibles so I can put the shoulder mount seat belt in.


Different states vary on their requiremnts but most I believe don't require them if they weren't standard equipment when the car was new, but yes, if it's got 'em you have to wear 'em.

I just saw an ad in the latest Super Chevy IIRC for a belt and shoulder harness system for older cars, looked pretty slick. I'll look it up when I get home.

I think this law is a bunch of crap :mad: .They give motorcyle drivers the option to wear a helmet,but we have to wear a seatbelt???I think a bike is way more dangerous if you get into an accident.

I think this law is a bunch of crap :mad: .They give motorcyle drivers the option to wear a helmet,but we have to wear a seatbelt???I think a bike is way more dangerous if you get into an accident.

That's the whole point.

It is the insurance companies policy... You are much more likely to die in a motorcycle accident without a helmet. With a helmet, the insurance companies will have to pay much more to keep you alive on life support, as opposed to the one time, you're dead payout.

Pretty close to the same argument for cars. Insurance companies won't have to pay as much towards medical bills if you wear your seat belt. If you don't and get into an accident, they'll have to pay much more, as you will require more care from the health care system.

Hence, the law to wear seatbelts, and the no helmet, no problem mentality for bikes.

It's a matter of decresing the risk for the insurance business.


Now, to bring this back to Chevelles, my chevelle has both lap, and shoulder belts. But I can only wear one at a time? A friend of mine has a Chevelle with the same setup, but his shoulder and lap belts have a fastening system that allows him to wear both.

Chris, you should have a separate buckle and strap attached to the same mounting point as your single belt now. There are 2 - one for shoulder, one for lap. And unless you want to be decapitated, I wouldn't recommend just wearing the shoulder belt.

I think the law is useful, but that the government should stick to issues of police, fire & protection, roads, bridges, etc. Anytime the government issues personal laws (seat belts, helmets, insurance) I think they are crossing the line. Unfortunately, they run out of laws to create if they just stick with what's already in place, so every year they think up new stuff. Pretty soon they'll be forcing 2nd graders to take useless standardized tests. Oh, wait....

The early shoulder and lap belt setups require two of the female assemblies - one for each. My '69 has both shoulder and lap up front. Could never figure out how to hook this up till a guy showed me - oh so that's why I have all these belts up here? Later assemblies (maybe 73>) got the assembly where the shoulder belt hooked onto the lap belt and then clicked in as one unit.

The motorcycle thing always amazed me. Delaware adopted this first. My guess is it is a way to weed out the undesireable population (you know - not too smart to start with). Maybe they figure if you don't think it is important enough to protect your head at 60 -70 - 80 mph in a crash then you aren't the brightest bulb on the tree anyway!

I think this law is a bunch of crap :mad: .They give motorcyle drivers the option to wear a helmet,but we have to wear a seatbelt???I think a bike is way more dangerous if you get into an accident.

Just more privacy invasion from the Safety Nazi / Gestapo government. I recently started riding a bike for exercise. I just can't wait till some Safety Storm Trooper stops and demands I wear one of those dopey "cycling" helmits.

If one is dumb enough to operate a car / motorcycle without head gear / belts well then that is not the business of the Government. As for the good old bicycle well as kids we all operated our bike without helmits and speedos and all the othr paraphanelia that is de-rigour today. Seems more like a fassion show out there as opposed to a way to get some exercise.

Cars that didn't leave the factory with seat belts aren't required to have them.
Just as cars that didn't leave the factory with turn signals aren't required to have them or cars that left the factory with only one tail llight are only required to have one tail light.

First of all-you need something to keep your body from flying out of the car. You don't want to have your head flying South. Lap belts can help you if you use them. If the car can be modified with three point seat belts-that will save your ugly face.There are a number of companies that make seat belts-and they will save lives.
Motorcycles are another group-they whine about helmets-smart bikers have learned to wear leathers and helmets-when you hit the road without them you can slide on your knees or front side-its causes pain. One of my female friends hit a large pothole and the pavement did a long distant-breast removal and knee caps-well you can feel the pain!!! Humans are not born smart.amen.

It's a matter of decresing the risk for the insurance business.

And, in all fairness, to keep the insurance rates down. I wouldn't care about it at all if the insurance companies had two policies, one for those who use seat belts and another one for those who don't. But right now, I'm paying through insurance premiums and taxes for people who are injured because they don't wear seat belts, so I think the law is a good thing.

Thanks for the replys..........
So I guess in 69 it could go either way with the shoulder belt?
I was thinking if the law seen ya without a shoulder belt it would be a reason to stop ya, and that could lead to other things?
Not that I do anything wrong..................but why bring undue attention to yourself?
I would like to have a shoulder belt, but ya cant find any OE set up's, the convertable thing sound interesting.
T.C.

The early shoulder and lap belt setups require two of the female assemblies - one for each. My '69 has both shoulder and lap up front. Could never figure out how to hook this up till a guy showed me - oh so that's why I have all these belts up here? Later assemblies (maybe 73>) got the assembly where the shoulder belt hooked onto the lap belt and then clicked in as one unit.


That's what I thought. The only issue is that I've only been able to find 2 of the female connections in the front. One is on the passenger's side, the other is on the drivers. So what I typically do is use the passenger's side for the lap belt, and the drivers for the shoulder belt.

My friend's '72 Wagon has the integrated shoulder and lap belts that go to oen female connection.

So I can add a shoulder belt to my 68 SS convertible bucket seats by adding an extra male and female belt to the same mounting holes? How would the shoulder belt run up behind the seat and stay in place on my shoulder without falling off every time I make a turn? I have never seen a shoulder belt set-up for a convertible, I would appreciate if anyone has pictures they can post.

'69 Chevelles had lap AND shoulder belts standard.

I like seatbelt laws. It does not just impact the victim when they die in a crash. It impacts the victim's family and the EMS/fire/police/hospital workers trying to save said moron's life. There are many emergency workers leave the field because of the emotional impact after a fatal collision.

Do you think the law will know what cars came with lap and shoulder belts and what cars just came with lap belts?
Not to question you Von, but I thought I seen an option for "custom seat belts" in a 69 option list.
I may be wrong though?
Thats why I thought the shoulder belt was an option?
Have you ever head of this "custom seat belt" option?
If so do you know what it is?
Also does anyone know where I can find (buy)a sholder belt seup for a 69?
T.C.

The stock shoulder belts in my '69 are useless, they are hard to get in/out of, hit me right in the neck instead of the shoulder/chest, and would be a death trap if I got into a wreck while wearing it. I only use the lap belts, although I'd probably be safer with no belts until I get some modern 3-point belts installed.

Here in Pittsburgh there's a talk show host that calls it "the culling of the herd", (as mentioned above, weeding out the not-so-smart ones)

If you have seat belts ware them. I have always worn mine even before it was a law, but what I can't stand about this thing is here in Houston we have "transstar" a system for monoriting traffic and signs to alert motorists. Well 99% of the time the signs read "CLICK IT OR TICKET". Why can't they put something usefull up there like temp, date and time maybe.

Legislation 61-9-409. Seatbelts required in vehicles manufactured after 1964.
(1) An automobile that was manufactured or assembled after January 1, 1965, and on or before January 1, 1968, must be equipped with safety belts installed for use in the left front and right front seats.

(2) A motor vehicle manufactured after January 1, 1968, must be equipped at each designated seating position with a safety belt system required for that seating position by the standards of the United States Department of Transportation at the time that the vehicle was manufactured.

(3) The safety belts required by this section must remain installed and in good working condition.

History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 115, L. 1965; R.C.M. 1947, .1; amd. Sec. 32, Ch. 431, L. 1997.

The stock shoulder belts in my '69 are useless, they are hard to get in/out of, hit me right in the neck instead of the shoulder/chest, and would be a death trap if I got into a wreck while wearing it. I only use the lap belts, although I'd probably be safer with no belts until I get some modern 3-point belts installed.

Please don't tell me that you're trying to exit the vehicle without unbuckling the shoulder harness?? Takes 5 seconds to unbuckle both belts. I've been driving the Chevelle everyday since July 7th, 1970 WITH seatbelts AND shoulder harness and have never had a problem. I HATE the 3 point belts in the new cars...a real PITA to buckle if you're not thin as a stick.

As a side not.....notice that both people who were killed in the following story weren't wearing seatbelts...........

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4554404/detail.html

Please don't tell me that you're trying to exit the vehicle without unbuckling the shoulder harness?? Takes 5 seconds to unbuckle both belts. I've been driving the Chevelle everyday since July 7th, 1970 WITH seatbelts AND shoulder harness and have never had a problem. I HATE the 3 point belts in the new cars...a real PITA to buckle if you're not thin as a stick.

As a side not.....notice that both people who were killed in the following story weren't wearing seatbelts...........

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4554404/detail.html

the main problem is that the shoulder strap comes right across my neck, not my shoulder. If I had an impact it would either break my neck or crush my windpipe. There's no way to adjust the positioning of it either. A seatbelt positioned incorrectly is more dangerous than none at all, it's as likely to injure you as the impact itself.

I have a 1970 Malibu that has lap belts only. I have two parts cars, a 1970 ss that was in a fire and completely gutted, a 1970 olds cutlass supreme that has both lap and shoulder belts. Looking at the ss it has a provision behind the door window along the top edge of the roof, that is used for the shoulder attachment. The Malibu, (my good car) has the same provision as the ss but has never had a shoulder belt. It would make holes in the head liner to install the belt although it is covered with a plastic cover. At least in 70 it appears to be optional on the shoulder belt. These shoulder belts have to to be clicked together with the lap belt, and stored on a little clip above the window when not in use. It appears to be optional in 1970 . Those with 69's might feel along the headliner for the attachment.

the main problem is that the shoulder strap comes right across my neck, not my shoulder. If I had an impact it would either break my neck or crush my windpipe. There's no way to adjust the positioning of it either. A seatbelt positioned incorrectly is more dangerous than none at all, it's as likely to injure you as the impact itself.

I have exactly the same problem with my shoulder belts. It doesn't help that they are 36 years old and stiff like wood, my neck almost gets cut every time I turn my head. When I get time to do it, I'll install modern retractable belts and the shoulder belt extension that moves the shoulder belt down to a more comfortable location.

At least in 70 it appears to be optional on the shoulder belt. These shoulder belts have to to be clicked together with the lap belt, and stored on a little clip above the window when not in use. It appears to be optional in 1970 . Those with 69's might feel along the headliner for the attachment.

The shoulder belts WERE NOT optional in 1970. They were standard AND required by law.

By the way....the shoulder belts are adjusted properly when you can place your clenched fist, lengthwise, between your chest and the belt. The belt should NOT be tight against your chest. The owner's manual outlines the procedure.

it would either break my neck or crush my windpipe.

Yes, you are correct that the OEM shoulder belts are not very good. But, one of the key things that they do is to help keep you upper body in position in an uncontrolled situation. This could mean that you could have a better chance of controlling the vehicle, or more importantly it will keep the upper part of your body inside the vehicle in an accident.

Someone posted about a drag racing fatality here the other day. The story stated that the driver was "partial ejected". This likely means that his lower body was in the car, and his head was out the window when the car rolled over. I have seen a driver that was partially ejected, he had a nice uninjured body, not the same could be said about his head.

You are right though, get yourself some good 3 point belts if you can.

Laws of physics state that safety belts save lives. Goverment laws are for people to argue about.

enforcing seatbelt violations is a waste of man-power

enforcing seatbelt violations is a waste of man-power

This ALL starts at the Federal level. If the state doesn't enforce or enact a seatbelt law, the federal government threatens to withhold all federal highway money.

I was in an accident several years ago where my truck rolled end over end........then sideways multiple times down a hill into a sink hole.

Had I been wearing a seat belt I WOULD BE DEAD RIGHT NOW.

The only reason I'm alive........ I was knocked on my side, the bench seat folded over on me as the roof was crushed.......and I was protected by the seat.

I've started wearing my seatbelt recently only due to the fact, they have seatbelt checks everywhere around here all the time and I've grown tired of paying the fines.

its a way for the state to generate revenue. they dont give an F.... about your safety.

I just saw an ad in the latest Super Chevy IIRC for a belt and shoulder harness system for older cars, looked pretty slick. I'll look it up when I get home.

Can you share the information once you find it? I am looking for a way or system to put shoulder straps in the backseat of my wagon for my 2 kids. The lap belts work but I want more protection for them.
Frank

Well for those that don't wear a seat belt and shoulder belt here's a little positive reinforcement. May 1976 I was rear ended by a guy driving a Duster that they estimated was going 80-90 (judging by how far he jumped the hill and the distance where he landed on the trunk of my car), I was doing around 35 [just left my parents house 100 yards up the road on a Friday night about 7:00 at night]. Had on lap belt but no shoulder belt (car was a '74 Malibu). After being rear ended, the impact drove me sideways and hit an embankment, my head hit the roof pillar.

Bottum line - 6 weeks in a collar, 6 months of therapy and no more football! Try handling that when you are 19 pushing 20, 6-2, 235, in the shape of your life and the top of your game.

I'm not about to start debating whether they do good or not, it's just my opinion something so trivial is a waste of time.

If you're old enough to make the choice, you're old enough to live with the consequences, it will physically hurt noone but you (99.999% of the time anyway...I don't want to hear some "what if" about someone flying out of the car and landing on a land mine that sends you bone through some pedestrians head or something)

I also realize its a federal thing...that doesn't make it intelligent.

I was in an accident several years ago where my truck rolled end over end........then sideways multiple times down a hill into a sink hole.

Had I been wearing a seat belt I WOULD BE DEAD RIGHT NOW.

The only reason I'm alive........ I was knocked on my side, the bench seat folded over on me as the roof was crushed.......and I was protected by the seat.

I've started wearing my seatbelt recently only due to the fact, they have seatbelt checks everywhere around here all the time and I've grown tired of paying the fines.

For every one of you there are 50 that go the other way, Glad it worked out for you though.

LK

If you're old enough to make the choice, you're old enough to live with the consequences, it will physically hurt noone but you (99.999% of the time anyway...I don't want to hear some "what if" about someone flying out of the car and landing on a land mine that sends you bone through some pedestrians head or something)

So if you end up as a vegetable, you're the only one who has to live with the consequences? What about your relatives? And what about all of us paying for your care, rehab etc? And don't tell me that you have already paid for this because you have insurance. There's no way you'll pay as much in premiums as it will cost to take care of you after a serious accident. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay for other people's bad judgement.

I wear mine, I'm just opposed to forcing it on people.

And as for your question...if I end up as a vegetable someone better unplug my ass and if that doesn't work they better get creative, cause spontaneous combustion isn't that common.

This is all assuming that a seatbelt would have prevented any damage in this accident...

There's not a thing anyone can say to change my mind on this subject I can guarantee that.

I usually wear mine, although I will admit, around town I sometimes won't. But the obscurity in this thread is correct. Motorcylists are not required to wear any safety equipment (must have it with them though). How about the biggest seat belt offender of all - School buses. Now that makes no sense at all.

There's not a thing anyone can say to change my mind on this subject I can guarantee that.

There's a million of morons out there, making a desicion that can affect you and me personally. Do you really think it's their right to do? It's not a matter of personal freedom, it's more a matter of your responsibility if you want to live in a community. There are a ton of laws that we could do away with if people could be more responsible and just have some common sense, but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Motorcylists are not required to wear any safety equipment (must have it with them though). How about the biggest seat belt offender of all - School buses. Now that makes no sense at all.

Agreed on the busses but that has and is changing in several states (there was video of two teens fighting with a school bus driver recently, that argument started because the driver told one of the youngsters to put on their seatbelt)

And the motorcyle law is state by state. In Cali, you cannot ride without a helmet. Dumb thing there is that guys have these things that look like plastic yamaca's and it's acceptable to the law. Wouldnt do a damn thing for head protection should they stash, but they're wearing a "helmet".

I wear my seatbelt. I got launched out of a truck doing 50+ and slid headfirst into a curb. Life support, years of rehab, killed boxing and football for me entirely....... all that good stuff.....I aint planning on doing that again

But it all ties into insurance and revenue for the state, I think that is the bottom line for the law. I do believe they save lives, but that is not the reason for the law, imo. Its about revenue for the states, its about living for me.

I think it is also a waste of time, i wear by belts most of the time, but here in arizona 72 and older and not reqired to have a belt. I find it odd that someone stated that shoulder belts were manditory in 69 and also back seat belts. I had to add the belts in my back seat, their were holes there for the belts but no belts maybe mine were taken out who knows. I currently installed 5 point harnesses because the lap belts were scarry as hell, that steering wheel was just waiting for my face.

Snip:

...And, in all fairness, to keep the insurance rates down...


Yeah, that and the towing of unregistered and uninsured cars is doing a GREAT job of driving the rates down.

They SAY it is to get the rates down so you will vote for it. But strangely, the rates never go down. Mine go up regularly, every time I renew, can't even get a policy for more than 6 months just so they CAN raise rates twice a year.

My '64 has lap belts with bowties on the buttons (factory or dealer added?) in all 4 corners, none for center passengers (I guess they wanted a nice clean ejection thru the windshield for them).

My 66 Impala 4dr hardtop had both shoulder and lap belts, and a center lap belt in the front seat not the back.

My '71 Elco had lap belt only (might be because it was a "truck")

Those are the only ones I remember.

Can you imagine all the wacky mounting schemes there would be if belts were REQUIRED to be installed in all cars? First there would be the outcry "discrimination against people who can't afford to have belts installed" then there would be people installing belts with tek screws and big washers. THAT would be a mess.

K

Yeah, that and the towing of unregistered and uninsured cars is doing a GREAT job of driving the rates down.

They SAY it is to get the rates down so you will vote for it. But strangely, the rates never go down.


Ok, let's put it this way then: Increased costs for the insurance companies will drive the rates up. Does that sound more logical? I might be wrong in my assumption that there is some kind of remote connection between a company's costs and what they have to charge for their products, especially on a free market with plenty of competition. So are you saying that the insurance companies just wet their finger and stick it in the air when they set the premiums? :confused:

So if you end up as a vegetable, you're the only one who has to live with the consequences? What about your relatives? And what about all of us paying for your care, rehab etc? And don't tell me that you have already paid for this because you have insurance. There's no way you'll pay as much in premiums as it will cost to take care of you after a serious accident. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay for other people's bad judgement. i dont want to pay for welfare but we all still do. if the insurance companies really wanted to lower the rates i think they should go after all the scumbags that steal cars and go joy riding then wreck them. if they get caught they only get a slap on the wrist and they go out and do it again. i see cars all the time come into the shop for this and the insurance companies have to put out thousands of dollars. but then again its much easy to go after the guy that wasnt wearing the seatbelt thats probaly coming home from working 14 hrs to pay for the high cost of insurance.

For every one of you there are 50 that go the other way, Glad it worked out for you though.

LKYep, very true. I spent 17 years on a FD rescue team, and I cannot remember a single accident where a seat belt caused any damage or injury, but I saw very many where it saved a life. And in NY state, there is a helmet law for motorcycles too, mandatory.