Seat Belts

[TubT]

I got stopped by an accident out by MM538 on I20 in Texas a while back. A car had run into the median, hit the concrete barrier, and rolled several times. When I got there (about 10 minutes after it happened), it was fully involved in a fire.

But that didn't make any difference to any one of the several large pieces or the dozen or so small pieces of the guy who was driving. He hadn't been wearing his seatbelt and was ejected through the side window, then hit by the trucks he was trying to pass.

"Thrown clear" can just as easily be "thown into a worse situation."

 

[Mike]

Call me a wuss, but the thought of anyone or anything throwing me anywhere is more than a little frightening. I am not a ball, a frisbee or an empty beer can, so the thought of being thrown just seems unnatural to me.

 

[Zack]

Call me a wuss, but the thought of anyone or anything throwing me anywhere is more than a little frightening. I am not a ball, a frisbee or an empty beer can, so the thought of being thrown just seems unnatural to me.

LOL, I hear ya Mike. I feel the same way.

 

[bobby6319]

i checked with the hwy patrol here in oklahoma and all cars regardless of year must have seat belts this started a few years ago so you have to retrofit the older cars

 

[donsrods]

Any wreck is a crapshoot and people get killed in even the most technologically advanced new cars with crumple zones, air bags, side air bags, etc. The small open roadsters we drive are nowhere near as safe for the occupants in a wreck as in those types of cars. In certain types of wrecks a seat belt would be helpful in a roadster, but in other types (like if it flips, which happens more than we realize) I do NOT want to be the tallest thing left strapped in my T when it is resting upside down. I would rather take my chances being ejected, at least that way I have SOME chance, whereas if the car is using me for a jack I have no chance.

Tell me you would want to be strapped into this car when it wrecked .

 

[putz]

This is from the NHRA site on Shepherd http://www.nhra.net/50th/top50/L_Shepherd12.html

According to eyewitness accounts, Shepherd had just finished making a series of 60-foot test clockings, then made a full pass. On that run, he recorded a 7.87, the parachute deployed, and the car picked up a on the right front and went airborne. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

 

[Mike]

Tell me you would want to be strapped into this car when it wrecked .

No, I really wouldn't have wanted to be strapped into that car. However, if I had been in that car, I would have been strapped in. The numbers would have beat me in that case.

However, as I said earlier, I'll go with the numbers. For every image of an open roadster laying on its top, how many wrecks have you seen where the vehicle was not upside down? For every wreck you can describe where someone survived by not wearing a belt, there is an offsetting story where someone did roll a vehicle and walked away because they did wear a belt.

I've been hit head-on (my belt saved me from so much as touching the steering wheel), I've been hit from the rear, I've been hit in the driver's side rear and driven into a ditch (my belt kept me where I belonged and uninjured) . I've never been upside down in an accident. My son's mother lost control of a Charger (I had paid off just 6 weeks earlier) and destroyed a railroad semaphore. And her belt allowed her to suffer a cut finger as she crawled through the broken driver's window with no other injuries. A jet airliner can fall out of the sky and hit both of our cars, leaving me just as dead with my seat belt as you are without one. But in the majority of accidents you and I have seen, or have been involved in, wearing a belt is going to minimize injury. See how it all came back to the numbers?

Why risk being ejected from a vehicle, when something as simple as a seat belt could have prevented any injuries of any kind?

I do support your decision to not wear a belt. I said it before and I'm saying it again. I feel you should be in control of that decision. But no matter your decision, you're never going to escape Sir Isaac Newton's First Law of Motion - "Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed." I prefer that force impressed be a seat belt, rather than a steering wheel/column, a windshield, or any fixed object forward of those points.

I say tomāto, you say tomăto. Nothing is ever going to be 100% correct or 100% absolute 100% of the time.

 

[Telman2]

This is mainly addressed to Telman, but anyone feel free to jump in... I also live in Il. & the car is titled as a '23, soooo when my now 8 yr. old grandaughter & I go for a ride w/o belts the local police told me that it was not needed for her to be belted in , did you get different information? Just curious as to what the law "really" is ?? dave

I went to the "Secretary Of States Office" (the DMV in Illinois) and asked about this a couple of years ago. They explained that we are dealing with two different laws.
1 - The car being registered as a 1923 must meet the safety and emissions requirements of 1923 (IE, no seatbelts).
2 - Illinois law requires all children to be properly restrained in a child safety seat or booster seat until age eight. After age eight, Illinois law requires everyone under the age of 19 to be properly restrained anywhere in the vehicle.
To sum it up, seat belts aren't required in the car for an adult to ride in it but if anyone under the age of 19 is riding in it without a seatbelt you will be ticketed.

 

[QuadBart]

I say tomāto, you say tomăto. Nothing is ever going to be 100% correct or 100% absolute 100% of the time.

CORRECT !!

Both views have pros and cons.
And as I said in my first post in this thread, My view ( to not wear) is based on an open cockpit, with no roll bar.
I even agree with whats been posted previously. A seat belt will protect from a more serious injury in a lesser accident not involving a rollover.
I would like to think that everyone would agree that its a WHOLE different ball game when your talking about a vehicle ( even a "T") with a roof or rollbar.
Theres no debate about a persons well being when your strapped in with protection over your head.

I believe the OP's intent was to try and understand the legality of the subject.

Which I believe is that the REQUIREMENT of HAVING seat belts is governed at the federal level and the PRE 1967 cars are exempt. Am I correct?? This is MY understanding and if Im misinformed Please correct me.

 

[QuadBart]

I went to the "Secretary Of States Office" (the DMV in Illinois) and asked about this a couple of years ago. They explained that we are dealing with two different laws.
1 - The car being registered as a 1923 must meet the safety and emissions requirements of 1923 (IE, no seatbelts).
2 - Illinois law requires all children to be properly restrained in a child safety seat or booster seat until age eight. After age eight, Illinois law requires everyone under the age of 19 to be properly restrained anywhere in the vehicle.
To sum it up, seat belts aren't required in the car for an adult to ride in it but if anyone under the age of 19 is riding in it without a seatbelt you will be ticketed.

LOL ,He posted this as I was typing.

As far as "Requirement" of seat belts, The key is "Registered as a 1923"
Not all "T's" are registered as a 1923.
Example: I dont know who or where mine was originally registered but when the previous owner brought it to Illinois it got registered as a 1980 Ford convertible.
So legally, Im supposed to have seatbelts.

Ive been 6 months trying to get them to change it with no luck (YET).

 

[donsrods]

That is a good point about how your title reads. Ours are titled as old cars so we are exempt, but I wonder if that applies to ones that have titles that read "Built from parts" or "kit car", etc? I bet not.

I also agree that the decision to wear one or not to wear one should be the owners choice. I wear one religiously in my daily drivers but for the reasons I stated earlier will not wear one in an open roadster.


Don

 

[fordsbyjay]

A buddy of mine got killed right before thanksgiving from not wearing his seatbelt. Got squashed under hit truck when it rolled over.

 

[ruggs]

Not the norm but this is a seatbelt car in my book

 

[ellis8500]

I do plan to install seat belts. I know that they won't be much good in a serious accident; but, one can also get seriously injured or killed in the low speed accidents when ya don't stay in the seat. Back in the old days, 1960's, 30 MPH accidents were often fatal when driver and passengers rattled around in the car hitting the steering wheel and crashing through a windshield.

 

[2old2fast]

Geez !! Only in IL. would they have such a stupid , contrived, catch 22 law "you need it BUT no you don't" Anyway, were the fine DMV folks kind enough to elaborate as to whether you " needed" lap belts, or shoulder harness,or what standard the belts were to comply with ? [that you really don't need] , wonder which dumbass politician pushed this law through?

dave

 

[sstock]

That is a good point about how your title reads. Ours are titled as old cars so we are exempt, but I wonder if that applies to ones that have titles that read "Built from parts" or "kit car", etc? I bet not.

I also agree that the decision to wear one or not to wear one should be the owners choice. I wear one religiously in my daily drivers but for the reasons I stated earlier will not wear one in an open roadster.


Don

Washington State just adopted SEMA, the wording states basically that street rods will be titled as the year the vehicle resembles

 

[Telman2]

Geez !! Only in IL. would they have such a stupid , contrived, catch 22 law "you need it BUT no you don't" Anyway, were the fine DMV folks kind enough to elaborate as to whether you " needed" lap belts, or shoulder harness,or what standard the belts were to comply with ? [that you really don't need] , wonder which dumbass politician pushed this law through?

dave

Dave, Illinois law says I only need seatbelts in my bucket if I intend to give a child a ride in it. I don't think the state had messing with my bucket in mind when they passed that law. Illinois isn't the only state that requires children to be belted in when riding in a car. There are a lot of these catch 22 laws, we have freedom of speech but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater etc. As a responsible father and grandfather I don't have a problem with it.

 

[2old2fast]

After doing some research [on the net] it appears ,to me, that the seat belt laws are only applicable to vehicles produced from 1965 to present, previous to that date they[the laws] do not apply. dave

 

[coachfhs]

I would like to get a poll as to how many have and use belts in buckets titled before 67
Coach

 

[EX JUNK]

I would like to get a poll as to how many have and use belts in buckets titled before 67
Coach

I, for one, have and use seat belts in my "1925 Model T " titled roadster. I believe that if you are not sitting firmly, as belted in, you may not be able to take evasive action to AVOID an accident. You can't be in control of your vehicle if you are not in it. IMHO

Jim