Legal question about Antique vehicles and the seat belt laws

-
Treblig said:
"Nostigal??" Is that manufacturer??:)
Click to expand...

cannucky said:
No they can't that isn't how ABS works bud .
Click to expand...

So anti lock brakes don't make you stop quicker on a wet road. That is news to me. please tell me how they work then ? I have always assumed they give you as much brakes as the road can handle without causing you to hydroplane
 
States operate by the laws in effect when the vehicle was manufactured. California is basically it's own country at this point. While the above post affirms that no one is exempt, I know of people that assert differently. But I'll leave that to them. I have no desire or plans to ever return to California :)

I've been told by many engineers that it is more dangerous to add a seat belt to a vehicle never designed for it, than it is to ride without it. That said, I plan on adding lap belts to my Jeepster to prevent ejection, though in a roll over it would be better to be thrown. I've known people that lived because they weren't wearing a seat belt and others who would have if they were, but that doesn't change fines. :)
 
trapster said:
So anti lock brakes don't make you stop quicker on a wet road. That is news to me. please tell me how they work then ? I have always assumed they give you as much brakes as the road can handle without causing you to hydroplane
Click to expand...

All ABS does is prevent you from locking up your brakes. As a driver if your only braking method is to stand on the brakes, then yes. You'll stop shorter. However if you practiced controlled braking, it won't make a difference at worst or perhaps take a little shorter to stop. This is probably most pronounced in the snow in my experience.
 
RAT ROD AL said:
Well maybe a law enforcement officer will shed some light on this question.
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if they could.
I tried to read the federal laws covering years and they are pretty incomprehensible.
In 73 cars came with separate shoulder belt that you could attach to the lap belt, or not.
I carried it with me for some years in case a cop stopped and I only wear the lap belt.
I have been stopped a few time over the years.
The only time a cop every said anything was when he was in his car at eye ball to eyeball level and could see the shoulder harness in my roof.
I would image most of the state laws say "seat belt".
Not "shoulder harness" anyway.
 
adriver said:
I would be surprised if they could.
I tried to read the federal laws covering years and they are pretty incomprehensible.
In 73 cars came with separate shoulder belt that you could attach to the lap belt, or not.
I carried it with me for some years in case a cop stopped and I only wear the lap belt.
I have been stopped a few time over the years.
The only time a cop every said anything was when he was in his car at eye ball to eyeball level and could see the shoulder harness in my roof.
I would image most of the state laws say "seat belt".
Not "shoulder harness" anyway.
Click to expand...
I agree, I have asked different officers about different laws,as is this legal or not, and he would just state the law and let you decide because the laws are written so grey and they don't know either. They just wright the tickets and let us pay the lawyers and court system.
 
trapster said:
So anti lock brakes don't make you stop quicker on a wet road. That is news to me. please tell me how they work then ? I have always assumed they give you as much brakes as the road can handle without causing you to hydroplane
Click to expand...
First of all you seem to have thrown the "Wet Road" part in after the fact there bud but in the simplest terms I can muster for you , Braking is friction . Maximum friction equals maximum braking equals shortest stopping distance, all 4 locked up is maximum friction . ABS pulses the brakes allowing the wheel to continue rolling which provides better steering control while braking but lengthens the actual stopping distance . It's physics , threshold braking is also better than mechanically pulsing the brakes .Hydroplaning is not a given on wet roads , it is generally caused by the tire not being suitable for the conditions either by design , compound or pressure , I run the Nitto NT555R which is a wet rated and highway rated "Drag Radial" , I have been in torrential rains where I could barely make out the shape and lights of the semi in front of me without even a hint of hydroplaning but this has nothing to do with the myth that ABS stops better .
 
cannucky said:
First of all you seem to have thrown the "Wet Road" part in after the fact there bud but in the simplest terms I can muster for you , Braking is friction . Maximum friction equals maximum braking equals shortest stopping distance, all 4 locked up is maximum friction . ABS pulses the brakes allowing the wheel to continue rolling which provides better steering control while braking but lengthens the actual stopping distance . It's physics , threshold braking is also better than mechanically pulsing the brakes .Hydroplaning is not a given on wet roads , it is generally caused by the tire not being suitable for the conditions either by design , compound or pressure , I run the Nitto NT555R which is a wet rated and highway rated "Drag Radial" , I have been in torrential rains where I could barely make out the shape and lights of the semi in front of me without even a hint of hydroplaning but this has nothing to do with the myth that ABS stops better .
Click to expand...

I cant let this go like this since it is a bit misinformed.

In general you want your brakes to stop the car and your tires to hold the road. You want your tires to transfer as much energy to the road as possible. and the best way for then to do this is if they are rolling with the road, and not sliding on it.

There are 2 type of friction out there static, the force needed to overcome an immobile object, and dynamic, the force needed to keep an object moving. when you are driving down the road your tread is static to the road, that is it isn't rubbing down the road it is rolling on it. When you do a burn out or slam on the brakes and your wheel is turning at a different speed than the pavement that is dynamic friction. Static friction is always more than dynamic. IE in a burnout it doesn't take as much torque to get your tires spinning as it does to keep them spinning. If you thing that spinning your wheels puts more power to the pavement then why would you not want to "burn rubber" all the way down the track.
and the same goes for braking when your tires are locked up and not rotating you are not braking as well as when they are rotating with the pavement. Its just physics.
 
Screenshot_2018-06-27-15-08-30-1.png
 
Before I was "The guy with no Birthday" I was the "The Troll Master " but that wasn't my intention .
 
Sorry, I didn't mean to Hijack the conversation, my point was just that with new technology making cars safer, it also makes drivers more reckless, following too closely in wet weather, driving too fast in hazardous conditions etc. and if you are following along in your 60's tech it is easy to be even more reckless just keeping up with traffic. SO the least you could do is get a seat-belt, regardless of the laws.

My wife, being an Air Force brat has memories of her father going to sears to have seat belts installed in their family car, because it was the rule on the base that you had to have them.
 
At least here you do not have to have them, if they were not installed from the factory.
I have a 1948 CJ-2A that I put lap belts and a roll bar in.
And I wear the lap belts every time I get in the old jeep.
 
Picked up a '63 Valiant near Des Moines last fall. The PO had done a complete restoration on the car. I went down from Minneapolis/St. Paul area to drive it home. No seatbelts. He said it didn't need them by law. Scariest drive back home on I35. It now has seat belts for my own comfort level. So used to driving with seat belts everyday, I felt naked without them.
 
bruceo2011 said:
Picked up a '63 Valiant near Des Moines last fall. The PO had done a complete restoration on the car. I went down from Minneapolis/St. Paul area to drive it home. No seatbelts. He said it didn't need them by law. Scariest drive back home on I35. It now has seat belts for my own comfort level. So used to driving with seat belts everyday, I felt naked without them.
Click to expand...
X2
 
Whether required or not, it is a good idea to have them. I am a firm believer in seat belts. I had seat belts in the first car I could legally drive. It was a 1949 Mercury, with a Olds engine, and in 1959. Without getting into a long story, the belt saved me from having an accident. The only reason, I would not have belts in my car, would be if it was a full on high dollar restoration. Then I probably would not drive it, anyway.
 
so, do you think we need to upgrade our bumpers as well, and install crumple zones?

once we start down that slope....
 
just asking, not arguing...…
so everybody that insists that there is no way they drive a car without seatbelts does not, and will not, ride or own a motorcycle, correct???
My point is, i'm 50x safer in my Duster with no belts than they are on a motorcycle with a helmet. Broad-sided, rear ended, hitting the ditch, hitting a deer, or a simple fender bender, the biker is at 50x at higher risk for serious injury or death.

Now I don't care if anyone has a cycle or not, and I don't care if they buckle up or not. Neither does the law. Revenue. Bottom line.
P.S. - didn't need belts in my '65 or my '54 that I had, and I enjoyed the freedom and comfort of when it was our choice :)
 
318willrun said:
just asking, not arguing...…
so everybody that insists that there is no way they drive a car without seatbelts does not, and will not, ride or own a motorcycle, correct???
My point is, i'm 50x safer in my Duster with no belts than they are on a motorcycle with a helmet. Broad-sided, rear ended, hitting the ditch, hitting a deer, or a simple fender bender, the biker is at 50x at higher risk for serious injury or death.

Now I don't care if anyone has a cycle or not, and I don't care if they buckle up or not. Neither does the law. Revenue. Bottom line.
P.S. - didn't need belts in my '65 or my '54 that I had, and I enjoyed the freedom and comfort of when it was our choice :)
Click to expand...
I agree that it's all about revenue. Supporting the court system and the insurance company s from paying out more. But with all that has been said I still haven't gotten an answer to the question.
 
Charrlie_S said:
See my post #43
"This law applies to any car manufactured since 1968. "
Click to expand...
Thanks Charrlie, I saw the post, In my original post it states I know the law in FL, ( I live here to) I asked about other states that I may drive though on a road trip, with someone in the back.
 
RAT ROD AL said:
Thanks Charrlie, I saw the post, In my original post it states I know the law in FL, ( I live here to) I asked about other states that I may drive though on a road trip, with someone in the back.
Click to expand...
I think I answered for Illinois.
65 and older no seat belts required
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top