Seatbelts Y/N?

One thing that is often, -and somewhat overlooked in this, and I don't know how Colin would prove or disprove this part either, but legal counsel and my insurance company both told me that I am better off to refrain from installing restraint belts due to expectations that these belts are suppose to be doing.

In a minor collision, the mounting of the restraints often are not really put to the test. Likewise, it has been noticed on several broadside crashes that the mounting attachments of the restraints pulled loose during impact. Whether these compromised mountings would have prevented the fatality is unknown.

So, back to the 'expectations' that counselors were making a point of. When the 'next of kin' are seeking answers to what happened, the failed restraint systems likely pique the interest of the attorneys looking for a place to assign blame. Using me as an example, when I crawl into anyone's vehicle, I do not question nor inspect the seat belt restraining system. I make the assumption they are properly functioning and will keep me restrained inside of the vehicle during a crash. So if you retrofit your Model-A with a restraint system, would you 110% stand behind someone else's life during a crash on your installation ideas that they will not fail??
 
The question of legal liability for retrofitted seatbelts comes up a lot in the classic/antique car community. Restoration shops normally refuse not just to install belts, but also for example to weld in mount points for them.

I can certainly see their point. Manufacturers spend a lot of time and money testing and engineering seat belts to withstand crash forces. The belts and seats are designed as a single system, working together to protect the occupant. None of that is going on here. We are gesticulating in the dark about the amount of protection these belts provide, and should not pretend we're doing anything else.

The legal theory goes that, if a person trusts the seat belts to protect them from injury in a crash and is subsequently injured, the owner or shop who installed the belts is liable for damages under the "but for" test for actual cause: if not for the presence of the seat belts, the person would not have gotten in the car in the first place and would not have been injured.

I've been told that, under this legal theory, I really should have all of my passengers sign a waiver stating that they understand that my seat belts will not protect them in a crash.

Unfortunately, Brent is right – I can't prove or disprove this theory because, to my knowledge, it's never been tested in court. I've been unable to find a court case where an owner or shop was found liable over failure of retrofitted seat belts. This doesn't mean the theory is bunk. Almost all potential cases are settled by insurance companies, and it would be very hard to tell how much the presence or absence of seat belts factored into the amount of a settlement.

I have seen this theory floated as justification for not installing seat belts at all, and to me that's the worst possible lesson to take from it. The idea that you would intentionally make your car more dangerous to avoid the remote possibility of one day being sued is just perverse.
 
Clearly the addition of seatbelts is a personal choice. My grand-kids ride along with me often so I chose to install belts to keep the kids in the truck in the event a door should come open. However, instead of just relying on fender washers for strength I bolted lap belts through the body using a 32" length of 6063 Aluminum Channel 3.000" X 1.000" X 0.125" underneath. I don't know how much force it would take to pull the bolts through the channel but it's got to be a lot.
 
This subject can sure start a discussion (bar fight). I think the final decision is for your personal preference for sure. I've opted for seat belts in my pick up. Didn't care for the washers under the body, so made up a steel plate. My decision. My risk.
 
Last edited:
While we are here, what kind of oil should I use in my Model A? :D;)

Just kidding!

I think Paul's video is spot on. I have seatbelts in my Victoria mounted the same way, though slightly different to account for the individual seats. I was young when the whole push to use seat belts happened, so they are a habit for me. I feel naked if I don't have a seatbelt on while driving. Will it keep me safer? Maybe yes, maybe no. Do I feel awkward driving a car without a seatbelt? You bet! So, I've installed seatbelts on all four of my Model As and will install seatbelts on my future cars as well.
 
To fit seat belts or to not fit seat belts. This question has been pretty well done over the years but here's my take on it.
Having a seat belt does not guarantee you will survive a collision, even in a modern car. It only improves your chances. The whole thing is a game of chance. Having no seat belts does not mean you will die either - it only changes the odds.
As for the body detaching from he Chassis, I think that any car where that happens should NOT be on the road. It has not been restored properly. I have never seen a picture of a car where that happened back in the day. I have 4 Model As and they all have seat belts. Two have lap/sash belts and two have a harness like a racing car driver wears. For those, I attach to the back of the body where there in a strong box section running right across the body, from there a belt comes forward and up to near the back of he front seat. At that point, it forks and one strap goes over each shoulder. There is also a lap belt component to it, giving me a 4 point attachment This arrangement makes me feel quite safe but I am aware that especially in the Phaeton, I could be in trouble in a roll over. Other than that, I think it as good an arrangement as is possible in a car like a Model A.
To illustrate how there is no definite answer to this one, I have two true stories. In one, one of our club members was rear ended on the freeway in her Phaeton. The impact sent her up and over the back of he front seat and onto the road, fracturing her skull. She would have been better off with a seat belt. The other story is also a woman who rolled her car swerving to avoid a Kangaroo. She was thrown out and suffered some pretty serious abrasions but she also survived. If she were belted in, she wouldn't have survived because the windscreen pillars were flattened to the level of the cowl. She was better off without a seat belt.
The odds fell in favour of these two women (fortunately) but there is absolutely no guarantee.
I regards my best safety device on my Model As as good brakes and being alert to danger.
All of that said, the legal requirements here make fitting belts to a car like ours are horrendous so most people don't do anything. I, on the other hand figure that any restraint is better than none. Even if the belt tears lose, it has helped. I guess in a nutshell, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
 
Great discussion.

Placing this sticker on your dash rail might absolve you of any legal issues......you were warned:

572420



....or this comes to mind as well and is always a good conversation starter at car shows:

572421


Brad in Maryland



.
 

Attachments

  • Image 2.jpg
    Image 2.jpg
    25.3 KB · Views: 122
  • Image 1-7-21 at 11.19 PM.jpeg
    Image 1-7-21 at 11.19 PM.jpeg
    55.3 KB · Views: 122
40+ years ago I did a tech article for Kit Car magazine on seat belts. I dug through the SAE papers for the methods and requirements.


FMVSS 210: Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages


This standard focuses on the anchorages—the parts of the vehicle structure to which the seat belts are attached. It ensures the anchorages are properly located and strong enough to withstand crash forces.


  • Strength: Anchorages must withstand significant forces—for lap/shoulder belts, this includes simultaneous forces of 13,345 Newtons (3,000 pounds) applied to both the lap and shoulder belt portions.
  • Proper location: It specifies requirements for the angle and position of the anchorages relative to the seating reference point to ensure proper and effective occupant restraint.
  • Testing procedures: The standard includes test procedures using "body blocks" that simulate an occupant to measure the strength of the anchorages. Recent amendments have clarified testing procedures and added alternative test devices.
 
stevemclark said:
I went through a sobriety check point in a model A and the officer wanted to cite me for not wearing a seat belt.I told him cars made before 1968 weren't required to have them
Click to expand...
By 1965 all states had laws requiring lap belts in new cars. In 1966 they were Federally required by the Highway Safety Act. For 1968 it was amended to require the shoulder belts. The 1968 year is used most because a cop can see if you are wearing the shoulder belt but not a lap belt.
The Fed laws apply to new manufacture. I don't think any state made retrofitting required. Probably due to the simple fact there were too many variables and no "engineered" solution that could apply to all installations. I remember helping my dad install belts in our cars in the early 60s. I was tasked with crawling under the car to install the washers, nuts and hold the wrench.
 
Years ago I followed the progression of seat belt laws for kids in N.H.First,it was for kids under a certain age.Then that number moved up.Then,there was a hoorah about just who owned the liability for putting belts in old cars.That did make sense to the state,so they put the number at 1966.A couple of years later it was changed to 1968.Right now kids are not required to wear seat belts in a pre-68 car in N.H.In the early 90's I got a ticket for not having a seat belt in an old Mack.It was a 1962,and never had provisions for them.However,federal law stated all commercial drivers shall wear a seat belt.No jibber-jabber over liability,either figure out your seat belt situation or park the truck.
 
On commercial trucks with an air seat, the belts are attached to the seat, and then the seat bolted to the cab. We had to change seats because the original one wore out. We had to drill new holes for the new seat. There was just cab floor all around where the seat would bolt. We used big washers.
 
Does the USDOT have a regulation requiring working safety belts on commercial vehicles?

Answer:
Yes. Section 393.93 of the FMCSRs (49 CFR 393.93) requires seat belts on trucks, truck tractors, and buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1965. For vehicles built on or after January 1, 1965, but before July 1, 1971, the seat belts must comply with the FMCSRs in effect on the date of manufacture.
For vehicles built on or after July 1, 1971, the seat belts must comply with the applicable National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards concerning seat belts (49 CFR 571.208, 571.209, and 571.210).
When the FMCSRs require conformity to a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, the vehicle or equipment must conform to the version of the Standard that is in effect on the date the vehicle, or a subsequent version of the requirements.
Last Updated : April 15, 2014


----------------------------------


Commercial trucks are grandfathered also.
 
My mother’s 1957(?) Ford Fairlane four door sedan had cotton web lap belts in the front. You pull the handle of the large metal clasp on the receiving belt. The underside of the handle had a grooved bar which swung out of the way to open a slot. You’d insert the male end into the slot, then pull the belt as much or as little as you choose. Then as you released the handle the grooved bar pressed the web against the inside of the buckle. From the photos I’ve seen online WWII era flight safety belts had a single metal hook and latch, and all the length adjustment was done farther up the belt. I’ve never seen another just like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top