what year was it,that seat belts became standard?

just curious.wasnt it like 63 or 64?

 

I think our 62 belair had them

 

not really sure.

i got pulled over once in my 54 chevy and the cop gave me a ticket for not having seat belts. i tried argueing the fact that they didn't come with them in 54. he told me to tell it to the judge. so i did. the judge didn't want to hear it either. so i had to pay the fine. $250 ouch.

 

[ QUOTE ]
not really sure.

i got pulled over once in my 54 chevy and the cop gave me a ticket for not having seat belts. i tried argueing the fact that they didn't come with them in 54. he told me to tell it to the judge. so i did. the judge didn't want to hear it either. so i had to pay the fine. $250 ouch.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow thats totally stupid.i would have fought it more.

 

I think 1966 was the first year that federal regulations requiring them took effect. Seat belts were optional before this although the trend for them was growing. Ford had them as options in 55 but people seemed to feel that if you offered lap belts your cars must not be safe and the manufacturers seemed to agree so they weren't common then.

Ever get flung up against a metal dashbard? Thats why they are called dashboards.

California doesn't require retrofitting of belts to cars that did not originally require them but it's still a good idea. I'm installing them in my 57 Dodge. Your state may vary.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Ford had them as options in 55 but people seemed to feel that if you offered lap belts your cars must not be safe and the manufacturers seemed to agree so they weren't common then.


[/ QUOTE ]

and dont forget tucker trying to put them in his car,and the board members not wanting to for that reason..i think that is how it went?

 

In Illinois, the law is that you have to use them in any car manufactured after 1 Jan. 1965.
Further, you cannot sell any car without seat belts if manufactured after 1 Jan. 1961.
All children must use seat belts in ALL cars, regardless of year.
Front seat driver and passengers must use seat belts if going over 15 mph (exempts postal employees doing door to door).
That's pretty much it. There are no standards for retrofitting, but children must be restrained.
Here I can go to the DMV and request a copy of the vehicle code, might suggest that someone keep a copy in the car for those times that the local Barney Fifes get too rambunctious about writing tickets.
Cosmo

 

66/67 in Australia I think, front only.

Jimbob

 

Cosmo, where did you see/read about postal vehicles? as a former letter carrier, we would be in hot shit w/o a belt no matter what the speed.back to the question, my dad had a 63 Valiant w/o seat belts i remember installing a retro set from Western Auto and when he traded it for a 65 Sport Fury they were (Belts) factory My mind is slipping in old age....

 

I believe that the DOT made seat belts a requirement in all US cars in 1968. Before that, they were optional.

 

Many cars had them as an option but Federal Law made them mandatory on Jan. 1, 1967.

My dad has a '64 Impala (42,000 mile original car) and when he bought it from the original owner 5 years ago the guy was still upset that they (dealership) had to drill holes in the floors to mount the aftermarket seatbelts in 1967. He was told when they became mandatory he had to upgrade the car by a slick salesman at the dealership when he had it serviced

I had a '65 Biscayne that had the build sheet and seat belts was one of the options it had....another option it had was a v-8 with funny looking valve covers called a 409...real sleeper!

I now have a '66 Tempest custom but no seat belts. '66 Chevelle/GTO etc did not have a locking mechanism for the seats either....the seats simply folded forward to let passengers into the rear seat. 1967 seats have a button you must push to fold the seats forward, another safety device....1966 was a one year only seat although using a 67-72 seat and removing the locking mechanism and using '66 seat backs will fool most judges.

 

anyone know what the law is for street rods in Arizona. One thing I like about AZ. is that you can run the correct year License plate on you rod.

 

[ QUOTE ]
wow thats totally stupid.i would have fought it more.

[/ QUOTE ]
wow, that was totally stupid, i would have put in belts long before i got pulled over and it became an issue.

 

I remember my dad bought a new ford in 62,,,,it had them but,1967 all cars,including imports, had to be equiped with them. HRP

 

It was 1968.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) # 208 was for seat belts, made effective 1/1/1968. It required lap seat belts for each designated seating position.

It also mandated combined lap and shoulder seat belts assemblies are required in each front outboard seating position, except for convertibles. Convertibles only needed lap belts.

This 1968 Buick was bought new by my wife's grandmother. (I lowered it in Photoshop to elevate my father-in-law's blood pressure.) It still has the original pamphlet that explained the "new" Federal changes.

--Matt

 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow thats totally stupid.i would have fought it more.

[/ QUOTE ]
wow, that was totally stupid, i would have put in belts long before i got pulled over and it became an issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, as far as I'm concerned it's nobodys business weather I wear a seatbelt or not. Why is it legal to drink yourself to death or smoke 3 packs of Luckys a day and die of cancer but I cant drive without a seatbelt?

 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow thats totally stupid.i would have fought it more.

[/ QUOTE ]
wow, that was totally stupid, i would have put in belts long before i got pulled over and it became an issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
wow that was totally stupid. don't you ever take your car out around the block for test drives while your building it? thats when they pulled me over. the reason he pulled me over was he said he couldn't see my back plates. then he noticed i didn't have seat belts. he said he would let me go on the plates issue.

just so you know i already put belts in the car.

i tried to fight it more but i just couldn't find the DMV code that states no seat belts for certain yrs.

 

[ QUOTE ]
not really sure.

i got pulled over once in my 54 chevy and the cop gave me a ticket for not having seat belts. i tried argueing the fact that they didn't come with them in 54. he told me to tell it to the judge. so i did. the judge didn't want to hear it either. so i had to pay the fine. $250 ouch.

[/ QUOTE ]
That cop and judge didn't like your tattoos.
here's what I can find on CA law. It seems the mandatory seatbelt law over rules all the previous laws that said you dn't have to retro fit?
 
Mandatory Seat Belt Law



27315.   (a) The Legislature finds that a mandatory seatbelt law will contribute to reducing highway deaths and injuries by encouraging greater usage of existing manual seatbelts, that automatic crash protection systems which require no action by vehicle occupants offer the best hope of reducing deaths and injuries, and that encouraging the use of manual safety belts is only a partial remedy for addressing this major cause of death and injury. The Legislature declares that the enactment of this section is intended to be compatible with support for federal safety standards requiring automatic crash protection systems and should not be used in any manner to rescind federal requirements for installation of automatic restraints in new cars.

(b) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

(c) (1) As used in this section, "motor vehicle" means any passenger vehicle or any motortruck or truck tractor, but does not include a motorcycle.

(2) Until May 1, 2000, for purposes of this section, a "motor vehicle" also means any farm labor vehicle that was first issued an inspection certificate under Section 31401 on or after October 1, 1999.

(3) On and after May 1, 2000, for purposes of this section, a "motor vehicle" also means any farm labor vehicle, regardless of date of certification under Section 31401.

(d) (1) ( )1 A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway unless that person and all passengers 16 years of age or over are properly restrained by a safety belt. This paragraph does not apply to the operator of a taxicab, as defined in Section 27908, when the taxicab is driven on a city street and is engaged in the transportation of a fare-paying passenger. The safety belt requirement established by this paragraph is the minimum safety standard applicable to employees being transported in a motor vehicle. This paragraph does not preempt any more stringent or restrictive standards imposed by the Labor Code or any other state or federal regulation regarding the transportation of employees in a motor vehicle.

(2) The operator of a limousine for hire or the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 165, ( )2 may not operate the limousine for hire or authorized emergency vehicle unless the operator and any passengers four years of age or over and weighing 40 pounds or more, in the front seat are properly restrained by a safety belt.

(3) The operator of a taxicab ( )2 may not operate the taxicab unless any passengers four years of age or over and weighing 40 pounds or more, in the front seat are properly restrained by a safety belt.

(e) ( )3 A person 16 years of age or over ( )2 may not be a passenger in a motor vehicle on a highway unless that person is properly restrained by a safety belt. This subdivision does not apply to a passenger in a sleeper berth, as defined in subdivision (v) of Section 1201 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations.

(f) Every owner of a motor vehicle, including every owner or operator of a taxicab, as defined in Section 27908, or a limousine for hire, operated on a highway shall maintain safety belts in good working order for the use of occupants of the vehicle. The safety belts shall conform to motor vehicle safety standards established by the United States Department of Transportation. This subdivision does not, however, require installation or maintenance of safety belts where not required by the laws of the United States applicable to the vehicle at the time of its initial sale.

(g) This section does not apply to a passenger or operator with a physically disabling condition or medical condition which would prevent appropriate restraint in a safety belt, if the condition is duly certified by a licensed physician and surgeon or by a licensed chiropractor who shall state the nature of the condition, as well as the reason the restraint is inappropriate. This section also does not apply to a public employee, when in an authorized emergency vehicle as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 165, or to any passenger in any seat behind the front seat of an authorized emergency vehicle as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 165 operated by the public employee, unless required by the agency employing the public employee.

(h) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 42001, any violation of subdivision (d), (e), or (f) is an infraction punishable by a fine ( )4 of not more than twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense, and a fine ( )4 of not more than fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense. In lieu of the fine and any penalty assessment or court costs, the court, pursuant to Section 42005, may order that a person convicted of a first offense attend a school for traffic violators or a driving school in which the proper use of safety belts is demonstrated.

(i) ( )5 In a civil action, a violation of subdivision (d), (e), or (f) or information of a violation of subdivision (h) ( )2 does not establish negligence as a matter of law or negligence per se for comparative fault purposes, but negligence may be proven as a fact without regard to the violation.( )6

(j) If the United States Secretary of Transportation fails to adopt safety standards for manual safety belt systems by September 1, 1989, no motor vehicle manufactured after that date for sale or sold in this state shall be registered unless it contains a manual safety belt system which meets the performance standards applicable to automatic crash protection devices adopted by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 C.F.R. 571.208) as in effect on January 1, 1985.( )7

(k) Each motor vehicle offered for original sale in this state which has been manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, shall comply with the automatic restraint requirements of Section S4.1.2.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 C.F.R. 571.208), as published in Volume 49 of the Federal Register, No. 138, page 29009. Any automobile manufacturer who sells or delivers a motor vehicle subject to the requirements of this subdivision, and fails to comply with this subdivision, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) for each sale or delivery of a noncomplying motor vehicle.( )8

(l) Compliance with subdivision ( )9 ( j) or (k) by a manufacturer shall be made by self-certification in the same manner as self-certification is accomplished under federal law.( )10

(m) This section does not apply to a person actually engaged in delivery of newspapers to customers along the person's route if the person is properly restrained by a safety belt prior to commencing and subsequent to completing delivery on the route.( )11

(n) This section does not apply to a person actually engaged in collection and delivery activities as a rural delivery carrier for the United States Postal Service if the person is properly restrained by a safety belt prior to stopping at the first box and subsequent to stopping at the last box on the route.( )12

(o) This section does not apply to a driver actually engaged in the collection of solid waste or recyclable materials along that driver's collection route if the driver is properly restrained by a safety belt prior to commencing and subsequent to completing the collection route.( )13

(p) Subdivisions (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) shall become inoperative immediately upon the date that the United States Secretary of Transportation, or his or her delegate, determines to rescind the portion of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 C.F.R. 571.208) which requires the installation of automatic restraints in new motor vehicles, except that those subdivisions shall not become inoperative if the secretary's decision to rescind that Standard No. 208 is not based, in any respect, on the enactment or continued operation of those subdivisions.

Amended Ch. 1101, Stats. 1994. Effective January 1, 1995.
Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 365, Stats. 1995. Effective January 1, 1996.
Amended Sec. 78, Ch. 1154, Stats. 1996. Effective September 30, 1996.
Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 153, Stats. 1997. Effective January 1, 1998.
Amended Sec. 67.5, Ch. 877, Stats. 1998. Effective January 1, 1999. Supersedes Ch. 471.
Amended Sec. 3, Ch. 557, Stats. 1999. Effective September 29, 1999.
Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 521, Stats. 2003. Effective January 1, 2004.
The 2003 amendment added the italicized material, and at the point(s) indicated, deleted the following:

1. "No person shall"
2. "shall"
3. "No"
4. ", including all penalty assessments and court costs imposed on the convicted person,"
5. "For any violation of subdivision (d), (e), or (f), in addition to the fines provided for pursuant to subdivision (h) and the penalty assessments provided for pursuant to Section 1464 of the Penal Code, an additional penalty assessment of two dollars ($2) shall be levied for any first offense, and an additional penalty assessment of five dollars ($5) shall be levied for any subsequent offense.
All moneys collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be utilized in accordance with Section 1464 of the Penal Code.
"(j) If any"
6. "(k)"
7. "(l)"
8. "(m)"
9. "(k) or (l)"
10. "(n)"
11. "(o)"
12. "(p)"
13. "(q)"





 


BUT then there's still this, and the on line wording doesn't always give the WHOLE law so check the paper version...
It usta say you didn't have to retrofit older cars except for small kids safety cradles.
Used Passenger Vehicles



27314.   (a) No dealer shall sell or offer for sale any used passenger vehicle that was manufactured on or after January 1, 1962, other than a motorcycle, unless it is equipped with at least two seatbelts which are installed for the use of persons in the front seat of the vehicle.

(b) No dealer shall sell or offer for sale any used passenger vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, other than a motorcycle, unless it is equipped with seatbelts for each seating position.

(c) Seatbelts required in subdivisions (a) and (b) shall comply with regulations established by the department.

(d) The requirements of this section shall not apply to sales to dealers, automobile dismantlers, or junk dealers.
Amended Ch. 723, Stats. 1979. Effective January 1, 1980.

Did I ever say I HATE government?

 

All American cars had built in seat belt anchors from 62 on. Ford has them from 56 on. Belts were an extra cost option until 65, in 65 front seat belts became standard, a delete option, and rear seat belts were extra cost option. In 66 front and rear seat belts were standard, with all of them being a delete option. in 68 you could no longer have them deleted. 63 was the first year for amber parking lights. 65 was the first year for standard windshield washers. 67 was the first years for locking seat backs.

 

I think '67 was the first year for mandatory dual mastercylinder , backup lights and emergency flashers too, wasn't it?.
Also, that year they made covered headlights illegal, that's why the '67 VW's Porsches and Imperials had different uncovered headlights.

 

The cops here in the desert haven't hassled me about belts yet. My 67 mustang only has lap belts, no shoulder belt (it was optional), so it looks like i'm not wearing a belt at all even though I am. My dad's 69 Firebird has seperate shoulder belts, you had to fold and unfold to use them, a big pain in the ass.

A seperate question: I want to convert my mustang to shoulder belts. Would it be wise to use the floor mount setup from a later mustang, even if I don't have a mount location for it? I've thought about using large heavy washers for the mounting bolt, but i'm concerned about it just ripping through the floor in a wreck... is something better than nothing?

 

'68 for side marker lights, '73 for big ugly bumpers. '00 was the first time GM stopped looking at the products they sent to dealers (Pontiac Aztek).

 

I don't think you want the seatbelt mounts stronger than the seat mounts...if the seat comes loose and the belt doesn't you're gonna get cut in half...
Probably eat it either way, but think of the extra messfor someone to have to clean up?

 

Robert S. MacNamara is responsible for putting the seatbelts in Fords.

 

The super duty "impact bumpers" came in in '75.
I think some cars like Cadillac were getting them early but my 73 MGB GT doesn't have the impact bumpers. It's got chrome bumpers and the '74 I usta have had chrome bumpers with these big square bumper guards as a stop gap before the '75 bumper impact and height laws came into full effect.
Those were silly laws... They required the car to be able to hit a wall at some speed, 5 or 10 mph, I can't remember which, and not have the LIGHTS break.!
So they made really stiff cars with shock absorbers in the bumpers.
But people were dying in them.
So they switched ideas entirely and made cars with "crumple zones"
now it's "screw the lights and the car" as long as the passengers don't get a scratch.
I think it makes a lot of stupid people drive carelessly because they think their car will protect them from anything.
Makes it a bit un-nerving driving an MG that is so low I look up at the license plates on Corvettes.

I think those impact bumpers are why a lot of 'cruise nights" and shows are having a 73 or 74 cutoff date. After that the cars are just too fuckin ugly to be cool.
I think the Porsche (and possibly the Corvette) was the only car that didn't end up getting uglified in that period. their designers delt with the bumpers in an inconspicuous way.
What I can't figure out is since all bumpers are covered with a body colored plastic cover now, why do they continue to design in a "bumper shape" on so many cars? They have the advantage of making cars look like they have custom rolled pans without visible bumpers and don't take advantage of it...
I don't get it sometimes I guess...



If only I was the benevolent dictator of style....

(To begin with, all new houses would look similar to the one the Incredibles live in..)

 

[ QUOTE ]
Robert S. MacNamara is responsible for putting the seatbelts in Fords.


[/ QUOTE ]

He's also responsible for about 58,000 other things I can think of but we won't get into that here.

My question is why don't they put seat belts in your kids school bus or in Greyhounds and public transportation.

The old style seat belts aren't as much for your safety as they are for helping the ambulance drivers gather up the bodies. If you really want safety, look into making room for a good 4 point harness in your next build.

 

[ QUOTE ]
My question is why don't they put seat belts in your kids school bus or in Greyhounds and public transportation.



[/ QUOTE ]

No shit, thats a very good question.
If I was a cop, I'd pull over every school bus and hand out about 150 tickets.


(anyone ever seen "Super Troopers"....?)

 

My father and I had this same argument about 10 years ago. My 64 Impala SS didn't have belts, and he said I'd get a ticket. I told him BS, it didn't come with em, so I'd be ok. I ended up calling the local police and asking. The girl asked the captain, and he said, if it didn't have em, I wouldn't be responsible for wearing them, which is exactly contradictory to the state law. I never drove the car on the street (well around the sub) so I didn't test the theory, but I suspect I woulda lost.

I wouldn't go anywhere anymore with out seat belts. Can't afford the damn fine.

jay

 

[ QUOTE ]
(anyone ever seen "Super Troopers"....?)

[/ QUOTE ]

And?.......




And?......




And?......




Smoking the reefer!

 

The seat belt issue is kinda tough for me. I use them in my daily driver a newer car, but I don't have them in my Chopped A coupe and don't plan to install them. The law in NY dosen't require them in old vehicles and I have wondered what would happen if I did crash, the answer I give myself is that I'll die. To be honest I'm not convinced they do much good in a early car like my A. Lets face it if some one hits me head on chances of survial are slim at best I mean it's not like you got a lot of sturdy metal in an A. If I get hit from the side it may be even worse so I gues I want the option of moving out of the way. Besides the windows are so small with a five inchop I am not going to fly out the window. So instead of seat belts I have good brakes and better tires and try to keep away from people. The only time it really bothers me is when on a long trip on the hiways when you get the people scaring the shit out of me by blowing the horn or starting to run into me while checking out the car. Personally I think people should be told if they crash they are going to be hurt, maybe so much safety shit has been developed that people do dumb things because they believe thay won't get hurt in a crash. beats me I guess it's like the helmet law for bikes, but by the way I use a brain bucket when I ride.