When kids are involved, the belt laws seem not to care about what the
car was manufactured with. I'm having to put front and rear belts in
my 57 Healey just for that reason.
Patton
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:40:54 -0800, Randall <tr3driver@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Seat belts became mandatory on all "NEW" 1964 cars, any make or model,
> > before that date it is not mandatory to have seat belts or even kiddie
> > seats
> > or restraints, including booster seats, I do "NOT" have them in my 31 "A"
> > and can
> > ride any age child in the front seat or rumble seat anywhere in this
> > country.
>
> Not quite true Fred, California requires that small children always be
> restrained. That means you cannot, by law, take a small child in a car that
>is
> not fitted with seat belts, even if the car was not originally fitted with
> belts.
>
> I looked into this in some detail, because my 59 TR3A was never fitted with
> belts. In effect, only adults are allowed to ride in a car without belts.
>
> Also, if your vintage car has been fitted with aftermarket belts, you can be
> cited for not wearing them. The belts themselves are not mandatory, but if
> they're present, you must use them.
>
> But many cities in CA only use the seat belt laws as a source of revenue
>anyway.
> They don't make any money on solving murders, robberies, rapes, etc. so
>instead
> they devote their police force to cruising the streets, looking for profitable
> offenses. The last Long Beach cop that wrote me up for no belt even admitted
> that he had been told to write more seat belt tickets ... I saw a car doing at
> least 45 in a 25 while he was busy writing me up for no belt.
>
> Randall
--
Patton Dickson - Richmond, TX
'57 A-H 100-Six - http://Austin-Healeys.com
|