Seat belts?

The exception to the law is that anyone under the age of 18 must be wearing a seat belt, no matter what year the car was manufactured, including, but not limited to a Ford Model T.

Sadly, legally, no child will know the thrill of riding in an antique auto or the fun of a rumble seat.
What about those religions who use horses and wagons or the occasional hay rack wagon for a party?
Or maybe seat belts on motor scooters, motorcycles, snow mobiles, and horses. Boats and waterskies?
Lord please save me from me!

 

I make my kids wear the belts in the Gran Torino. If I had my '65 Chevy from high school still, I'd put the belts back in it. But evidently we all need saved from ourselves so the gubmint made it law.

 

we all need saved from ourselves so the gubmint made it law.

Ain't it great that our politicains care so much about us? Could it be because they need our money?

 

That's pretty much what all this safety stuff amounts to.

I hate seat-belts. However, I don't question their effectiveness. I was involved in a nasty accident about ten years ago, and if I hadn't been belted in, I likely would have been ejected. The seat-belt bruised my neck pretty good, but it kept me alive. (I have no-one but myself to blame for that accident; I was driving way too fast for conditions. I have not done so since.)

Of course, there's always an exception to the rule...just look at James Dean.

I don't think more safety stuff is the answer. Making people better drivers, and more aware of how their cars work, is a much better one. People who are unwilling to concentrate while driving, or pay attention to basic vehicular maintenance requirements, should not drive. Plain and simple.

I do believe, however, that anything whose operation requires one to divert one's eyes from the road has no business being used by the operator of a moving vehicle.

 

Then there is one thing the government does need to regulate, and that is the ancillary controls on new cars. A friend's Mom has a 2008 Cadillac Escalade. You cannot tune the radio or control the heater without the touch screen, and you have to LOOK at it to do so. Same with the BMW I-Touch control system. There are too many steps, all requiring eyes off the road, just to do things like turn the heater to defrost. Just nuts!

 

One thing I am curious about is how the results would have been had they used Fords instead of Chevrolets. After all, the Fords DID have crumple zones built into them, starting with the 1955 model year cars.

 

Wow - I never thought the use of seat belts would be debatable, nor the fact that today's cars are more safe and crash-worthy than a car built 50+ years ago.

Ever seen the commercials from the 40's and 50's "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI 60 years of science since then has made that belief obsolete. 60 years of automotive engineering should also make the belief that no seat belts and old cars are more safe than today's cars and safety equipment.

Stay safe, wagon lovers - there aren't that many of us to keep the wagon love affair alive!

 

Krash, my comment was intended in the opposite direction. Even in the full version of that video, all the focus is showing how much damage the 59 took and skims over how much of a hit the Malibu really took. The Malibu took massive damage from one of the flimsiest things they could throw at it... the empty fender and hood of a rusty 59. (look at the huge clouds of red-brown dust ejected). How would the Malibu have stood up against hitting something really solid?

 

Agree, BUT........ the guy in 59 Impailed ya = dead.............


Still wish I was driving my 65 truck though......

New or old, if it's the rite colition....your doomed, 500 air bags or zero and your not gona be able to design that on a "perfect condition crash test"

 

You make some good points, Steve. I had not noticed all that brown rust dust flying off the Bel Air. The Malibu did what it was designed to do though - absorb the forces of the impact in a controlled way. At the end of the video, starting around 1:05 you can see in more detail what happened to the Malibu. Passenger compartment basically intact. Very little (if any) deflection of the A pillar. Possible minor foot/leg injury for the driver. As to hitting something more solid, there's no getting around physics. I suspect that if the '59 Chevy were a '59 Cadillac instead, we would see greater damage. Momentum rules.....

 

Same here.
It should be our choice to wear them, not a law though.
Same with helmets too.
Although I do choose to wear a helmet whenever I'm on my Virago.

 

Don't get me wrong,, every bit of added safety is great. But I've never liked being forced to wear belts if ii don't want to. I don't think they save lives any more then anything else. That's my own opinion on it. I see the seat belt laws as just another way ti help these broke states and local governments make money since they can't balance budgets. I don't think they reallly care aboutt us being safe or not. But that's just me. While they're at it, they may as well ban having food or drink in the car while you drive since they distract you while you drive, Maybe even outlaw car radios since they are also distractions. Remember as they tell us, all it takes is just one second of driving while not watching the road can cause a wreck. If you have kids that are argueing or fussing ,, maybe you should get a ticket for that also.


Seriously,, I'm in california where marijuana is legal and two representatives in sacramento tried to pass another stupid law banning you from spanking your kid whose screwing up. That failed by two votes

 

I absolutely always wear my seat belt, so you won't get any argument from me there.

This is interresting, though.

New Crash Test Reveals Luxury Cars Not So Safe

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blog...c67e&_rp=2703fda4-613c-4676-b24a-538d67a80343

 

Well said. I don't like either "law". Do NOT tell me what to do in a "free society. And do NOT tell me that my not wearing them affects everyone else!
Seat belts....never wore them, never will.