> 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
|