Rear Seat Belts: Shoulder Belts

[bajajoaquin]

So one of the reasons I have my car is that it's a 1967. It's the first year for both mandatory safety glass and rear seat belts. That means I can safely put a baby seat in it and drive my daughter to day care.

That works fine for now, but it also presents a future issue: In California, kids must ride with shoulder belts in all cars until the age of 8. I don't think there's an exception for cars that didn't come with them originally. My wife may not make that exception, either. But I am planning on keeping this car as my daily driver for many years to come. I need to get them into the car before my oldest child needs them in a few years

So I have a couple years to put in rear shoulder belts. Are there other states that mandate retrofitting rear shoulder belts? Has anyone retrofitted belts to the back seat of a 1967 C Body? For those who don't follow my personal car selection, it's specifically a 1967 Imperial Crown Sedan.

 

[patrick66]

If a car did not have that belt installed from the factory, it is NOT required. Fact. Look it up, if you have doubts. FMVSS.

Not that it is a bad idea, it's not. But, neither the Feds, nor any State can compel you to install a belt that was never installed from the factory. If your child seat is belted in with the original belt, then you are good to go.

 

[MrMoparCHP]

It does not mention shoulder belts "...federally-approved child passenger restraint system..."

http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/seatbelts.htm
[h=4]Child Restraint System and Safety Seats[/h]Any child who is under the age of eight years and who is less than 4 feet 9 inches tall, must be secured in a federally-approved child passenger restraint system and ride in the back seat of a vehicle.

Proper child passenger restraint system installation can be checked by contacting local law enforcement agencies or fire departments that may provide this service or refer you to a Child Passenger Safety (CPS) technician in your area. As your child grows, check with these agencies to confirm that the car seat is the correct size for your child.

A child who is under the age of eight years and who is less than 4 feet 9 inches tall, may ride in the front seat of a vehicle only in the following instances:

• There is no rear seat or the rear seats are either side-facing jump seats or rear-facing seats.
• The child passenger restraint system cannot be properly installed in the rear seat.
• All rear seats are already occupied by children under the age of 12 years.
• A medical reason requires the child to ride in the front seat.

A child may not ride in the front seat of an airbag-equipped vehicle if the child:

• Is less than one year of age.
• Weighs less than 20 lbs.
• Is riding in a rear-facing child passenger restraint system.

Children eight years of age and older, but under 16 years must be properly secured with an appropriate safety belt.
Children under eight years of age, who are less than 4 feet 9 inches tall must be properly secured in an appropriate child passenger restraint system that meets federal safety standards. However, children under eight years of age, who are 4 feet 9 inches tall or taller may be secured with an appropriate safety belt instead of a child passenger restraint system.

If a car did not have that belt installed from the factory, it is NOT required. Fact. Look it up, if you have doubts. FMVSS.

Not that it is a bad idea, it's not. But, neither the Feds, nor any State can compel you to install a belt that was never installed from the factory. If your child seat is belted in with the original belt, then you are good to go.

Once again in California requires ALL cars regardless of age to have seatbelts even if you must add them.

Alan

 

[70bigblockdodge]

I believe that a booster seat is all you will need legally (in a couple of years) now your wife when you find the rules written down on them please post them here so we can all understand LOL. Apparently it is not understood by some that the state that embraced laid back lifestyles 30-40 years ago now believes that you will do what we say or move to another state that ca. believes will follow lock step in a couple of years.

 

[bajajoaquin]

I'll read the regulations more carefully, but my understanding is that you need a booster seat and a shoulder belt. Regardless, if I want to drive my car daily, I'll need a shoulder belt.

Anyone retrofitted one?

 

[MrMoparCHP]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=27001-28000&file=27360-27368

27363. (a) The court may exempt from the requirements of this
article any class of child by age, weight, or size if it is
determined that the use of a child passenger restraint system would
be impractical by reason of physical unfitness, medical condition, or
size. The court may require satisfactory proof of the child's
physical unfitness, medical condition, or size and that an
appropriate special needs child passenger restraint system is not
available.
(b) In case of a life-threatening emergency, or when a child is
being transported in an authorized emergency vehicle, if there is no
child passenger restraint system available, a child may be
transported without the use of that system, but the child shall be
secured by a seatbelt.
(c) A child weighing more than 40 pounds may be transported in the
backseat of a vehicle while wearing only a lap safety belt when the
backseat of the vehicle is not equipped with a combination lap and
shoulder safety belt.
(d) Notwithstanding Section 27360, a child or ward under eight
years of age who is four feet nine inches in height or taller may be
properly restrained by a safety belt, as defined in paragraph (2) of
subdivision (d) of Section 27315, rather than by a child passenger
restraint system.
(e) Notwithstanding Section 27360, a child or ward under eight
years of age may ride properly secured in an appropriate child
passenger restraint system meeting applicable federal motor vehicle
safety standards in the front seat of a motor vehicle under any of
the following circumstances:
(1) There is no rear seat.
(2) The rear seats are side-facing jump seats.
(3) The rear seats are rear-facing seats.
(4) The child passenger restraint system cannot be installed
properly in the rear seat.
(5) All rear seats are already occupied by children seven years of
age or under.
(6) Medical reasons necessitate that the child or ward not ride in
the rear seat. The court may require satisfactory proof of the child'
s medical condition.
(f) Notwithstanding subdivision (e), a child shall not be
transported in a rear-facing child passenger restraint system in the
front seat of a motor vehicle that is equipped with an active frontal
passenger airbag.

 

[MrMoparCHP]

I'll read the regulations more carefully, but my understanding is that you need a booster seat and a shoulder belt. Regardless, if I want to drive my car daily, I'll need a shoulder belt.

Anyone retrofitted one?

With or without recoils?

Alan

 

[plum360415]

Laws are how a cop see's them, differs from state to state, from cop to cop, In my past, if your young(16-28) you will get a ticket for anything, or older 40 plus.... less the chance of a ticket......

 

[bajajoaquin]

With or without recoils?

Alan

Either. I guess I'd prefer recoils, but not if it increases the complexity to the point of making the project too difficult.

And thanks for the vehicle code stuff. I was feeling grumpy and impatient, and didn't go and do that yet.

 

[MrMoparCHP]

Yes the recoils would make it more difficult.

The problem is that without them you are literally strapped to the seat, ok for a car seat maybe not for a child not in a car seat.

Without them you could just use a regular seat belt with one end on the package tray (top far end).

The package tray is pretty strong but I would back it up with a 6" square 1/8" plate, the other end could be doubled up with the inboard seat belt halves, they make a bolt with a larger shoulder for this (typically used for the 3rd person belts).

A retractor would need to be mounted down by the rocker with a loop on the package tray (still reinforced).

Without seeing the specific vehicle the details are hard.


Alan

 

[patrick66]

Print the law above out. Strap your kid in the car. If a cop pulles you over, you have a copy of the state statute to back you up. Like I said before, the State can NOT make you retrofit belts into a car that never had them, or belts of a different type that the vehicle was never equipped with. I stand by that statement.

 

[bajajoaquin]

Yeah, it's going to be difficult. For now, I can use the lap belts in the car to hold the baby seat in place securely (and properly!). She is supposed to be rear-facing until she's two years old, so I have at least 10 months before any change needs to be made. After that, I think the lap belt still securely holds the car seat facing forward.

At some point, however, she's going to outgrow the child seat and require either a different child seat or a booster/shoulder belt combo. In addition to investigating shoulder belts, I should investigate the mechanism for larger car seats. If they are designed to be held in place with just the seat locks in the base, then they will be okay with lap belts.

But the comment about reinforcing with plates gives me some ideas. I can look to race sanctioning bodies for some guidance on anchor points.

 

[bajajoaquin]

Print the law above out. Strap your kid in the car. If a cop pulles you over, you have a copy of the state statute to back you up. Like I said before, the State can NOT make you retrofit belts into a car that never had them, or belts of a different type that the vehicle was never equipped with. I stand by that statement.

No, they can't make me retrofit seat belts, but they can forbid me from driving small minors around in the car without them. Besides, there's the other half of the equation, that I can't just ignore my wife's opinion on this.

 

[Bryan]

Print the law above out. Strap your kid in the car. If a cop pulles you over, you have a copy of the state statute to back you up. Like I said before, the State can NOT make you retrofit belts into a car that never had them, or belts of a different type that the vehicle was never equipped with. I stand by that statement.

A state might not compel you to install restraint devices in your vehicle, but they can legislate that no passengers under a certain age be transported in that vehicle unless secured in an approved restraint device... That is basically saying if you don't want seatbelts, fine.. If you want to use your vehicle to transport passengers, install seatbelts.

*Edit* sorry bajajoaquin, I should have read your post before I said pretty much the same thing.....

​

 

[Marian]

No, they can't make me retrofit seat belts, but they can forbid me from driving small minors around in the car without them. Besides, there's the other half of the equation, that I can't just ignore my wife's opinion on this.

No you can't ignore her....or it may be the doghouse for you. I understand her concern being a mom myself. Here is something to think about. If you get hit by one of the newer cars..your car might end up with a scratch. Here's what a Kenworth did to me in 1978. (I was stopped and he hydroplaned into me).

Barely crunched in the corner of the quarterpanel and slightly damaged the taillight. I used a chain to pull out the guys bumper.