Thread: Seat belts in a Series 1, anyone done it?

Originally Posted by newhue

Thanks all, who or what is SMHEA, got a lot to learn.
I'd actually be surprise if lap sash were allowed legally. I seem to recall somewhere that they anchor you torso enough only to allow it to be bounced around on the internals of the car.
<snip>

There are a number of problems with lap only belts, firstly they retain the torso just above the pelvis allowing the upper torso to hinge at the belt accelerating the head and shoulder in a downward arc with the drivers head usually hitting the rim of the steering wheel flexing the head backwards. (whiplash and potential broken neck and a serious frontal skull fracture). In other lap belted passengers the upper torso rotates down and the contents of the abdomen are squeezed up toward the heart and lungs. Risking tearing of the great blood vessels, tearing the liver and spleen, potentially rupturing the bowel and sometimes the abdominal contents including bowel end up in the thoracic cavity.

Very nasty injuries, but still not as bad as being ejected from a vehicle, through the windscreen and potentially run over by the vehicle you were once a passenger within.

Personally, I like no seat belts. I like no door locks - I like everything about my Series 1. Wish mine had no indicators!

But hey, if it worries you, get them installed and the required certificate, otherwise enjoy as the 1950's intended.

But realise the Colonel will hassle you big time if you even allow wheel weights to be added!

The rationale for seat belt wearing in the days before crash padded dashes was that injuries would be less severe in most accidents. Minor collisions make up the majority of accidents and the reduction in serious and minor injuries was quite remarkable. Collisions at higher speeds generally cause greater deformation of the vehicle and seat belts will not generally save you if there is excessive deformation or sequential massive impacts.

As Diana has said travelling in inward facing seats is not a good idea.

Generally vehicles registered on some historic conditional registration (and I understand road registration) do not require seat belts to be fitted if they were not fitted originally.

Road Safety : Seatbelts & child restraints

There are now National Road Rules since June 2010 that make it an offence to CARRY a child under the age of seven years in ANY motor vehicle without complying with those new rules - and there are no exceptions other than buses that carry over twelve passengers.
See here:
New child restraint laws
National child restraint laws effective 1 March 2010 - FAQs

Effectively this means that it is an offence to carry a child under the age of seven years without them being restrained in an approved restraining and protective device. Check your States position but this is a National initiative and over-rides the exemption for (historic) vehicles not fitted with seatbelts originally allowing the carriage of any child under seven!

Bob

Originally Posted by Scallops

Personally, I like no seat belts. I like no door locks - I like everything about my Series 1. Wish mine had no indicators!

But hey, if it worries you, get them installed and the required certificate, otherwise enjoy as the 1950's intended.

But realise the Colonel will hassle you big time if you even allow wheel weights to be added!

WHeel weeeiiiggghhttttssss

Thanks Bod, Diana for the info

I understand why our life's are so complicated and SAFE, just irritates me.

How do you tell the kids they will have to follow daddy in mummies car, or a ride in the back yard is as good as it gets.
I guess if the kids grow up to be box heads with drug addictions wondering where the old man is, at least the will be safe.

Humans are notoriously bad at risk assessment. There are two things to consider in any risk assessment - the probability of it occurring, and the impact of the event. How you balance these is a very difficult decision, and it is far too easy to look at a severe impact (such as death) and say anything that reduces the probability of it is worthwhile.

But in this case, the difference between lap and three point belts is an example of this, in the sense that the really big improvement came from any form of seat belt - certainly the three point belt increases the severity of the accident that can be survived, but there is, as far as I am aware, no data on exactly how many accidents fall into this range. I suggest that the number is quite small.

And to put the accident probability into perspective - I have been driving with seat belts for almost fifty years. During that period I have been involved in exactly one accident where wearing seat belts may have been a factor; I was uninjured - and this was in a Moke with lap only belts!

In summary, fitting (and wearing) any form of belt, including lap belts, is the really big improvement in safety. If you think that worrying about the extra safety of three point belts is something that we as a society should be concerned about consider this bit of hard data; drivers with a BAC above 0.05% are at least thirty times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than the average driver (compare random tests with the tests on drivers in fatals). Does this suggest a factor vastly more important than whether you have a lap or three point belt?

John

I put in a racing harness (no crotch belt) in my first series 1 in the 70s. The lap side went to bolt positions either side of the seat and the two shoulder belts went back to a position about half way back in the tub on the wheel arch. Worked well but was not all that practical in an everyday driver. This prompted me to put a roll bar in and put in three point inertia reel belts.

Garry

I had crappy old worn lap belts in Leon when I bought him and removed them for rego.

Yes it's a risk when I drive him, but I'm content.