Thread: Seat belts

While a three point harness is better than a two point - and four point better again (hand up those who have four point harness in all seats in their car?), any seat belt is far better than none.

It might be worth remembering that the initial data that proved the value of seat belts came from data collected by the Snowy Mountains Authority (mostly in Series 1 Landrovers) in the 1950s. And this data showed that seat belts reduced fatalities from regular occurrences to zero (provided they were worn, and not wearing was made a sacking offence) - all, I believe, with two point belts. (Not inertial reel either!)

John

This is an interesting read about fitting of seatbelts and additional seating.

Department of Transport and Regional Services Vehicle Safety Bulletin 05 b

Addit: Page 11 VSB 05b & Australian Standard 2596
"All outboard seating positions must be fitted with lap sash seat belts except:
• where there is no permanent structure, other than the seat, in the shaded area shown in
Figure 8; or
• where the seat is designed to provide adjustment for conversion of occupant space to
luggage or goods space, and such seating positions are not in the first or second row of
seats."

Figure 8 (measurements in mm - Cat 2 <38Kg Cat 3 <26 Kg )


Diana

Originally Posted by JDNSW

It might be worth remembering that the initial data that proved the value of seat belts came from data collected by the Snowy Mountains Authority (mostly in Series 1 Landrovers) in the 1950s. And this data showed that seat belts reduced fatalities from regular occurrences to zero (provided they were worn, and not wearing was made a sacking offence) - all, I believe, with two point belts. (Not inertial reel either!)

John

John

Weren't the statistics affected by an extraneous variable where the brakes on the SMA Land Rovers were modified at the same time, so it's difficult to extract the effect of the seatbelts from the effect of the brake modification?

Diana

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

John

Weren't the statistics affected by an extraneous variable where the brakes on the SMA Land Rovers were modified at the same time, so it's difficult to extract the effect of the seatbelts from the effect of the brake modification?

Diana

I have never seen that suggested before - certainly brake modifications were made, but the telling point was that the accident rate and type of accident did not change materially, but the number of deaths did. I seem to remember that after the introduction of seat belts there was only one death, and in that case the casualty was not wearing a seat belt.

The data was sufficient to lead first Victoria, then successive state governments to legislate to make compulsory (successively) seat belt anchorages, front seat belts, compulsory wearing, seat belts in all positions. This all happened before ADRs existed.

I might comment that I have had, and worn, seat belts in all my cars since 1962, when they were very rare.

(This was the result of the publicity given to the SMA data around 1960, with consequent availability of seat belts, and an accident where an uncle of mine collapsed from heat exhaustion in heavy traffic and hit a pole, probably at less than 20mph. He suffered severe facial injuries on the steering wheel, his centre passenger facial injuries from the dashboard, and his LH passenger suffered facial injuries and a broken knee. Although none were life threatening, it was clear at the time that seat belts would have prevented any injuries, and led to a number of family members fitting belts - albeit to a chorus of derision and snide comments!)

John

Originally Posted by JDNSW

- albeit to a chorus of derision and snide comments!)

John

John - I know that comment, "seat belts are only so that the ambulance officers don't have to look for the bodies"

Diana

In the situation under discussion, there is the difficulty of fitting an ADR-compliant seatbelt to a Series Land Rover. Where a hardtop is fitted there is no difficulty - attach the shoulder strap to the hardtop. With a softop or no roof, there is the difficulty of where the shoulder fitment should go. The sample picture shows one with a bracket to mount to the top of the rear tub. Provided there is an engineer happy with the design of the bracket, the fitment should be OK, as I understand the ADRs. Bear in mind that the taller seat back ("deluxe" seat) is for use with 3-point seatbelts.

I have an unused (for the moment) tub with a bracket fitted to the sides. Unfortunately the tub is a military FFR which is quite different in detail to a civilian tub and the brackets make use of the specialised fittings. I also have a roll bar (unfitted) with mounting points. Apart from these options it's hard to say what sort of 3-point seatbelt attachments in a Series LR would be potentially compliant.

Just as an aside - most (if not all) Series 2as were produced before ADRs existed. As such, does the anchorage have to be engineered? It could well have been fitted before such a requirement existed.

I know, for example, when I bought a Series 1 in 1962 it had seat belts fitted, plus anchorages, none of which were mandated by ADRs or engineering approved. This could still be in use, and as far as I can see there is no requirement for any approval for this. (same applied to the Series 2 I bought in 1964). The 2a I bought in 1966 I fitted seat belts to, and again, neither the anchorages nor the seat belts required or had any approvals - simply followed the suggestions for fitting that came with them.

John