Rumble Seat Risk

[Jack Shaft]

Originally Posted by kawagumby

I see it differently. Seat belts will keep you in the car which does provide more protection than flying through the air to who-knows-where you'll land, maybe head-first, and possibly being vulnerable to being hit by another vehicle. Seat belts were one of the first things I added to my A, along with turn signals.

Where did you anchor your seat belts? The steering column is a fixed unit,no crumple zone like a modern car..more like a fixed pike to impale on.If the belts make you feel comfortable more power to you,its your car,do as you wish.

[alexiskai]

Originally Posted by Jack Shaft

Where did you anchor your seat belts? The steering column is a fixed unit,no crumple zone like a modern car..more like a fixed pike to impale on.If the belts make you feel comfortable more power to you,its your car,do as you wish.

Video walkthrough here for 3-point belts in the coupe front cabin and lap belts in the rumble seat.

[Huskerj]

All,

Thanks for all the feedback thus far. We have added a lap belt to the rumble seat as many of you suggested.

Can't wait until spring when I can get her out.

[1931 flamingo]

What TerryO said and also install seat belts for the kids.
Paul in CT "You might want to get a swimming noodle, split one side, slide it on the metal in front and use it as a cushion."

[Jack Shaft]

Originally Posted by alexiskai

Video walkthrough here for 3-point belts in the coupe front cabin and lap belts in the rumble seat.

The reason I asked,is like with your well made tutorial its very difficult to install seat belts correctly.For instance,your center rumble belt mount utilizes the d nuts that retain the lower deck lid panel...those fasteners will fail under belt load.the same with the rumble hinge bracket.Seatbelt mounts are designed in a modern application where the belt will fail before the anchor during load testing.I understand,especially when hauling children that restraining them is good,but a belt anchor failing under load renders installing belts an exercise.

[alexiskai]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by Jack Shaft

The reason I asked,is like with your well made tutorial its very difficult to install seat belts correctly.For instance,your center rumble belt mount utilizes the d nuts that retain the lower deck lid panel...those fasteners will fail under belt load.the same with the rumble hinge bracket.Seatbelt mounts are designed in a modern application where the belt will fail before the anchor during load testing.I understand,especially when hauling children that restraining them is good,but a belt anchor failing under load renders installing belts an exercise.

This exhibits a binary mindset that I've encountered a lot among seat belt skeptics. "Under load" is doing a lot of work here. There are many scenarios where seat belts enhance safety that don't involve a head-on collision, T-bone at high speed, or other "major accident." For example, hitting something like a curb, deep pothole, or other obstruction at low speed or at an oblique angle. This can cause the car to displace vertically in an unpredictable way, injuring occupants of the rumble seat. A belt will prevent or mitigate these injuries.

Bottom line: the fact that Model A seat belts aren't as strong as modern belts doesn't make them worthless. Not all accidents involve forces strong enough to shear off sheet metal.

[Jack Shaft]

Thats the factor I consider,the restraint.
Some better than none?perhaps,at that point its more of a feigned peace of mind than a true safety device.

[Jack Shaft]

Unfortunately for my mother I chose this line of work as a profession. As a professional technician I am constantly barraged by management in risk avoidance. Let me describe a scenario that can occur with improperly anchored seat belt. For sake of argument, say I installed the seat belt as you demonstrated in my coupe. A passenger rode in my car, with the seat belt on. We had an accident, the anchor failed and the passenger was injured and today we are in court as a defendant ,the passenger is seeking compensation for their injuries.. here's how it goes..

Plaintiff, the passenger will claim the seat belt absolved her of the dangers of riding in a 90 year old car, that the belt provided this comfort with its presence. the jury will buy it, mitigating based on the assumption that the passenger was right to believe the belt was installed correctly.

Defendant 1,the belt manufacturer will point to the instructions delivered with every seat belt purchased ( I generally throw them away who has 3 hours to read boilerplate legal shit) and claim had his instructions had been followed the plaintiffs injury might not have occurred, he will be absolved of liability based on his due diligence.

Defendant 2 is me, I will be asked my qualifications to install the belt, I will be asked if i can read, and why I failed to follow the manufacturers instruction for anchoring belt and, given how deep my pockets are, how much of a web of incompetence and culpability will be woven. In the end, the gavel will swing and Ill be underneath it.


As an educated man, which you clearly are, they will use your education against you for disregarding the instruction, raising your exposure through willful disregard. and at the end of the day, you would have faired better without the seat belts, the plaintiff would then assume full risk..

[kawagumby]

Originally Posted by Jack Shaft

Where did you anchor your seat belts?

"A passenger rode in my car, with the seat belt on. We had an accident, the anchor failed and the passenger was injured and today we are in court as a defendant ,the passenger is seeking compensation for their injuries.. here's how it goes.."



So, your position is that seatbelts are a liability due to possible litigation stemming from less than likely collision situations. That reminds me of a city attorney I once challenged who had the position that the city should give up many of its services because they could expose the organization to lawsuits.



When I installed the seat belts in my '31 roadster I noted how thin the sheet metal was behind the seat, so I added angle iron to spread the load over a larger area. An unlikely collision of enough magnitude to cause the belt anchors to fail would no-doubt be of such severity that passenger survival would be unlikely in any case. I didn't install belts in the rumble seat area as I don't plan on carrying passengers there, but if people were to use that seat, I would install belts, as the probability of real-world safety enhancement for the vast majority of more common collision scenarios, or other kinds of errant forces acting upon the car, is absolutely undeniable.

[Richard in Anaheim CA]

Not the ideal safety measure, but when someone rides in my rumble seat, I tie the opening handle to the spare tire which is only inches apart when open.

Seat belts should be a must and the padding at the front of the opening an excellent addition.

Riding or driving our Model A's is definitely not as safe as the new cars but the experience is worth a small measure of risk.

Remember, life is a sexually transmitted experience and don't regret your birthday. The more of them you have the longer you live.

Yes, I too have experienced "Many" old women who tell me "We had more fun in those things"

HELP !'talking and I can't shut up

[Tim Ayers]

I am wrapping up a Model A AV8 roadster hot rod. My car is a rumble seat car. We welded three tabs to the body crossmember under the front seat for two, WWII style lap belts.

For the rumble, I have one long WWII style belt to use for either one or two passengers (which will be my sons). I drilled holes in the floor and welded thick tabs to the front underside of the rear crossmember for the anchors for these belts.

If mine pulls away from the crossmember, so be it. If the tabs in the rumble pulled away and either of them got hurt, not sure I'd could live with that so I made the rear mounts extra strong. I do like the padding idea for the edges too.

[Neil Mylar LakewoodCA]

Back in the 1980s I purchased a 1929 rumble seat Coupe from a man who said that his daughter had a chipped tooth when he had to stop fast and the lid closed. I always wondered if the lid actually closed or if she was just thrown forward.

[Oldbluoval]

Licensed
I agree 110%. And, I specialize in resto of parts for Model As.....
Model As are wonderful hobby cars but not built for today’s roads and traffic
Keep them local, close to home and never on roads with speed limits over 30mph
They are not safe, period, and if Nader thought the Corvair was bad.........

[RB]

The 1950's baby boom was no doubt a result of more accidents in full size sedans as opposed to a rumble seat.

[Jack Shaft]

Originally Posted by kawagumby

"A passenger rode in my car, with the seat belt on. We had an accident, the anchor failed and the passenger was injured and today we are in court as a defendant ,the passenger is seeking compensation for their injuries.. here's how it goes.."



So, your position is that seatbelts are a liability due to possible litigation stemming from less than likely collision situations. That reminds me of a city attorney I once challenged who had the position that the city should give up many of its services because they could expose the organization to lawsuits.



When I installed the seat belts in my '31 roadster I noted how thin the sheet metal was behind the seat, so I added angle iron to spread the load over a larger area. An unlikely collision of enough magnitude to cause the belt anchors to fail would no-doubt be of such severity that passenger survival would be unlikely in any case. I didn't install belts in the rumble seat area as I don't plan on carrying passengers there, but if people were to use that seat, I would install belts, as the probability of real-world safety enhancement for the vast majority of more common collision scenarios, or other kinds of errant forces acting upon the car, is absolutely undeniable.

To me its more like exposing yourself to risk through assumption. That's dangerous ground.Seat belt issues are the bread and butter of ambulance chasers..want to learn proper anchoring? I reccomend not using a courtroom.

[Aarongriffey]

I have heard a few times that rumble seat riding is illeagle in CA.
I have never found out if that is true.
If you have a fold down windshield here in CA you gotta leave it up unless you have the little racing screens behind it.

[Licensed to kill]

Regardless of ones opinion on the validity of seat belts as a safety feature in a Model A, Jack Shaft makes a very good point regarding liability should you choose to install them yourself. If someone whats to install belts It would be prudent to have the install inspected and DOT approved. After all, if you are putting them in, you want them to be as functional as possible and not just window dressing no?

[alexiskai]

Lotta people here making statements about what you would definitely get sued over without a shred of evidence. Here's one: owner of classic car sued after accident for *not* installing seat belts.

The strongest argument here is that you might get sued if the passenger was not aware of the risks. Fine – make sure your passengers are aware of the risks. It's a good thing to do regardless of legal liability.

[Licensed to kill]

Originally Posted by alexiskai

Lotta people here making statements about what you would definitely get sued over without a shred of evidence. Here's one: owner of classic car sued after accident for *not* installing seat belts.

The strongest argument here is that you might get sued if the passenger was not aware of the risks. Fine – make sure your passengers are aware of the risks. It's a good thing to do regardless of legal liability.

Interesting that you consider 2 people to be "lotta"people. The example you provided is irrelevant since the car in question was a 1970 and seatbelts have been mandatory since 1969. Therefore, the seatbelts were removed from the car and not replaced. Cars manufactured prior to 1969 are not required to have belts since they were optional. The example you provided also is with a heavily modified car, not an otherwise stock model A. Since Model A's (or any car made poor to 1969) are not required to have belts, an owner can not be sued for not having them. OTOH, if belts are installed giving the occupant a false sense of security because they were just screwed to the plywood floor (for example) and was injured in an accident when the belt pulled free, the owner could be sued for improperly installed safety equipment. Be the as it may, everyone is free to do as they please. If you don't think that an improperly installed safety device is of no consequence if it fails and injury is the result, don't worry about it. Since these cars were never offered WITH belts, it's not beyond the scope of reality that should someone be injured in an accident and the belts were NOT DOT approved that the owner could be held liable even if they were installed properly. Without the DOT stamp of approval, they could be deemed illegal. That is speculation on my part but i have a man basket that I bought for $100 because the owner could not legally use it for his business because it was not "engineered" (they made it in his own shop) and the the "engineers" one that he replaced it with (for $6000) is not 1/10 of the strength as the shop made one they had. Even though the one they made was far superior, if an accident were to happen, they would have been liable because it was not officially " engineered". That is just the silly world in which we live. To each his own.

[Jack Shaft]

What excentuates the issue is seatbelt failure is the first thing the lawyers look for.On truck fleets the standard is to change the belt when the sewn on tag is illegible.

Its your car,do as you wish.Its a safe bet your belts won't be put to the test.