Seat belt question .....

[20975k5]

Ok... I got pulled over yesterday because a cop didn't see a shoulder strapseatbelt but my 75 only has lap belts?? He gave a me a warning & said I "had" to get them installed ... Eventually I had planned to install them wheN my truck was ready to go off road but until then was gonna keep it stock... Does anyone know what the law " truly says" ???

 

[DokWatson]

I'd fight it, its original equipment. Antique car drivers don't even have to wear a seat belt at all, didn't come with them.

 

[K5_4x4]

i'd fight it, its original equipment. Antique car drivers don't even have to wear a seat belt at all, didn't come with them.

this

 

[4X4HIGH]

You are only required to wear what came in the vehicle from the factory. I'm pretty sure GM wasn't using shoulder harnesses in 1975. On another note, the law also says that you must wear the entire belt assembly if you install something that is MORE than what the factory came with.

 

[20975k5]

Thanks... That's what I thought... I'm in California.. The only problem I think I'm gonna have. Is I have seats from a camero that have a little seat belt plate on top but my truck only has lap belts...????

 

[4X4HIGH]

I wouldn't worry about it.

Your live only a little over an hour away from me. I don't make it that way very often but if I make it out that way anytime soon i'll be sure to look you up before heading that way.

 

[20975k5]

Yea ... I just seen where your from ... I pass through there every now & again I got family in san Mateo & frisco... I know i probably can argue the ticket but I don't like is getting ****ed with by Tha p d period... I guess running my blazer topless is gonna attract attention either way ... Good & bad...!

 

[dremu]

I was pulled over while taking my sixpack (also a '74) out for a test spin literally around the block. I'd left my wallet sitting in the garage, so I didn't have my DL on me

I politely explained it was a '74 and only came with lap belts, which I religiously wear, as I demonstrated to the officer by hefting my gut out of the way . He understood that older vehicles were equipped differently.

I even offered to walk back up the block with him to show him my license -- at least I had the registration in the glovebox -- but after waggling his finger at me, he sent me on my way.

There's no way a shoulder-belt ticket would stick for a vehicle that didn't come with them; I can supply you with scans of the factory paperwork showing the lap belt only, etc. Plus they're gonna go after people not wearing the belt at all 'cuz it's easy pickings. They're out either for safety (to get people to wear belts) or make money (to ticket people), depending on your point of view ... but situations like this, they'll move on to the next, much easier, target, either way

As with all things "legal", also note that much is in the eye of the responding officer, so if you don't grab said eye, you can get away with a lot. I drive like an old lady and have driven my '74 K5 (with no top or windows, only half doors, and three-blue Smurf camo paint) without trouble.

If I drove like 4x4High, though, I think I'd be in jail semi-permanently Scott drives ... aggressively, let's say, and he looooves his Detroit in the back

-- A

 

[76zimmer]

I've been stopped in my 64, and my 76 for no shoulder belts....let go all 4 times. So says MN, IA, and MI.
I believe GM started using shoulder harness in the mid 60's but not all models were available with them, let alone standard with them.

 

[20975k5]

Yea.... I don't drive it like I stole it .... " generally" & I definatly wasn't driving crazy then ... I seen him comming from a mile away but as soon as he came up to the left in my blind spot I knew he was looking for a reason to pull me over... I know he was totally ignorant to the classic seatbelt law but still tried to insist I was suppose to have a shoulder strap . He even came up with " all vehicles after '62 needed shoulder straps" ......yea riiiiiiiiiight....maybe seat belts in general but not the 3 point.... Well anyway .. U know them they try to do what they want regardless .... Honestly I thought he was gonna pull the old MUD FLAP rule on me... Btw what's the law say on that?

 

[Off Duty]

I agree with everyone else, but check your state statutes for "the law."
In Florida, as everyone has said, it's based on the year, and standard equipment.

 

[dremu]

Yea.... I don't drive it like I stole it .... " generally" & I definatly wasn't driving crazy then ... I seen him comming from a mile away but as soon as he came up to the left in my blind spot I knew he was looking for a reason to pull me over... I know he was totally ignorant to the classic seatbelt law but still tried to insist I was suppose to have a shoulder strap . He even came up with " all vehicles after '62 needed shoulder straps" ......yea riiiiiiiiiight....maybe seat belts in general but not the 3 point.... Well anyway .. U know them they try to do what they want regardless .... Honestly I thought he was gonna pull the old MUD FLAP rule on me... Btw what's the law say on that?

In the end, the net result is not actually about what the law says.

Nonetheless, should you wish to, the entire California Vehicle Code is available online. I have read it (yes, I have issues), as I was curious to see if doors are required or if NOT having them is somehow illegal. In short, the answer is yes and no, in no particular order

In that specific instance, I found no section of the CVC that said doors are required. You are not, however, allowed to cut or weld the car's body at all; every piece of factory equipment must be maintained (tricky, as Blazers tops through '75 at least were an OPTION), and I think there was a bit about hunting camels being forbidden. No, wait, that's in Arizona.

The net result, btw, is that there's a catch-all that says if in the officer's opinion you were driving unsafely, you are breaking the law.

In my case, if I get into a crash and somebody flies out of the half-door to their death, I am in deep doo-doo. Otherwise, it'll take some serious head-scratching on the officer's part to figure out what to ticket me with, so they don't bother.

In your case, if you get ticketed, you go to court. There's a 99% likelihood that the officer won't even show up, at which point it's summarily dismissed.

If they do happen to show, you come armed with documentation about how your vehicle was set up from the factory, photos showing that it still is so equipped, and since the ticket gives the relevant CVC section, you have also gone through that section for any relevant requirements, documentation that you meet them, etc. The judge sees that you are making a good faith effort to be safe, notes that you are courteous and to the point, and sends you all home, dismissed.

But you only put in that much work should it happen. Otherwise you're fussing over nuthin'.

-- A

 

[shadowwalker_02]

Went through the same ordeal down on the New Mexico indian reservation with my 77. They pulled me over because they didn't see a "shoulder belt". I spent about 5 minutes explaining to the guy that the vehicle was never equipped with shoulder belts. Blah blah blah i'm going to give you a ticket yadda yadda yadda show me the code that says my old truck has to be "upgraded" and he finally gave up. Hold your ground and demand proof and they usually back down, but make sure your state code has no clause in it that could potentially cause problems.

Side note, dam those indian police come out of nowhere and disappear quicker than hitler.

 

[Off Duty]

Ok, I'm a little confused?
First you said this:

In the end, the net result is not actually about what the law says...

Then end with this:

In your case, if you get ticketed, you go to court. There's a 99% likelihood that the officer won't even show up, at which point it's summarily dismissed.

If they do happen to show, you come armed with documentation about how your vehicle was set up from the factory, photos showing that it still is so equipped, and since the ticket gives the relevant CVC section, you have also gone through that section for any relevant requirements, documentation that you meet them, etc. The judge sees that you are making a good faith effort to be safe, notes that you are courteous and to the point, and sends you all home, dismissed.

"In the end" it has everything to do with the codes.
Here at least, all the good intentions in the world won't change facts.
"If" he were required to have a shoulder belt (which I'd give odds he's not), and didn't, then he'd be guilty.

Forget all the hocus pocus.
Look up the statute (code?) and see what applies.
If it doesn't apply, take the the cop to court and Tee it up

 

[dremu]

Ok, I'm a little confused?
First you said this:


Then end with this:



"In the end" it has everything to do with the codes.
Here at least, all the good intentions in the world won't change facts.
"If" he were required to have a shoulder belt (which I'd give odds he's not), and didn't, then he'd be guilty.

Forget all the hocus pocus.
Look up the statute (code?) and see what applies.
If it doesn't apply, take the the cop to court and Tee it up

Me? Meander in my posts? Never

Yes, that should be two points:

One, specifically, that the government won't require you to retrofit your vehicle. The cost and hassle involved, both to consumers and to the government to validate this, would be astronomical. Older vehicles are grandfathered in and only held to the requirements as of date of manufacture.

Two, generally, the specifics of the law (be it seatbelts, doors or camels) are secondary to the officer not being pissed off and, reasonably or not, finding you or the vehicle unsafe. There IS wording in the CVC to the effect of "if in the opinion of the officer the vehicle is not operating in a safe manner", which is so (intentionally) incredibly vague as to cover anything. Thus the bit about "courteous", "good faith effort", etc. I learned at a very early age that arguing with the badge is ... unproductive, let's say, but civility and organization will do the trick.

I see a lot of folks here getting agitated about whether e.g. fog lights or a specific suspension component or whatever are "illegal", oftentimes on the word of one particular person. My point is that it's rarely as simple as it seems, and it's difficult to make a blanket case that says you cannot have this many lights in such and such a place, can't use a shackle flip, whatever.

Oddly, I'm actually glad I'm in CA, though, no "safety inspection" bull. Our smog is draconian, sure, but being told what springs you can/can't use is crap!

</soapbox>

-- A

 

[blazinzuk]

Shouldn't have a problem with this, I got one of those took it to court officer showed up and the judge threw it out as soon as he saw it was a 73. Judge happened to be a car guy

Alot of states have interesting laws on the books, in most states its illegal to have anything hanging from the rear view mirror.

I did have to prove once that my rear bumper was actually an option on a 73 blazer to get out of a ticket but I had the original paperwork ( lost a couple years back in a fire) for my blazer.

 

[Off Duty]

Me? Meander in my posts? Never

Yes, that should be two points:

One, specifically, that the government won't require you to retrofit your vehicle. The cost and hassle involved, both to consumers and to the government to validate this, would be astronomical. Older vehicles are grandfathered in and only held to the requirements as of date of manufacture.

agreed

Two, generally, the specifics of the law (be it seatbelts, doors or camels) are secondary to the officer not being pissed off and, reasonably or not, finding you or the vehicle unsafe. There IS wording in the CVC to the effect of "if in the opinion of the officer the vehicle is not operating in a safe manner", which is so (intentionally) incredibly vague as to cover anything. Thus the bit about "courteous", "good faith effort", etc. I learned at a very early age that arguing with the badge is ... unproductive, let's say, but civility and organization will do the trick.

Yeah, roadside court rarely turns out favorably.
I'd be nice as I could be, then body slam 'em in court with their own law

Had my IRS guy (the one who protects me from the gestapo) tell me once..."We dont' f**k with them. We just beat 'em to death with their own rules"

"Now remember, I taught you this. It says right here in the code. You can take......"
(of course this guy used to be an IRS instructor too)

I see a lot of folks here getting agitated about whether e.g. fog lights or a specific suspension component or whatever are "illegal", oftentimes on the word of one particular person. My point is that it's rarely as simple as it seems, and it's difficult to make a blanket case that says you cannot have this many lights in such and such a place, can't use a shackle flip, whatever.

Oddly, I'm actually glad I'm in CA, though, no "safety inspection" bull. Our smog is draconian, sure, but being told what springs you can/can't use is crap!

i didn't know you didn't have safety inspections. I though Chippies did them randomly and roadside?

I see your point on the belts, but I seriously doubt that portion of the code could even reasonably be applied to this situation.
If they started doing that, they'd probably end up like FHP (Florida Highway Patrol) here, and lose the ability to write it...at least until the smoke from the court cases clears

 

[AJMBLAZER]

No offense to the officers here but I usually take a dim view of most police officer's knowledge of their codes and the minutia of it.

Friend of mine had a '85 K10 on 3/4 tons and 35's our senior year of HS. Local police officer was DETERMINED to prove it was unsafe/illegal according to Michigan's lift laws. My buddy's dad had specifically decreed that it MEET all of the "rules of the road" and be fully legal and it was. However officer BS pulled him over multiple times and wrote him tickets multiple times. Each time it was dismissed in court and finally after the third time or so my buddy's dad told the judge he felt like his son was being targeted and harassed by said officer and the little home town police force.
Instantly the issues stopped and said officer never hassled anyone about their trucks again.
You can win in court but arguing with the officer might not get you any where and probably will just get you more trouble.

Sorta like open carry of handguns. Perfectly legal in Michigan, Kentucky, and other states but if you go walking down mainstreet with a .45 on your hip in Lansing, Frankfort, or elsewhere you'll probably find yourself face down on the ground with guns pointed at you and handcuffs on. It's been an issue in Michigan lately and there's been plenty of proof of police officers, chiefs, and whole stations being ignorant of or just ignoring the law.

Win the fight you can win but always remember you may not be dealing with someone who knows wtf he is talking about.

 

[dremu]

i didn't know you didn't have safety inspections. I though Chippies did them randomly and roadside?

There's no organized, annual or biannual or whatever inspections the way that Texas, NJ, and other folks have 'em.

Sure, strictly speaking an LEO can stop you for some as trivial as having your headlights misaimed, but my experience has been that you gotta do something fairly stupid to get stopped.

But we don't have lift laws or bumper height regulation or the like. There's minimal requirements for mudflaps -- I'm surprised Scott hasn't piped up with his frustration with those -- but that's about it.

-- A

 

[20975k5]

Ok... So
I just got a 4" lift on 33s ... By California law am I suppose to have mudflaps?