Seatbelts

Front or rear?

I seem to remember that they were different times.

Rear was certainly "E" reg, 1987 ish?

Cheers

Peter

Chris Harvey ( snipped-for-privacy@ntlworld.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

As far as the MOT's concerned :-

OTOH, ask yourself if you feel happy driving without... which is why I fitted them to my 61 A40.

Chris Bolus ( snipped-for-privacy@FARINAb0lus.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Trouble is that it can be very difficult to fabricate suitable B-pillar mounts without making very 'orribly visible and substantial structural mods.

I'd certainly far rather have 'em, but I can certainly see why some people would prefer not to. I guess it depends on the car.

I love driving without a seatbelt.

The A40 had the mounts already, as do most cars of that vintage, so it wasn't a problem. The only problem is that their location means you have to find a belt with very long webbing if it is to fit round anyone other than Kate Moss!

Having been in a head on collision with an idiot trying to overtake an impossible amount of cars at once, and having had two broken legs as a result, with the seatbelt obviously preventing head and further injuries etc.

I don't understand why?

I think 1965.

Geoff MacK

Can't say I see the problem. I don't wear a seatbelt as the vehicles I drive don't have seatbelts fitted. Since they also happen to weigh upwards of 10 tons, it's the little car that suffers the brunt of the impact anyway.

Besides, it's my life, if I want to endanger it then I should be allowed to. Far too much namby-pamby nannyism around these days.

Alex

More comfortable.

Absolutely right. On the proviso that it is *you* who picks up the bill for sorting out the mess.

Many thanks for all the replies to the seatbelt question. Well and truly answered I think. Chris.