| Author | Message | ||
| Steve Krane (Steve_krane)
Registered Member Username: Steve_krane Post Number: 1 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 217.194.70.110 Rating: |
Hello All, I'm a few days away from owning my first bus, a 1961 GM 4106. I have 2 kids and have been trying to figure out what the Government thinks I need to do in the way of restraints. There seems to be alot of confusion. Anyway, I found a document from the NHTSA and it seemed like something I would have on the bus in the course of my travels. There are alot of exemptions, exceptions, etc that the document spells out. California, for example, requires people in my bus to wear seat belts (unless they are > 16 and in a "sleeping berth", but does not require my bus to have seat belts !?! Here is the URL to the document http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/VehOccProtectionLaws.pdf | ||
| Bob greenwood (Bob_greenwood)
Registered Member Username: Bob_greenwood Post Number: 628 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 64.136.49.228 Rating: N/A |
where would you like your kids to be if you had a wreck? in a seat belt....running around the bus,if you hit something,they will run thru the winshield | ||
| Douglas Wotring (Tekebird)
Registered Member Username: Tekebird Post Number: 84 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.136.90.146 Rating: N/A |
keep in mind there are no seatbelt in schoolbuses and they crush like beer cans against a rednecks head when then meet something | ||
| Steve Krane (Steve_krane)
Registered Member Username: Steve_krane Post Number: 2 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 217.194.70.110 Rating: N/A |
If I have a wreck in the bus I would like them to be at home. It would be irresponsible to take any unnecessary risks transporting your children to places they didn't have to go, eh? But seriously Bob, I think I am capable of running the risk/reward function for my kids. I am interested though in what the states require and thought this reference might be useful to others with the same interest. I agree that impacting the windshield is a hazard, even in a sudden stop. They'll probably be in belts most of the time and I think the cargo net across the back of the front seats makes sense. Thanks for asking. | ||
| John MC9 (John_mc9)
Registered Member Username: John_mc9 Post Number: 169 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 68.205.196.248 Rating: N/A |
Steve - Well..... It's not a "bus", it's an RV.... And: "Other exceptions include passengers riding in public transportation vehicles (e.g., buses)" Most all commercial buses list the number of standees that are permitted. Buses have been carting full loads, with standees, for a long, long time.... no problems. And RVs? "28Exemptions. A motor vehicle operator does not have to comply with the mandatory child restraint provisions under the following circumstances.: (1) The operator is driving a vehicle that was not manufactured with passenger restraint systems; (2) the operator is driving a recreational vehicle defined in §41-2142; (3) the operator is driving a commercial motor vehicle; (4) a person is transporting a child in an emergency in order to obtain medical care; (5) due to the size of the passenger compartment of the vehicle, the operator cannot secure all of the children who must be restrained. However, the operator must restrain at least one such child and must restrain as many such children as is possible under the conditions. §28-907(G)" It's got to be one helluva crash, if it's going to toss anyone out of their seat inside an 11 ton vehicle. A seatbelt would seem inconsequential, at that point. | ||
| Bob greenwood (Bob_greenwood)
Registered Member Username: Bob_greenwood Post Number: 629 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 64.136.49.228 Rating: N/A |
kids will not be in their seat unless an adult makes them,they will not wear a seatbelt unless an adult makes them.you are the adult Steve.not doing something unless the state makes you..makes you a bad adult steve | ||
| Steve Krane (Steve_krane)
Registered Member Username: Steve_krane Post Number: 3 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 217.194.70.110 Rating: N/A |
John, I think you are looking at AZ law. Also interesting to me, but I will be in CA most of the time. Sorry if I gave anyone the mistaken impression I was looking for advice about parenting. Just thought somebody might like to have the reference data. | ||
| John MC9 (John_mc9)
Registered Member Username: John_mc9 Post Number: 170 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 68.205.196.248 Rating: N/A |
Oops, yeah... AZ.. I stick by the last paragraph of my last comment, though.. As long as the occupants are sitting down (in a seat that's secured to the floor), I doubt a seat belt would add to their safety in the event of an accident. Aside from the fact that most RV seats either swivel, or are not facing forward...... Ya'know what I mean? | ||
| Steve Krane (Steve_krane)
Registered Member Username: Steve_krane Post Number: 4 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 217.194.70.110 Rating: N/A |
Yep. | ||
| RJ Long (Rjlong)
Registered Member Username: Rjlong Post Number: 1185 Registered: 12-2000 Posted From: 71.195.127.101 Rating: N/A |
Steve - Seat belts were not required in passenger vehicles (cars) until either 1963 or 1964. Required in pick-ups starting about 1967, IIRC. They were optional prior to the Feds mandating them, altho rarely found. Commercial buses, OTOH, have only required a seatbelt for the driver since about 1968. Still only required for the driver, except for the mini-skoolies. You say the coach you're purchasing is a 1961. Since it was built before the feds mandated seatbelts, it's exempt from the requirement. But, as stated earlier, they were optional, for the driver only. Seatbelts are now required in new RVs, but yours is a 1961, not a 2007. Your call. . . FWIW & HTH!  PS: What's the VIN on your "new" toy? PD4106-xxxx? | ||
| Christy Hicks (Christyhicks)
Registered Member Username: Christyhicks Post Number: 9 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 65.77.66.1 Rating: N/A |
I'm by no means an expert in this field, but I think it might be worth researching this issue just a tad bit farther. I believe that there are specific laws regarding child restraints, that override or amend the seat belt laws that are simply based on the age and type of vehicle. So, if you have a four year old in a 1954 Chevy, the child still must be in the proper restraint for the age and weight of the child, pursuant to the laws in your state. It also might be worth remembering that if we choose to title our "bus" as a motorhome, we likely would not be able claim later that it falls under "bus" rules of any type. A smart lawyer or prosecutor would likely seize upon the registration type as being the proper class, and since we also usually insure our busses as "motorhomes", we probably should view all issues from the standpoint that our bus is really a "privately owned motorhome" or a "commercially owned motorhome", or a "bus". . .whatever, but then our registration, our insurance, and the laws that we consider to pertain to us should all be consistant with eachother. This, again, is just my opinion, based on the old adage, "You can't have it both ways" ;-). Christy Hicks | ||
| Sean Welsh (Sean)
Registered Member Username: Sean Post Number: 506 Registered: 1-2003 Posted From: 67.142.130.16 Rating: N/A |
Steve, If you are primarily concerned with CA, I can help. First off, the whole CVC is on-line, here: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vc.htm In CA, your vehicle, even though it started life as a bus (which, by definition is a commercial vehicle requiring a class B CDL with passenger endorsement), is now a "House car": 362. A "house car" is a motor vehicle originally designed, or permanently altered, and equipped for human habitation, or to which a camper has been permanently attached. A motor vehicle to which a camper has been temporarily attached is not a house car except that, for the purposes of Division 11 (commencing with Section 21000) and Division 12 (commencing with Section 24000), a motor vehicle equipped with a camper having an axle that is designed to support a portion of the weight of the camper unit shall be considered a three-axle house car regardless of the method of attachment or manner of registration. A house car shall not be deemed to be a motortruck. RJ is right, your 1961 vehicle does not need to be equipped with seat belts: Used Passenger Vehicles 27314. (a) No dealer shall sell or offer for sale any used passenger vehicle that was manufactured on or after January 1, 1962, other than a motorcycle, unless it is equipped with at least two seatbelts which are installed for the use of persons in the front seat of the vehicle. (b) No dealer shall sell or offer for sale any used passenger vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, other than a motorcycle, unless it is equipped with seatbelts for each seating position. (c) Seatbelts required in subdivisions (a) and (b) shall comply with regulations established by the department. (d) The requirements of this section shall not apply to sales to dealers, automobile dismantlers, or junk dealers. That being said, in CA, everyone in the vehicle MUST be properly restrained. In other words, you don't have to put a belt on every seat, but any seat without a belt can't be occupied while the vehicle is on the road: Mandatory Seat Belt Law 27315. (a) The Legislature finds that a mandatory seatbelt law will contribute to reducing highway deaths and injuries by encouraging greater usage of existing manual seatbelts, that automatic crash protection systems which require no action by vehicle occupants offer the best hope of reducing deaths and injuries, and that encouraging the use of manual safety belts is only a partial remedy for addressing this major cause of death and injury. The Legislature declares that the enactment of this section is intended to be compatible with support for federal safety standards requiring automatic crash protection systems and should not be used in any manner to rescind federal requirements for installation of automatic restraints in new cars. (b) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. (c) (1) As used in this section, "motor vehicle" means a passenger vehicle, a motortruck, or a truck tractor, but does not include a motorcycle. (2) For purposes of this section, a "motor vehicle" also means any farm labor vehicle, regardless of the date of certification under Section 31401. (d) (1) A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway unless that person and all passengers 16 years of age or over are properly restrained by a safety belt. This paragraph does not apply to the operator of a taxicab, as defined in Section 27908, when the taxicab is driven on a city street and is engaged in the transportation of a fare-paying passenger. The safety belt requirement established by this paragraph is the minimum safety standard applicable to employees being transported in a motor vehicle. This paragraph does not preempt any more stringent or restrictive standards imposed by the Labor Code or any other state or federal regulation regarding the transportation of employees in a motor vehicle. (2) The operator of a limousine for hire or the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 165, may not operate the limousine for hire or authorized emergency vehicle unless the operator and any passengers six years of age or over or weighing 60 pounds or more, in the front seat are properly restrained by a safety belt. (3) The operator of a taxicab may not operate the taxicab unless any passengers six years of age or over or weighing 60 pounds or more, in the front seat are properly restrained by a safety belt. (e) A person 16 years of age or over may not be a passenger in a motor vehicle on a highway unless that person is properly restrained by a safety belt. This subdivision does not apply to a passenger in a sleeper berth, as defined in subdivision (v) of Section 1201 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. (f) Every owner of a motor vehicle, including every owner or operator of a taxicab, as defined in Section 27908, or a limousine for hire, operated on a highway shall maintain safety belts in good working order for the use of occupants of the vehicle. The safety belts shall conform to motor vehicle safety standards established by the United States Department of Transportation. This subdivision does not, however, require installation or maintenance of safety belts where not required by the laws of the United States applicable to the vehicle at the time of its initial sale. (g) This section does not apply to a passenger or operator with a physically disabling condition or medical condition which would prevent appropriate restraint in a safety belt, if the condition is duly certified by a licensed physician and surgeon or by a licensed chiropractor who shall state the nature of the condition, as well as the reason the restraint is inappropriate. This section also does not apply to a public employee, when in an authorized emergency vehicle as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 165, or to any passenger in any seat behind the front seat of an authorized emergency vehicle as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 165 operated by the public employee, unless required by the agency employing the public employee. (h) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 42001, any violation of subdivision (d), (e), or (f) is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense, and a fine of not more than fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense. In lieu of the fine and any penalty assessment or court costs, the court, pursuant to Section 42005, may order that a person convicted of a first offense attend a school for traffic violators or any other court-approved program in which the proper use of safety belts is demonstrated. (i) In a civil action, a violation of subdivision (d), (e), or (f) or information of a violation of subdivision (h) does not establish negligence as a matter of law or negligence per se for comparative fault purposes, but negligence may be proven as a fact without regard to the violation. ... Note that the "sleeper berth" exemption listed in paragraph 3e does not apply to you, since your vehicle is not covered under Section 1201 of Title 13 (also available on-line). Note also that, notwithstanding the allowability of sales of 1961 vehicles without seatbelts, paragraph 3f of this section requires you, the owner, to "maintain safety belts in good working order for the use of occupants", which means you are responsible for providing them. With regards to children, further restrictions apply: Child Passenger Restraint System: Safety Belts: Requirements: Fines 27360.5. (a) No parent or legal guardian, when present in a motor vehicle, as defined in Section 27315, may permit his or her child or ward who is six years of age or older, but less than 16 years of age, or who is less than six years of age and weighs 60 pounds or more to be transported upon a highway in the motor vehicle without properly securing the child or ward in an appropriate child passenger restraint system or safety belt meeting applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. (b) No driver may transport on a highway any child who is six years of age or older, but less than 16 years of age, or who is less than six years of age and weighs 60 pounds or more in a motor vehicle, as defined in Section 27315, without properly securing the child in a child passenger restraint system or safety belt meeting applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. This subdivision does not apply to a driver if the parent or legal guardian of the child is also present in the vehicle and is not the driver. (c) (1) A first offense under this section is punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100), except that the court may reduce or waive the fine if the defendant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that he or she is economically disadvantaged, and the court, instead, refers the defendant to a child restraint education program that includes, but is not limited to, demonstration of the proper installation and use of child passenger restraint systems for children of all ages, and provides economically disadvantaged families with a child passenger restraint low-cost purchase or loaner program. Upon completion of the program, the defendant shall provide proof of participation in the program that includes an inspection of a child passenger restraint system that meets applicable federal safety standards. If an education program on the proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system is not available within 50 miles of the residence of the defendant, the requirement to participate in that program shall be waived. If the fine is paid, waived, or reduced, the court shall report the conviction to the department pursuant to Section 1803. The court may, at its discretion, require any defendant described under this section to attend an education program that includes demonstration of proper installation and use of child passenger restraint systems and provides certification to the court that the defendant has presented for inspection a child passenger restraint system that meets applicable federal safety standards. (2) A second or subsequent offense under this section is punishable by a fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250), no part of which may be waived by the court, except that the court may reduce or waive the fine if the defendant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that he or she is economically disadvantaged, and the court, instead refers the defendant to a community education program that includes, but is not limited to, education on the proper installation and use of child passenger restraint systems for children of all ages, and provides certification to the court of completion of that program. Upon completion of the program, the defendant shall provide proof of participation in the program. If an education program on the proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system is not available within 50 miles of the residence of the defendant, the requirement to participate in that program shall be waived. If the fine is paid, waived, or reduced, the court shall report the conviction to the department pursuant to Section 1803. The court may at its discretion, require any defendant described under this section to attend an education program that includes demonstration of proper installation and use of child passenger restraint systems and provides certification to the court that the defendant has presented for inspection a child passenger restraint system that meets applicable federal safety standards. HTH, -Sean http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com | ||
| niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Registered Member Username: Niles500 Post Number: 698 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 72.91.107.56 Rating: N/A |
Here's florida, see 6(d); Title XXIII MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 316 STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL View Entire Chapter 316.614 Safety belt usage.-- (1) This section may be cited as the "Florida Safety Belt Law." (2) It is the policy of this state that enactment of this section is intended to be compatible with the continued support by the state for federal safety standards requiring automatic crash protection, and the enactment of this section should not be used in any manner to rescind or delay the implementation of the federal automatic crash protection system requirements of Federal Motor Safety Standard 208 as set forth in S4.1.2.1 thereof, as entered on July 17, 1984, for new cars. (3) As used in this section: (a) "Motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle as defined in s. 316.003 that is operated on the roadways, streets, and highways of this state. The term does not include: 1. A school bus. 2. A bus used for the transportation of persons for compensation. 3. A farm tractor or implement of husbandry. 4. A truck of a net weight of more than 5,000 pounds. 5. A motorcycle, moped, or bicycle. (b) "Safety belt" means a seat belt assembly that meets the requirements established under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 49 C.F.R. s. 571.208. (c) "Restrained by a safety belt" means being restricted by an appropriately adjusted safety belt which is properly fastened at all times when a motor vehicle is in motion. (4) It is unlawful for any person: (a) To operate a motor vehicle in this state unless each passenger and the operator of the vehicle under the age of 18 years are restrained by a safety belt or by a child restraint device pursuant to s. 316.613, if applicable; or (b) To operate a motor vehicle in this state unless the person is restrained by a safety belt. (5) It is unlawful for any person 18 years of age or older to be a passenger in the front seat of a motor vehicle unless such person is restrained by a safety belt when the vehicle is in motion. (6)(a) Neither a person who is certified by a physician as having a medical condition that causes the use of a safety belt to be inappropriate or dangerous nor an employee of a newspaper home delivery service while in the course of his or her employment delivering newspapers on home delivery routes is required to be restrained by a safety belt. (b) The number of front seat passengers of a pickup truck required to wear a safety belt pursuant to this section shall not exceed the number of safety belts which were installed in the front seat of such pickup truck by the manufacturer. (c) An employee of a solid waste or recyclable collection service is not required to be restrained by a safety belt while in the course of employment collecting solid waste or recyclables on designated routes. (d) The requirements of this section shall not apply to the living quarters of a recreational vehicle or a space within a truck body primarily intended for merchandise or property. (7) It is the intent of the Legislature that all state, county, and local law enforcement agencies, safety councils, and public school systems, in recognition of the fatalities and injuries attributed to unrestrained occupancy of motor vehicles, shall conduct a continuing safety and public awareness campaign as to the magnitude of the problem and adopt programs designed to encourage compliance with the safety belt usage requirements of this section. (8) Any person who violates the provisions of this section commits a nonmoving violation, punishable as provided in chapter 318. However, except for violations of s. 316.613 and paragraph (4)(a), enforcement of this section by state or local law enforcement agencies must be accomplished only as a secondary action when a driver of a motor vehicle has been detained for a suspected violation of another section of this chapter, chapter 320, or chapter 322. (9) By January 1, 2006, each law enforcement agency in this state shall adopt departmental policies to prohibit the practice of racial profiling. When a law enforcement officer issues a citation for a violation of this section, the law enforcement officer must record the race and ethnicity of the violator. All law enforcement agencies must maintain such information and forward the information to the department in a form and manner determined by the department. The department shall collect this information by jurisdiction and annually report the data to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The report must show separate statewide totals for the state's county sheriffs and municipal law enforcement agencies, state law enforcement agencies, and state university law enforcement agencies. (10) A violation of the provisions of this section shall not constitute negligence per se, nor shall such violation be used as prima facie evidence of negligence or be considered in mitigation of damages, but such violation may be considered as evidence of comparative negligence, in any civil action. History.--s. 2, ch. 86-49; s. 24, ch. 90-119; s. 7, ch. 93-260; s. 331, ch. 95-148; s. 36, ch. 96-350; s. 44, ch. 97-300; s. 2, ch. 99-316; s. 2, ch. 2000-239; s. 97, ch. 2005-164. Session: Bills · Calendars · Journals · Citator · Search · Appropriations · Redistricting · Video · Bill Information Reports Committees: Committee Pages · Committee Publications Senators: President's Page · Member Pages · District Information · Find Your Legislators Information Center: Introduction · About the Legislature | ||
| Nick Badame Refrigeration Co. (Dnick85)
Registered Member Username: Dnick85 Post Number: 87 Registered: 2-2006 Posted From: 68.45.178.44 Rating: N/A |
Hi Guy's, In Short, It just makes good sence to have your kids in seat belts..... I have installed them in my bus [3 sets in each couch and pilot/ copilot] mostly for safty. But, if I were in an accident and diddn't have them, the blame would only burden on me if they were thrown through the windshield. I have them. Why can't you? Also, they are very cheap.... Nick- | ||
| Cliff (Floridacracker)
Registered Member Username: Floridacracker Post Number: 311 Registered: 7-2004 Posted From: 67.8.199.203 Rating: N/A |
Hi Steve, You will find that most states don't require seatbelts in RV's or motorhomes because people can get up and walk around in them. Wouldn't make sense that John Doe gets a ticket because he got up and walked to the head. At least not to me! In alot of state's the occupantsof a RV, motorhome, not driver, can have open containers of beer, wine, etc.... Hmmm, I guess the representatives might have a few RV's????? Now onto the seatbelts, I make my kids wear them if they are sitting up front in the parlor or co-pilot seats. All other areas are seatbelt free, bathroom, bunks, big bed and dining booth. In slow moving traffic or in town, everyone remains seated. If everyone had to remain seated 100% of the time I would just take a plane You will figure out the right balance for you. Cliff | ||
| doug yes (Dougg)
Registered Member Username: Dougg Post Number: 3 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 4.235.252.15 Rating: N/A |
Once in LA a car cut off a 4104 conversion that I was a passenger in. The driver hit the red switch that locks the brakes. My friend in the back of the coach came flying past me into the dashboard, then a second later his lunch plates came flying behind him. I vote for padded dashboards etc, as people do walk around in their motorhomes. Belts are a must on front seats, especially if you removed the modesty panel. | ||
| Steve Krane (Steve_krane)
Registered Member Username: Steve_krane Post Number: 5 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 76.176.6.170 Rating: N/A |
Well... I think there are two distinctly separate issues: 1) What do you choose to do about occupant restraints, and 2) What does the State require you to do. My original post was about (2) above. I intend to comply with the law, or at least to know when I am not. Regarding California, it seems clear that there are laws requiring people to be properly restrained in a motor vehicle, which the bus/RV/motor home, whatever, is. But, also, it seems clear that there is a law that says that my unit is not required to have safety belts (the last paragraph of 27315 (f) could not be more clear). 27315 (f) Every owner of a motor vehicle, including every owner or operator of a taxicab, as defined in Section 27908, or a limousine for hire, operated on a highway shall maintain safety belts in good working order for the use of occupants of the vehicle. The safety belts shall conform to motor vehicle safety standards established by the United States Department of Transportation. This subdivision does not, however, require installation or maintenance of safety belts where not required by the laws of the United States applicable to the vehicle at the time of its initial sale. So... you could argue that 1) occupants are required to be belted, therefore the coach needs belts, or you could argue that 2) the coach does not require belts so the occupants are not required to be belted. Think carefully about occupant restraints, and decide yourself. Clearly, it is possible to design a restraint system poorly so that it actually increases risk of injury or death in certain situations. Even large industries that spend alot of money and do alot of testing don't get it right sometimes. Further, when the occupant is not wearing the device properly other problems arise. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Presumably all the readers are adults, but here's an interesting fact. When states adopt mandatory occupant restraint laws, pedestrian fatalities go up. Why is that? It's because people, apparently, have a level of risk that they seek. When they perceive they are more safe, they permit more risk (drive less carefully). Have you noticed that if and when you or your riders are not belted, you drive a little slower, brake a little sooner, look a little futher ahead in the road? | ||
| Sean Welsh (Sean)
Registered Member Username: Sean Post Number: 519 Registered: 1-2003 Posted From: 67.142.130.27 Rating: N/A |
"So... you could argue that 1) occupants are required to be belted, therefore the coach needs belts, or you could argue that 2) the coach does not require belts so the occupants are not required to be belted." Respectfully, WRT California law, I disagree. The statement above reflects the notion that this apparent discrepancy in the law is subject to individual interpretation. The problem with this is that it is not really a matter of how you would interpret the law, it's a matter of how the courts interpret the law. There is already plenty of case law on this in California. The courts have interpreted section 27315(f), "Every owner of a motor vehicle ... shall maintain safety belts in good working order for the use of occupants..." very strictly. You, as the vehicle owner, are responsible for providing every occupant with a working seatbelt, irrespective of whether the vehicle had them (or was required to have them) when you purchased it. If you don't provide the seatbelts, then (1) you, as the driver, can be cited for every unbelted occupant ($286 per each, as of the last time I looked, although it seems to go up rather frequently), (2) you can be found criminally liable if any of those individuals is injured due to lack of a seat belt and (3) there is already case law in civil court as well, attaching civil liability to the owner's failure to provide safe and working belts. If you have a working belt for every occupant, then it is the responsibility of the (adult) occupants to wear the belts. In other words, if you get pulled over, and your friend Bob is not wearing his belt (but the belt is there and available for him), then Bob gets the ticket. For minors, the driver is responsible and the driver is cited for any unrestrained minors. If you don't like any of this, or would rather not comply, I suggest you drive around, instead of through, California. (And, please don't shoot the messenger -- I didn't write the law, I'm just passing it along, in the hopes that no one here will be caught by surprise.) BTW, this law applies to all vehicles in California, regardless of whether or not they are registered there or in what state the driver is licensed. California observes license reciprocity, but reserves the right to enforce all other provisions of its vehicle code. [License reciprocity means that, for example, even though California requires a special license to drive a coach over 40' in length, if your license from your home state allows you to drive a 45' coach in your home state, you can also drive one in California. If you bring your 45' rig to California, though, it is still subject to all those other pesky provisions. So even though your home state may allow 45s to go anywhere, in California they are restricted to certain routes. So don't plan to do the coast highway (CA 1), for example, since that's restricted to coaches 40' and under.] -Sean | ||
| John MC9 (John_mc9)
Registered Member Username: John_mc9 Post Number: 173 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 66.217.107.110 Rating: N/A |
CALIFORNIA CODES VEHICLE CODE SECTION 27302-27317 27315: "(f) Every owner of a motor vehicle, including every owner or operator of a taxicab, as defined in Section 27908, or a limousine for hire, operated on a highway shall maintain safety belts in good working order for the use of occupants of the vehicle. The safety belts shall conform to motor vehicle safety standards established by the United States Department of Transportation. This subdivision does not, however, require installation or maintenance of safety belts where not required by the laws of the United States applicable to the vehicle at the time of its initial sale." http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=80295616494+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve | ||
| Sean Welsh (Sean)
Registered Member Username: Sean Post Number: 520 Registered: 1-2003 Posted From: 67.142.130.27 Rating: N/A |
John, I'm pretty sure the exemption at the end of paragraph (f) means you don't have to install belts in every seating position in the vehicle (if the vehicle pre-dates the federal belt requirement). However, paragraph (d) prohibits you from operating the vehicle with anyone in positions without belts -- there is no date-of-manufacture provision or provision for unbelted positions in paragraph (d). Note that there is a specific exception in paragraph (d) for taxicabs, which is why the exemption is spelled out in (f). In other words, even though rear occupants of a taxicab are not required to be belted, (f) still requires the cab company to provide the belts for the use of those passengers, unless the cab pre-dates the federal seat belt law. None of which applies to housecars, where the driver is not exempted under paragraph (d). And, of course, no such exemption is made for children, which are covered under a different section of the code. -Sean | ||
| John MC9 (John_mc9)
Registered Member Username: John_mc9 Post Number: 174 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 66.217.106.75 Rating: N/A |
That last link was defective (#^%*&$#%), so here's better: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html Or more specifically: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=veh&codebody=seat+belts&hits=20 (#1) Ahhhccckk...... Kalifornia.... gotta' luv it, Komrad... "The problem with this is that it is not really a matter of how you would interpret the law, it's a matter of how the courts interpret the law. " Most courts interpret "the law" literally... but Kalifornia ?? All this debate (pro/con) about "law" is really moot, if one seriously considers your well thought comment: "Clearly, it is possible to design a restraint system poorly so that it actually increases risk of injury or death in certain situations. Even large industries that spend a lot of money and do alot of testing don't get it right sometimes. " I would sincerely doubt even the Kountry of Kalifornia would suggest a vehicle owner should place his/her occupants in harms way by manufacturing, or designing his/her own passenger restraint system. I sincerely doubt more, that Kalifornia would want to be subject of litigation, by -ordering- anyone to install a restraint system without approved guidelines to follow..... (if the state can't provide the "how-to", it can't demand the "or-else" without absorbing the liability). But..... it is Kalifornia...... I keep forgetting that.... The aside? As a former bus driver (long ago), driving through NYC traffic with a tour guide serving beverages, and passengers in/out of the toilet.... and with thousands of miles spent on line runs, with full bus capacity and standees from front to rear.... Seat belts? What's a seat belt? | ||
| Dale Waller (Happycampersrus)
Registered Member Username: Happycampersrus Post Number: 296 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 69.19.14.24 Rating: N/A |
"The aside? As a former bus driver (long ago), driving through NYC traffic with a tour guide serving beverages, and passengers in/out of the toilet.... and with thousands of miles spent on line runs, with full bus capacity and standees from front to rear.... Seat belts? What's a seat belt?" I agree with you John I can remember standing up as a small child on the front seat of my grandfathers taxi while taking folks to various places. Car seat?? What the hell is a car seat?? Best advice I can give to everyone is contact the CHP (KHP)or YOUR state police and ask an officer to tell what you need to do. There is alot of smart folks here, but the laws are written in such a manner that they are leaving to many with making their own interpretations. Talk with law enforcement as they will be the folks (NOT Busnuts) writing the tickets and filing charges after the accident or the traffic stop. HTH, Dale | ||
| John MC9 (John_mc9)
Registered Member Username: John_mc9 Post Number: 175 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 66.217.105.70 Rating: N/A |
"Car seat?? What the hell is a car seat?? " HAR.... Yeah... glad you got it.. Kiddin' aside, if you ask five (5) "law enforcement" reps, five (5) Dept. Motor Vehicle reps, and five (5) legislators, you'll get fifteen (15) (or more) different answers.... Steve said it here: "My original post was about (2) above. I intend to comply with the law, or at least to know when I am not. Regarding California, it seems clear that there are laws requiring people to be properly restrained in a motor vehicle, which the bus/RV/motor home, whatever, is. But, also, it seems clear that there is a law that says that my unit is not required to have safety belts (the last paragraph of 27315 (f) could not be more clear). " and: "I think there are two distinctly separate issues: 1) What do you choose to do about occupant restraints, and 2) What does the State require you to do. " So..... What -I- would do? 1. Not install belts where they are not legally required. 2. Florida does not require seat belts to be installed in vehicles that did not need them at the time of initial sale... (with exceptions) Aside from one old woman tumbling out of the Eagle toilet with her panties down during a trip through the Catskills, I can't remember ever having a problem with an adult or child staying safely in a seat without restraints. It would take a lot to stop 11 tons of metal so violently that passengers are dislodged and/or unseated. If that's something to fear, I'd fear the driver's skill and training, rather than the lack of a seat restraint... (Jus' mah oponion, ya'll unnerstan...) (Message edited by john_mc9 on February 07, 2007) | ||
| Dale Waller (Happycampersrus)
Registered Member Username: Happycampersrus Post Number: 297 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 69.19.14.29 Rating: N/A |
"So..... What -I- would do? 1. Not install belts where they are not legally required. 2. Florida does not require seat belts to be installed in vehicles that did not need them at the time of initial sale... (with exceptions)" Exactly what I did. Communist of Virginia (I meant Commonwealth) dosen't require passenger seat belts in a motorhome from 1974. All I am required to have is a seat belt for the driver. I don't think CaliFOREIGNia or any state for that matter that "requires" passenger seat belts would make much of a case if your motorhome is not registered in that state. "Hello Barney Fife, I'm just passing through" would probably be good enough unless you try to tick the officer off. I have had this battle several times (I've won every time) with my 57 Chevrolet. I do not have to have seat belts and that just bugs the #@$%^ out of local law enforcement. | ||
| John MC9 (John_mc9)
Registered Member Username: John_mc9 Post Number: 176 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 66.217.106.193 Rating: N/A |
I guess I should be somewhat honest, and admit that I added a seatbelt to the Flexsteel seat for my wife... She -always- insists on wearing a seatbelt, regardless of the vehicle she's riding in. The Flexsteel swivel mount has built-in brackets to secure a seatbelt to. Unfortunately, a whole ton of it's benefit depends on how well the seat's mounting is attached to the floor...... Oh, and... only a lap belt can be used. (I used the MCI's original seat floor rail, and added lag screws for extra security) Now..... on to air-bags.... | ||
| Christy Hicks (Christyhicks)
Registered Member Username: Christyhicks Post Number: 10 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 65.77.66.1 Rating: N/A |
I have a slightly different view on the whole seatbelt thing. . . I'm not going to argue whether an adult should make their own decision on seatbelt use. . there are too many arguments in favor of seatbelt laws that make sense to completely convince me that those are bad laws, (yet I'm definitely of the opinion that we have just a few too many laws on the books) but I would like to make a couple of points about children. Children are young, they are immature, and they are not experienced and knowledgeable enough to make their own decisions. We don't let them decide whether they have to go to school, whether they should jump off the roof, whether they should be allowed to drive a car, etc. It's our responsibility to make intelligent decisions for them. . .we protect them, we teach them responsibility, respect, values, we educate them, basically, we give them the tools to make good decisions when they are mature enough to be in the position to do so. Also, kids have big heads. Seriously, they have humongous heads, and the littler they are, the bigger their heads are. This makes their center of gravity way, way off. . .they tip over, easily, and often. They also don't have the experience to brace themselves when they feel sudden deceleration. Try it. . .set a baby up in a wagon and pull hard. . .what happens, the baby tips over. Stop quickly, and you set him right back up! Did you see him brace his feet against the sides? Did he grab the wagon. . .nope, not until it was WAY, WAY too late. Now, after you wife quits smacking you for tipping the baby over, think about what you just learned. Kids need to be belted in, strapped down, and protected. If you've never, ever in your life, had to slow a vehicle quickly enough to unbalance a standing person, you are very lucky, and you can figure that the odds are against you. . it's coming. Problem is, you just don't know when it's going to happen. If you don't really care about the people in your coach, what about the coach itself? People flying through the air can tear curtains off the wall, break tables, chair legs as they tumble over the chairs, scratch the fridge, maybe even break a window or something. If you bruise up a child, I hope you've got a clean record and no one thinks you're ever angry or grumpy, or you may have to explain thoroughly, to the officials, that you surely did NOT purposely injure the child with your hand or weapon, rather you did it with your coach because the law says you don't have to have seatbelts in it. Next you can explain why the child restraint laws don't apply to you. Just my opinion, Christy Hicks | ||
| John MC9 (John_mc9)
Registered Member Username: John_mc9 Post Number: 177 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 66.217.107.88 Rating: N/A |
Kids and weeble-wobbles have a lot in common, apparently. I'll have to try that wagon trick with the neighbor's snot-nosed kid... Well Christy... All of this debating is fun (I enjoy it), but there's not much argument regarding the need to be seated, and to avoid walking around in a moving vehicle.. The important point is, and was well stated by Steve earlier: "Clearly, it is possible to design a restraint system poorly so that it actually increases risk of injury or death in certain situations. Even large industries that spend a lot of money and do alot of testing don't get it right sometimes. " It's no safer for your riders to be restrained in a home-brewed seatbelt restraint design, that if you designed your own kiddie seat for a child (Please note the intent of that statement?). I have a scar aside my right eye....from hitting the window handle in a transit bus when I was a child, back in the 40s. A seatbelt would not have avoided that... Would I fight to see seatbelts in buses because of that? Nope. I'd prefer to see a better designed bus, without parts that can cut and rip, next to (or in front of) the seats..... And most all buses today do conform to better design that manages to prevent injury.... But ya'know.... shtuff happens. That's life. I'd protect the small ones by insisting they are seated while traveling. And if/when they are soooo small that they are members of the weeble-wobble club, then sure, I'd try to have some sort of a restraint to keep them in place during travel..... Uhhh.... say.... when they're that small, can't they get hurt tumbling down the stairwell at the campground? Falling into the toilet? How about just rolling off that couch, or walking into a table's sharp corner? We manage to forget, that a small child isn't required to be in a child restraint seat while traveling in a transit bus.... And that most RVs are -not- designed with transporting small babies in mind. The safety of the occupants in some situations, is left to the owner's devices (as well should be). I'm no meanie (and we've raised one of those PIA's without too many bumps and bruises).... We -all- care about our families, and we all try to do what's best. But in doing so; with our attempts to provide safety, we should pay close attention to the how and why. The "why" doesn't matter, if the "how" will defeat the intent. And that Christy, was the point. (well.... just my feeble opinion, anyway) | ||
| Dale Waller (Happycampersrus)
Registered Member Username: Happycampersrus Post Number: 298 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 69.19.14.44 Rating: N/A |
"Children are young, they are immature, and they are not experienced and knowledgeable enough to make their own decisions." That's very true and as parents & grandparents we have to be responsible enough to take precautions and make decisions to protect the little ones, BUT you cannot guard against every scenario. If the child has to be in a car seat, then yes common sense dictates that you will have to make provisions to guard the child in the event of an accident. For example I put the car seat facing the back of the bus with back of the car seat up against the couch, then strapped the seat to a couple of mounts in the floor. A gorrila couldn't rip it loose, trust me. As far as the older children they understand that they need to be seated while we were traveling or ask if they need to get up. It has worked for me for 5+ years, but that's my way | ||
| Christy Hicks (Christyhicks)
Registered Member Username: Christyhicks Post Number: 12 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 65.77.66.1 Rating: N/A |
For the sake of debate. . . I don't think it's a valid argument to suggest that since you can't protect a child against every injury, you shouldn't do your best to protect them when possible. That's not logical of course. Yes, even a bus can stop quickly enough to throw people out of their seats, in fact, you can hit a hard enough bump to throw people out of their seats, even when in something as large as a bus. Plus, anyone who thinks that a bus can't stop suddenly simply assumes that we are only talking about a braking situation. Unfortunately, the best, safest, most alert drivers do get into accidents. You just can't control the other drivers, so you have to plan on the possibility of a wreck. To suggest that it's better to use no restraint, than to use your mechanical knowledge to mount seatbelts in such a manner as to secure a car seat in the event of a crash is simply not credible. Sure, you can come up with a scenario in which the best restraint may fail, but the reality is that seat belt, mounted to a solid part of the structure (I hesitate to use the word "frame" when speaking of busses) or a thick plate bolted to a solid portion of the structure is much more likely to secure a child or car seat than not. If they're under my watch, I'm going to try to protect them. I guess it's sort of why, when our 2 yr old grandaughter was just tall enough to bonk her forehead on the corner of my desktop, I taped a piece of padding on the corner to protect her little head. Sure, she may bonk her head on a bunch of other stuff. . .but if I see an obvious hazard, I'll try to reduce the chance of injury. I know I can't convince you to strap the kiddies in, but if just one person who reads this takes the time to install restraints, well, then dragging the debate out was worth it to me ;-). Christy Hicks | ||
| Dale Waller (Happycampersrus)
Registered Member Username: Happycampersrus Post Number: 299 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 69.19.14.16 Rating: N/A |
"I don't think it's a valid argument to suggest that since you can't protect a child against every injury, you shouldn't do your best to protect them when possible. That's not logical of course." I agree with that to a point. A person can go overboard with trying to protect against every injury. For example you could also require the kids to wear a football helmet in case something comes flying in the sudden stop scenario that was described. Or require safety glasses for all passengers in the event of glass fragments from a collision. Or require respirators in case of an exhaust leak. The list goes on. Yes, by all means if you see a obvious hazard protect against it. | ||
| John MC9 (John_mc9)
Registered Member Username: John_mc9 Post Number: 178 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 66.217.106.163 Rating: N/A |
(This is my last biased opinion to this thread) (HEY... who said "hooray"?) (that many?) There's so much fuss regarding the benefit and need for seatbelts, and even more fuss about insuring a child is properly restrained and/or in a child seat......... yet one after another vehicle that have children "properly restrained" are also carrying the weeks groceries, assorted packages in the rear seats, or various objects on the seat aside the kids, or on the front seat...... And they're playing with their satellite radio, watching their GPS instead of the road, and driving 30 mph faster than both the speed limit and road conditions allow.... But hey... The kids are safe, right? A false sense of security? Our neighbor's son came down to visit his family in his RV... Their two girls were on the couch with seatbelts on, and the baby was in the carrier, also with a seatbelt.... all on the couch... Next to the couch, in the usual RV design, was the kitchen... It's countertop was directly in line with the couch... And on top of the counter was a Mr. Coffee type coffee maker, a knife rack loaded with assorted knives, and one of those revolving kitchen utensil holders, loaded with metal utensils.... Oh yeah, and dishes in the dish rack. There were books in the shelf above and opposite the couch, and some sort of big radio on the table..... If they were involved in an accident, there would be a tremendous amount of potentially deadly weapons flying about..... Nice that the kids were restrained! I'd personally prefer to be a moving target...... There's a helluva lot more than seatbelts to be concerned with, in providing a safe trip for all passengers... Thinking the kids are safe simply because they're buckled up, and considering -that- parent to be a "better parent" than the one that doesn't, is.... well... silly. Judging a person by the amount of seatbelts they provide in a vehicle that's never had any, is..... well..... sillier. | ||
| Henry van de Graaf (Hcvdg)
Registered Member Username: Hcvdg Post Number: 23 Registered: 5-2001 Posted From: 71.252.169.98 Rating: N/A |
Here's my read on the California vehicle code (FWIW). Californians are not required to have seatbelts installed at all seating positions (that is, unless you want to sit there, or if they came with them etc.). At one time the code exempted cars, housecars, etc. that weighed more than 7000 lbs. (Message edited by hcvdg on February 14, 2007) | ||
| Harmer (Dave_4104_in_victoria)
Registered Member Username: Dave_4104_in_victoria Post Number: 7 Registered: 2-2007 Posted From: 24.64.223.203 Rating: N/A |
Hmmm seatbelts, well in British Columbia and not necessarily any other province/state. If it has seatbelts in it when they pull you over, you better have them on. If it did not come as original equipment as my 1958 Landrover did not, I cannot put on what is not there, and yes the orciffers of the law definitely did not like it when they noticed it on many occasions. Also worthy to note when I have my Original equipment windshield in the down position on my Land rover, I am sorry officer but i do not have to put it up... On the other hand if I install seat belts in my Land rover which i have not done yet.. I would have to have em onwhile driving in BC or face the fine if caught. When i put recaro seats in the 4104, they had the seatbelts in place, so we used them. In 2005 proceeding south on I-5, we were both fortunate enough to have them on when we were hit from behind by a fully loaded chip hauler weighing in at around 105,000 lbs if memory serves me right. Our coach was loaded weighing in at 26,400 lbs apprx, plus toad of 2,300lbs. I recall the driver later saying he was only doing 55 mph..., yeah okay. I was glad to be strapped in with only a lap belt and i was glad for my spouse as between her feet braced on the dash and her lap belt holding her back, the rest of her kinda resembled a raggedy anne doll flipping back and forth and all around. The kinds of things you think about when s*&^ happens is like this; I sure hope she has her seatbelt on or she is going to get ejected out through my brand new windshields i just had installed@$%. Doh. She did not see the humor in that immediately, As for me, i had the big ole steering wheel to hold onto, and did as we all went down the I-5 like what must have looked like a giant centipede from the air, but i am glad i had the lapbelt on to or i might have gotten flung sideways out of my seat during the scary ride. As it was, i was able to steer into the skid as we were being pushed for what seemed like forever. So if in doubt, depending on state, province you are in, if they say where seatbelts and you got em, put em on or chance getting the fine. Trust me when I say that the ole girl,not spouse, bus got shoved around like a ping pong ball. Whatever was not tied in and even some things that were still managed to break loose, including dogs, laptops, cell phones, flower pots, and other doo dads and even tanks to name a few. Mind you I always kind of worried about the fridge pushing me out the window in just such a scenario, so i did what i thought would make it secure and then doubled it, it held. Glad to say we were in a coach, as I kinda feel that she saved our lives, I could not imagine what our old class A sticks and glue would have looked like except for maybe a flatdeck after likely shoving our toad right up front with us and likely beyond. I figure that is the worst case scenario next to being hit by a train, doh.... To wear or not to wear. Oh yes in case you are wondering, the bus survived and got better.. |
