Lonnie-S wrote:
[(snip)
Seatbelts were not required in California until January 1, 1964 (it wasn't a law that you actually wear them until 1986 - WTF?). So, it looks to me like the standards don't apply, at least in my case, to my Locost. That does not mean I will be dumb enough to leave them out, however. But it looks like the DOT/Race Car legality logic does not apply.
How did you get your state to say that Locost is a 1958-ish vehicle? My state is putting 2019 "hot rod" rules to mine...
My elderly memory says that seat belt usage laws only became common when 1) the alternative was the 1980's "attack belts" and 2) the air bag made not wearing a belt pretty iffy. And of course, seat belt laws are great things for cops to use to pull folks over tht look iffy....
Lonnie-S wrote:
I kinda like the idea of a dual belt (DOT for street, race car for track) system, but I'm not sure it is workable. I've got the one 5-point race car setup, so it will go in first on the drivers side. Maybe DOT 3-point, retractable with a supplemental submarine belt on wifeys side, if possible?
Has anyone seen submarine belts used outside of race car applications?
Cheers,
And that will work great if 1) you're happy doing the 5-point thing at the start of a pleasure drive thru the countryside and 2) you're happy not being able to move around when you get a cramp in the leisurely drive, etc and 3) you're understanding that there potential problems if you're doing that and not wearing the HANS. Kinda like understanding that a roll bar might have its hazards if you're not wearing a helmet, etc.
Of course the submarine belt is used outside of race car applications, lots of cafe-racers have 5-points. Can you convince your female significant other that she really should put that thing on, and that the ride she'll be taking will be that hazardous? If so, wondering if she wouldn't rather drive the thing!!?!?!?? You dating Danica? Simona? Sabine? (I've met 2 of the 3)