Today's (Aug. 1) Detroit newspapers contain heart-rending stories about a fellow who spent three years helping a wealthy friend restore a 1929 Duesenberg. Before delivering the freshly-completed restoration to its owner for exhibit at a car show, he took his wife and an 8-year-old child for a final spin in the car. The Duesenberg was hit by another car that was reported to have run a stop sign and rolled three times, ejecting and killing all three people. The newspapers made much of the fact that the car was not equipped with seat belts because that would "ruin its value." (Of course, it is questionable whether belting the occupants into an open, wooden carbody is of any value, but given the Duesenberg's stout, cast-aluminum cowl it might have helped.)Just a reminder that when you bring back old technology, you bring back its dangers as well, and the passage of time does not reduce them.- Aarne H. Frobom (who unhesitatingly drilled holes in his `61 Lincoln for lap belts)

We recently returned from a vacation in Maui. There is a taxi (one) there called "Classy Taxi" which is a 1929 (?) model A, held together with pipe strapping and duct tape. It is a real taxi, with meter and license. It has the driver's bench seat, and then two facing bench seats, original upholstry, in the passenger compartment, with suicide doors, etc. No roof, no seat belts, no hand holds, and we sped from resort to town on the divided road at 45 mph. It was fun, but my wife and I decided once was enough.Two lessons:1) you can still insure and offer some risky experiences in the USA2) just because you can does not mean you should

Yeah Aarne, I saw the clips on Fox2 news the yesterday. Very sad story. They said they weren't sure why the young guy in the Volvo didn't stop. They had a gentleman from the Concours D' Elegance (for those who don't know, a PREMIUM vintage automotive event in SE Michigan) explaining that back then, not only did the automakers not even ENVISION seatbelts, but they also probably didn't have anywhere that they could put one (or securely anchor one safely) on that classic Duesie! A very tragic accident that looks like the newspapers tried to trivilize. For once, the TV news got it right! The owner of the car said he plans on restoring it again, although I'm sure it would feel quite awkward driving it given the circumstances.The only car I've ever been in w/o seatbelts was a 1964 1/2 Mustang convertible. White vinyl seats (recently Armour All-ed) and NO seatbelts either! Gave this boy an appreciation for safety back when I was 11!!Take care, be safe, and God bless!Dave JandronMichigan Transit Museum

Helmets?

This thread kind of strikes a nerve with me.First, I object to seat belt laws. Not wearing a seat belt doesn't hurt anyone but the person not wearing the seat belt. Therefore, it should be a matter of personal choice, not legislated. The same applies to motorcycle helmets. I do not believe that either seat belts or helmets should be mandated by law -- BUT anyone who doesn't wear them is an idiot.Next is the problem of operating a historic artifact in the modern world. I'm a firm believer in running stuff that will run -- so long as it can be done without jeopardizing the artifact. Clearly, operating a 1920s automobile on modern roads is risky as we all know that people these days can't drive worth a whit (and I've heard that Americans are the best and most courteous drivers in the world -- that's scary).Personally, I think the driver of the Deusie was irresponsible. He took a risk driving that ancient vehicle in modern traffic. Not only did he endanger himself and his family, he endangered the artifact. Pure irresponsibility from someone who, as a restorer, should have known better. The other driver was wrong, too, don't get me wrong -- but he shouldn't bear all of the blame in this particular case.

This is a common misconception. One of the functions of the seatbelts is to keep the driver at the controls. If the initial impact throws you across the car, it becomes an uncontrolled projectile that can harm anyone in the way.This is off-topic, but important to know.

You know, I wasn't going to respond to this because I honestly didn't think it was on-topic, figuring it for one, was a good one for the lawyers as a result of a very unfortunate situation. However, I don't think that blaming the victim is a correct assessment, and it goes on too much today. Perhaps we should forget about steaming up the 3985 or the 844 and taking it out on today's mainline exursions too, because it "may" run amok of clearances or weight restrictions, and well, something just may happen in that modern world out there. A truck driver, such as in North Carolina yesterday, may drive around those gates into one of these things, as well as an Amtrak train. If so, is our responses going to be "we shouldn't have even been out here?" Are we to tell all the antique cars guys, and the even the newer Rolls-Royce, Aston Martin, Ferrari, etc people to just lock them up, and put them away in a museum? Make them "trailer" or "macadam" queens because we have to eternally worry about someone may do to us? Heck, we can even save a couple of bucks on insurance premiums. Every time I get into my Corvette, a car that is all original and restored properly, I worry about what can happen. It's only natural that we do. But in reality, what can happen in the Corvette can happen in my Ford too. Whether we like it or not, we live in a litigious society, one that makes laws through legal proceedings. The outcome of these proceedings usually leads to the enactment of laws and requirements such as liability insurance, helmets, seat belts, air bags ( much legal ramifications here), roll bars, it goes on and on. Society makes the rules, and agree or not, we have to abide by them. Everything this country is built on is based on freedom. We should feel free to legally do what we please, and if consequences dictate otherwise, we have to deal with them. To take the opinion that we should perhaps curl up into a ball and hide is to say that we should build all homes with eight foot walls and concertina. The risks we take start every day when we wake up in the morning, because none of us know what's around the corner.

I knew my comments would be misconstrued. I tried to head this point off by choosing my words carefully, but I see it didn't work.Please note that I wrote that I believe stuff SHOULD be operated if it can be done SAFELY. It's possible under certain conditions to operate a fairly modern steam locomotive on the main line safely. It's certainly possible under certain conditions to safely operate just about any steam locomotive on a tourist or museum railroad.Your example above misses the point I'm trying to make. You say a truck driver might drive around the gates in front of a steam engine. OK, yes, he might. Which loco would you rather have on the point of the train that hits him -- the 844 or the CP Huntington? The former will be damaged, but most likely the truck is going to come out worse. The latter would be all but destroyed in such a wreck. Running the CP Huntington in this situation would be irresponsible, while running the 844 would not.And that's my point. It's a reasonable risk to drive some antique vehicles in modern traffic. It's an unreasonable risk to drive others. The Deusie, with its wooden body, falls into the latter category IMHO. A '65 Mustang is a reasonable risk on just about any highway. Would you take a Model T on the Interstate, though?

Sorry, I don't buy that. Once you hit something (or something hits you) you're already out of control. The chances of being able to control a vehicle after an impact -- seat belt or no -- are very, very low.Apologies for continuing an off-topic subthread, but I couldn't let this one go by.

losing control of the car isnt the point..the point is that if you are *not* wearing a seatbelt, your unrestrained body can become a deadly weapon, harming or killing other passengers.therefore its not a true statement to say "Not wearing a seat belt doesn't hurt anyone but the person not wearing the seat belt."not wearing a seatbelt can harm other people.of course, if the driver is the ONLY person in the car, then I agree seatbelt use shouldnt be mandatory..but then you would have to have a law that says "all occupants must wear a seatbelt if 2 or more people are in the car, but seatbelt use is not required if only one person is in the car"..its too complicated..much easier to just say "seat belt use is always required"Scot

I don't know whether anyone realizes it or not, but the Model T and Model A club of America has a convention every year which many owners drive their cars to from all over the country.When I was in Cumberland Railfanning this past May, the Maryland contingent was there at the Holiday Inn and most of them had driven their vehicles from locations throughout the area. I assume these people are well aware of the risks of doing so, and chose to do so for the same reasons that we in our hobby may use the DeWitt Clinton ( replica or otherwise), Flying Yankee, Roger Williams set, 1218, etc. This is a hobby/ego thing that is no different from what we do in the railroad scene.