[CBarnes69]

Were seatbelts an option in 65? A guy I work with has a 65 and he claims his car didn't come with seatbelts because they were an option. If so, is it legal to drive without them for that year?

-- I'm not that dumb to drive without them, I'm just wondering for informational purposes.

 

[65rangoon]

I think only rear seat belts were an option in 65...

 

[65fstbk]

Front belts were standard..the rear were an option.


Joe

 

[TheDude]

Rear seatbelts became mandatory in 1966.

 

[SAC69]

In CA, the law states your veh needs to use what it came with. If your car does not have rear belts, they cannot cite you here for not using them since they are not there to begin with.

My car has the separate shoulder belt and I can be ticketed for not using it even though I have a lap belt on.

 

[HuKares]

In Ohio, I was cited for not wearing my seatbelt even though I was. I went to court with it just because it was ridiculous. I argued that the cop wouldn't know if I was wearing my seatbelt as it only has a lap belt. He mearly pulled me over to ask about the car and felt he had to give me something to seem like he had cause. The judge still upheld the citation because I wasn't wearing a shoulder harness and my car has to meet current safety regulations. I (respectfully sounding) disagreed with him and gave an example. He wouldn't argue or answer the point, he just upheld his ruling. This is just an example of what happened to me. And, an example that traffic court is just another way of saying guilty no matter what. Just ask Johnpro.
And to top this story off, this happened a few years ago when I was the manager at a rental store. A few months after the the situation above, I had a problem with a customer on both returning and paying for a piece of equipment. Of course that person was the judge mentioned above and I had to have the sheriff get the equipment back. The judge refused to pay and never has that I know of. How do people like this get into these positions of trust?
I'm done venting now. It takes me a while to get over things I guess ::.
-Brian

 

[johnpro]

Tom, that's not accurate. California vehicle code states that all passengers must be restrained with a DOT approved safety belt. There's no law that says people have to put seat belts in the back of their '65 that came without them, but if they don't, they can't legally have passengers back there on any public California roads.

The law is confusing because the car only has to have the equipment it originally came with, but all passengers must have a restraint, which is kind of contradictory in a '65/prior vehicle.

 

[johnpro]

And, an example that traffic court is just another way of saying guilty no matter what. Just ask Johnpro.

I totally agree. I'm more familiar with California law, having lived here for the last 23 years. In California, you CANNOT have a jury in a traffic matter. To me, that goes against every fiber our system was originally built on. There's a reason for it, though ... traffic court is not intended to be a judicial system, it's strictly a profit center.

 

[Dean_T]

What I find distressing also is one can't fight parking tickets in court any more.

To answer the orignal question again: Yes, '65 Mustangs came standard with front lap belts.

The rear were optional and there aren't any ready made holes for them - the dealer or installer gets to butcher the car!

Regards,

Dean T

 

[mgmradio]

Frunt seatbelts were standard equipment in 65,but if you read the window sticker they were one of two standard options that could be deleated,The other was the heater.My vert is a seatbelt deleat car.

 

[CBarnes69]

Man, you guys are thorough

 

[Mustangerbob1]

Better hurry on this post. It is hard to find a living person that did not have a set of front seat belts.