> This brings up the question of "grandfathering" that I brought
> up before. I don't believe we need, for example, seatbelts,
> but I couldn't find the actual VC that allows for this
> (CVC 27315k only discusses the *manufacture* of newer vehicles).
It's not what you would call clear (big surprise there); but CVC 27315f
gives an exemption for not fitting belts to older cars.
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27315.htm
OTOH, CVC 27315d and 27315e are the parts that require you and your
passengers to WEAR a belt; and it doesn't mention the exemption. I've been
told that this means you don't have to add them (nor wear them if the car
does not have them); BUT if the car has them, you have to wear them.
However the CHP who wrote the report when my TR3A got totaled clearly
believed that the law did not require that I wear them, whether the car had
been fitted or not. He asked if I was wearing a belt, then glanced at the
car and said "No, I guess not."
Bottom line, "grandfathering" is a nice concept and frequently gets a nod in
new laws. But there is no guarantee, they don't have to do it and you can't
automatically assume they did.
Randall
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
This list supported in part by the Vintage Triumph Register
http://www.vtr.org
Triumphs@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/triumphs
http://www.team.net/archive
|