Lmfao sorry guys ,however i really get a kick out of this crap!!!

All automobiles at time of manufacture met FEDERAL Safety standards...
Not Provincial...Now think Jurisdiction.

An i whole- heartedly agree with this statement!

It will be interesting to see what Lickers position is after a owner of a million dollar 1932 Duesenburg takes him to court because the car came without windshield washers and he cant get a safety.

All I was getting too was all of this crap is beatable in a court of law not that it should have to come to that,however more times then not it does>

My posts are not intended to belittle or cut anyone down it is to share knowledge...So please keep an open mind when reading my posts ...

i have actauly been forced to defend myself in court an have won many times on most of these issues..
So i am very sorry if you mistook anything posted as a personal attack ..Simply not the case..

Enjoy the new year too all the best.

-- Edited by Ground Pounder on Thursday 5th of January 2017 12:02:31 AM

I was an MTO officer for 23 years and I specialized in the Motor Vehicle Inspection Station program from its inception in 1974, and regulations like Reg. 611 were the bread and butter of the program. There seems to be a misconception that the new “Passenger/Light-Duty Vehicle Inspection Standard” Reference Handbook is Regulation 611 – it’s not. This is simply a guide that has been “adopted by reference” within Reg. 611 for the inspection of light duty vehicles. The actual regulation covers a lot more, such as the inspection of heavy commercial vehicles, salvage vehicles, motorcycles, buses, exemptions, etc. There’s a link to the Reg below.

The issue of vehicles that meet the definition of a “historic vehicle”, such as the examples of a restored Model T or a Duesenberg, requiring seat belts and so on is pure nonsense, regardless of who says so. Below is section 12 from the newest version of Reg. 611 that exempts “historic vehicles” from some of the systems and equipment in newer vehicles in order to qualify for a Safety Standards Certificate – remember, this is from the actual Regulation not the Handbook. This exemption has been in the Reg forever and it’s the same basic wording as in past versions. It means that a “historic vehicle” (if it truly meets the definition in the Reg) must meet the new inspection standards “relative to its design, construction and operation”. Note the “..relative to..” phrase. That means it only has to meet the standards that apply to that vehicle when manufactured, and there were no federal safety standards when the vehicles mentioned were built. A Model T didn’t have seat belts, therefor none are required for a Safety Standards Certificate, same thing for heaters, defrosters, etc. where they weren’t originally installed by the OEM on some other vehicles. I’m still not comfortable with the requirement from MTO for seat belts on vehicles that were built before the Federal laws existed but that is a battle for another day. Also, once on the road, the driver and passengers of a vehicle that was manufactured without seat belts are exempt from the sections of the HTA that require them to be worn – Reg. 613, see below. However, if belts have been installed they must be worn, and inspected for a Safety Standards Certificate. Now, once you start modifying a vehicle from the “historic” definition all bets are off and it must meet all the new standards (and I am quite aware of that vague phrase “substantially…unmodified”!).

The MTO staff that have been quoted do not have the final say in the application of Reg. 611 (or the new Reference Handbook) any more than I did when I was in uniform – the actual Regulation is the law, not what any officer (MTO or police) or bureaucrat says (and I was one of those too, later in my career). If push comes to shove in a court room the actual wording of the Regulation is what is at stake, not someone’s biased version of the “truth”. That’s why a lawyer or a good paralegal is important if it comes to that.

Just read the actual Regulation and the Handbook folks. I know some people think it’s a lot of mumbo jumbo and that some kind of black art is involved but there isn’t – it’s really not that hard! Most people on this forum, and other forums too, are smart enough and mechanically inclined enough to understand the language in the Reg and the Handbook and apply it to their vehicle. But please, don’t try to put some weird spin on it just because of some urban myth you might have heard, or what you really want it to say to suit your particular vehicle, or what someone told you, even me – JUST READ THE DAMN REGULATION! Thanks for listening.

HTTPS://WWW.ONTARIO.CA/LAWS/REGULATION/900611/V16

REGULATION 611 – SAFETY INSPECTIONS
DEFINITIONS (from Reg. 611)

1. In this Regulation,
“historic vehicle” means a motor vehicle that,
(a) is at least 30 years old, and
(b) is substantially unchanged or unmodified from the original manufacturer’s product;

HISTORIC VEHICLES (from Reg. 611)
12. An historic vehicle inspected under section 3, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 5, 5.1, 8 or 10, as applicable, shall be inspected and tested in accordance with the inspection requirements referred to in that section and shall be in a functional condition relative to its design, construction and operation.

REGULATION 613 – SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES
10. Where a motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies for each seating position and not modified so that there is a seat belt assembly for each seating position is driven on a highway,
(a) the driver is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (2) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if there is no seat belt assembly at the driver’s seating position
(b) a passenger is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (3) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if the passenger occupies a position without a seat belt assembly and there is no other available seating position with a seat belt assembly; and
(c) the driver is exempt from clause 106 (4) (a) of the Act with respect to any passenger described in clause (b).
(b) the driver is exempt from the provisions of subsection 106 (4) of the Act with respect to the requirement that a passenger wear the torso restraint component of a seat belt assembly.

teejay99 wrote:

---

Having said all that , if it was MY historic vehicle , I would at least install seat belts but that would be my choice . The chances of surviving even a seemingly mild accident would be increased with the help of some kind of restraint .......too bad they can't manufacture a generic air bag kit  

 

T

---

 What size wood screws would I need to use to install seat belts on a Model T? Would Henry Ford roll over in his grave if I used Robertson screws?

@ TIME TRAVELLER; Thank you SIR Much respect.

Time Traveller.. I appreciate your imput.