HB326

This would seem to rarely apply, and contrary to the lack of motorcycle helmet laws

Most old cars were not designed with a place strong enough to mount seat belts. The cars see limited use. Owners may not want to modify a very expensive original car to add something that looks totally out of place. Anyone concerned about safety has already added seat belts. Please leave it up to the owners.

As an owner and driver of two antique automobiles, I strongly oppose HB 326. My wife and I belong to multiple antique car clubs and enjoy touring on "back roads" by ourselves and with groups of fellow enthusiasts. Our cars, a 1930 Ford Model A roadster and a 1931 Ford Model A sedan, are restored and can be driven safely at the posted speed limit on most state and many sections of US highways throughout New England. In cases when we cannot maintain the speed limit, we move to the shoulder when safe to do so in order to limit our impact on travelers in modern cars. The same can be said for most drivers of antique automobiles. When traveling with modern traffic, safety is taken very seriously and I believe drivers of antique automobiles are among the safest on the road. While I trust that those who crafted this bill did so with the best of intentions, it has a number of inconsistencies with existing laws, as I know others have pointed out. I firmly believe that our traffic law enforcement personnel and resources can be put to better use than ticketing drivers of antique automobiles for not installing seatbelts in cars that were not designed for them. For example, reporting about the raft of excessive and reckless speeding at 100+ mph is very concerning, as is the epidemic of distracted driving, especially texting. In my opinion, those activities warrant much greater attention than restricting the use of antique cars on our roads, which is what HB 326 appears to attempt.

This bill seems to target the classic auto enthusiast since NH does not require seatbelts to be worn under the age of 18.

We do not need this worthless legislation. Live free or die

New Hampshire is the "Live Free or Die" state, if a car owner opts to not install seat belts, it is the same as opting not to wear them. That should continue to be their choice (assuming all occupants are over 18) Antique vehicles are not generally the cars causing accidents. Most owners of antique, restored cars are very careful as they have spent money on the restoration and upkeep of these old cars.

I oppose this bill

There is no way that pre-war cars can meet the federal standards for seatbelts.

This is a completely unessessary bill. It also violates the Antique cars purity and authentication, never mind the fact many cars older than 1968 cannot viably place in such restraints and meet today's safety protocols as cars 1968 and older were done under another set of safety protocols for those years made. So a definite NO to this Bill.

The vast majority of owners for these types of vehicles are 18, or older, and are typically collectors. There is no requirement for the age group noted to use seat belts. This is another nanny state attempt of control. Since many are collectibles, this requirement would cause these vehicles to lose value because they will no longer be able to be "original", The author has not supplied any data supporting the benefits of this bill. How many lives will be saved? How many of these types of vehicles have been involved in accidents, fatal or otherwise, in the past ten years? No cost/benefit analysis.

This is a ridiculous bill and needs to be stopped! Live free or die

These cars do not have provisions for 3 point seatbelts (ie shoulder harness) like modern vehicles. There is not much benefit to lap belts alone. I oppose this law.

I don't want to drill holes into classic cars. I oppose this law

Live Free or Die is still the state moto, we should maintain freedoms, and allow people to make their own choices

I have a collection of antique vehicles that are fully original. Adding seatbelts to these original vehicles is costly and unnecessary for the amount of time they are driven. My family enjoys the simplicity of these vehicles. It's nice to have hassle free rides and enjoying a blast from the past. There are too many rules and people in your business now a day. I whole heartedly OPPOSE this law.

I believe in live free or die. That is why I moved to NH. I believe every adult deserves free will and the ability to make their own choices. Therefore, I oppose this bill. Thank you

Say NO to nanny state. Antique cars are preserved as STOCK. Modifications are antithetic. Does one believe owner would be reckless with his investment?

As an avid antique automobile enthusiast I cannot describe in enough detail how vehemently opposed to the legislation I am. 1) To specifically target antique automobile drivers in a state with no general seatbelt law is completely backwards. 2) The idea that being strapped into an antique vehicle in an accident is more horrifying than potential ejection. Clearly the sponsors of this bill have done little to no research on causes of injuries in auto accidents of years past. Sometimes ejection is the best hope to avoid injury in antique vehicles. 3) Unenforceable. “For more than 20 miles.” Why would anyone answer that question in a traffic stop? Unless the Police tailed the vehicle in question for 20 miles, how can they determine distance traveled? Also, what’s stopping the driver simply stopping and exiting the vehicle at mile 19 for a brief moment, then starting again? This proposal is just badly written overall. On behalf of myself and the many voiceless residents of the live free or die state who value their autonomy, but have not submitted testimony today…please do not move forward with this ridiculous proposal. Thank you.

Although well intentioned, this bill is unnecessary and unimplementable. It would be impossible to install seatbelts in most if not all pre-1920 vehicles that would meet federal standards as called for in the bill. The bill conflicts with NH’s policy of not requiring seatbelt use in any vehicle.. if this bill were to pass, antique vehicles would have to be retrofitted with seatbelts, but there would be no requirement that they be worn. The 20 mile distance limitation is unclear. For example, could an antique vehicle be driven 20 miles, stopped, then driven another 20 miles, or is the 20 mile limit circumferential to the address of the vehicle’s registration address and could be driven an unlimited distance as long as it was within 20 miles of that point? One presumes that this new onerous requirement would only apply to NH registered vehicles which would preclude non-compliant cars from participating in the many antique car tours the occur during the warmer months, or worse, it might prohibit out of state cars from touring in the State. In short, the bill is not well thought out, poorly drafted and unimplementable. I urge the committee to find it in expedient to legislate. Thank you, Charles Bass

What happened to live free or die? In a state with no seat belt law, this is crazy. What's next?

First and foremost ,NH motto is live free or die,second,we DO NOT have a mandatory seat belt law,third,school busses aren't required to have seat belts so why on earth would those of us with antique autos that only generally get driven very little,hundreds of miles at most usually during the summer season need them when they weren't installed from the factory . This in my opinion is absolute nonsense and needs to be thrown out.

This is the most foolish bill I have ever heard of. This state has no seat belt law, yet you want to destroy the originality of classic vehicles to mandate the installation of them? Whoever comes up with this stuff is a bit absurd!

Seat belts arr currently NOT required in SCHOOL BUSSES. There is absolutely no basis in requiring them in vehicles 1968 and older. Some of them didn't even come from the factory with seat belts.

Surely this is a joke that someone wants to require seatbelts in antique vehicles? Shall we break this down and TRY and make sense of it? Surely it was written by someone with no ability to use logic or rational thinking of any sort. There are five good reasons that this bill is a waste of time and resources. 1.) Currently, anyone over the age of 18 can choose to NOT wear a seatbelt in the state of NH while driving a modern vehicle. Modern vehicles can reach speeds in excess of 100+MPH. Top speed in my antique truck and any other antique vehicle I own is 40-45 MPH. And someone wants to require ME to wear a seatbelt while driving slowly and cautiously to avoid any collisions with my prized possessions? Modern vehicles are also designed with a passenger compartment (engineered with crumple zones) that protect the occupants by keeping them in place INSIDE the safety of the passenger compartment BY DESIGN. Not in an antique. My antique was built with simple heavy steel frames and sheet metal during a more simple time and era. The design is that IF an accident were to occur, you were thrown clear. I can assure you that if I had the misfortune of being involved in a collision, my vehicle would not take the brunt of the impact. Has Rep Horrigan provided any studies of this nature to prove that there is any merit to bill? Requiring seatbelts in vehicles NOT DESIGNED for them could literally cause more harm than intended, which seems par for the course when "government gets involved trying to legislate peoples decision making because you know better". 2.) What mechanic in their right mind, would take on the liability of installing aftermarket seatbelts in a vehicle not designed for them? How do you propose antique vehicle owners install said seatbelts? 3.) Motorcycles (of which New Hampshire is known for attracting during spring, summer and fall, ie Laconia Bike Week) can reach speeds in excess of 100+ MPH. However they aren't required to wear helmets OR seatbelts. I would love to know how many injuries and deaths occurred while driving a motorcycle vs in an antique vehicle. Is there a sudden pandemic of unknown antique vehicle accidents that we aren't aware of? I would love to see the statistics that Rep Horrigan has concerning the number of antique vehicles that travel our roads that are involved in accidents resulting in bodily injury and death compared to the thousands of bikes that descend on our state even just one week a summer. Seriously, what kind of nonsense is this? 4.) Lets discuss school buses and their precious cargo that also does not require seatbelts. Your goal is to protect 1-2 people in an antique vehicle going to and from a parade or for ice cream maybe a dozen times a year. But no seatbelts are required for a school bus carrying 45 children, twice a day more than 180 days of the year? One would think, the odds of someone getting injured in a school bus are far greater than driving a Ford Model A to a car show one night a week for the summer. 5.) Lastly, to which, your wording "...for more than 20 miles..." also shows your lack of understanding of the nature of antique vehicles. Most of the people that I know, TRAILER their precious antique vehicles to and from shows long distance. Not many people drive them far. This bill in its entirety is garbage and shows a complete lack of knowledge and foresight. Please let us enjoy our hobby without making things more difficult and costly with your well intentioned but severely misguided mindset.

As an antique car and truck owner and enthusiast, I oppose this bill. My husband and I take great pleasure in traveling the NH roads in all of our vehicles - whether antique or updated. The requirement of seatbelts and the occupants being required to use them, flies in the face of the "Live Free or Die" rights we enjoy. This should remain a choice. Thank you.