VW automatic parking brake. etc

[The Natural Philosopher]

I had the same on my Bedford Van, but I discovered the new (oversize) bolts and washers and adjusting it exactly as per the manual made it all OK.

[The Natural Philosopher]

New cars? Not many.

[The Natural Philosopher]

It was a bolt on extra - I had it on a spitfire - worked in 3rd and 4th gears

Gave it a sort of 6 speed box.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Probably an MOT failure if you do.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Fairly sure front seatbelts became mandatory fitment around 62.. Cant think of a car later than that I drive that didn't have em

Was a lot later before wearing them became compulsory though.

Ah. The anchorage points became mandatory in 1965..

Compulsory wearing was 1983.

[News]

Heh. But what was made to mop up like a sponge, because they're double thick?

And what cleans a big, big carpet for less than half a crown?

What was clearly cool and minty?

What was A taste of Paradise

[News]

In message , The Natural Philosopher writes

That sounds about right. I don't think any of my then second hand cars did not have seat belts, and all would have been 1960s. Certainly my Zephyr and Zodiac Mk IIIs had front seat belts fitted, with bench seats.

I didn't really get into the habit of wearing belts until 74 when I left home. My Mum made me promise to wear a belt on journeys home from Bristol to Herts. The habit stuck.

[charles]

a bit later, that when I got my first car. Even my new one, in 1965, didn't have mounting points.

[Tim Streater]

My new Mini Trav, 1966, did. And I fitted belts into it in 1967 for first trip Abroad.

[damduck-egg]

Why would that be ? Car has a wing/Door mirror each side . It would be no different to the many vans I have driven where an interior mirror has not been fitted because all they would have done is reflected a solid steel panel. Would it be an MOT failure if I obscured the rear windows so much so people could not see the contents as many tradesmen do with vans/estates therby making the interior mirror useless.

G.Harman

[Huge]

IIRC, the C&U Regs require a rear view mirror adjustable by the driver without leaving their seat. So long as there's a wing mirror that's reachable (or presumably, electrically adjustable) there's no problem.

My Caterfield had no "interior" mirror at all, and the MOT testers never said a word about it.

[Bob Eager]

1001. Bought some last week. From CPC!

Dunno.

Bounty.

[NY]

You're probably right. It doesn't even have the quirkiness of the Quartic steering wheel on its rival in the boring stakes, the Austin Allegro. Mind you, there's also the Morris Ital and the Rovers (the 214?) that were around at the same time - the 1980s was doldrum time for Austin/Morris/Rover.

[NY]

That's interesting. Maybe when dad asked the garage about fitting seat belts in mum's Moggie (registered late 1959 or early 1960 according to its reg number UBL 242) the garage didn't want the business, if seat belts were available and could be fixed. Was you mum's a 2-door or 4-door? That might have made a difference to the strength of the B pillars and the fact that non-retractable belts can get tangled up in the feet of the rear passenger as they are getting in and out.

And I believe the previous owner of mum's car was also a nurse so you'd think she'd have been more safety-conscious than many other people, as you say.

It's weird getting into an old car with seat belts that are non-retractable and, more to the point, where the floor-mounted part of the latch is on a belt rather than a stiff length of springy metal, so it gets lost between the seats instead of staying just by your left/right hip where you need it to plug in the buckle on the belt. I'd forgotten about the chunky buckles where you lifted a flap to unlatch the buckle and then folder it flat again to latch it after fastening the belt. Change (usually but not always as improvement) happens and you quickly forget how things used to be.

[NY]

If the fitting became mandatory in 65, then mum's car slipped through the net because it was registered in 59/60. But all dad's new cars (the first one I can remember was a C-reg Austin Cambridge so 1965) would have had them fitted. My dad was very strict about making sure that we all wore seat belts - though only in the front because "if you're in the back the seat in front will save you" - which slow-mo films of simulated crash tests show is not the case: I remember that graphic safety film in the 1970s which showed a lad in the back of the car, with his sister in the front seat, and it said something like "he shot forward and killed his sister - and then he sat down again" as his body was flung forward and then rebounded after the impact.

My friend's dad swore blind that seat belts were dangerous and cited the case where his car had been hit from the side and he'd avoided being crushed by being able to slide across the bench seat at the last moment, which wouldn't be possible with a centre console and gear lever, even though you might be able to bend your upper body aside slightly... if there was time and almost certainly things would happen far to fast for you to be able to do this.

I was used to wearing a seat belt ("Clunk click every trip") long long before the mandatory wearing in 1983.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

My 1800 (land crab) had a cable change. Nothing wrong with it - unlike the later rod change that developed loads of free play. No idea why the Maxi wasn't as good - cable changes are common enough these days.

But how many miles? They too wore out quite quickly. Of course they could be fixed.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Much later than 62. And some new cars fitted them before it became a requirement. As did some individuals on used cars.

[Tim Watts]

"The Treacle Stirrer". What was right with it would be a more apt question - maybe the Maxi had a poor implementation.

A lot. 80,000 or more IIRC

[NY]

Talking of crap gear lever linkages reminds me of the one on the Renault 4 and 6, and the Citroen 2CV. The hockey-stick lever (in/out for third to fourth, rotate 45 degress anti clockwise with a push/pull motion for fourth to second) connects to a long rod that runs over the engine and has a horizontal plate welded to the far end with a hole in the middle of it. The gearbox (between the engine and the radiator) has a conventional gear lever rod sticking up out of it and this goes through the hole in the plate. A rubber grommet in the plate cushions things. As you move the gear lever, this motion is transferred to forward/backwards left/right movement of the lever in the gearbox.

Fine. Until the grommit comes out... This happened to me as I was learning to drive on my mum's Renault 6. I reversed into a farm gateway to turn round and when I took my hand off the gear lever having engaged first to set off again, the knob flopped upside down and whacked me on the knee - the grommet had fallen out allowing the plate and gearbox rod to become unmeshed. My dad has never since allowed me to forget that I uttered the immortal words "Is it supposed to do that?"

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Certainly wasn't on the 1800. Extremely positive. Perhaps too much so for some - who'd prefer some rubber in the way.

My 1800 had covered over 150,000 hard miles before I got rid of it. Did have a full engine re-con in the process. But the gearchange never gave trouble - other than adjusting it correctly when I first got the car. Perhaps it was designed by a better engineer than the Maxi one.