# 1967 Oldsmobile Cutlass Convertible Safety Issue **URL:** \ **Category:** Maintenance/Repairs\ **Created:** [March 4, 2008, 6:55pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/1967-oldsmobile-cutlass-convertible-safety-issue/11441 "2008-03-04T18:55:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jtsanders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c2a13f/32.png) [@jtsanders](https://community.cartalk.com/u/jtsanders)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2008, 2:23am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/1967-oldsmobile-cutlass-convertible-safety-issue/11441/21 "2008-03-06T02:23:12Z")
It appears that the correct belts are available at the URL OK4450 cited for $26.99 each. They may have been an option, or may have been removed at some point. An Olds collector’s site might set the record straight. BTW, the replacement belts are billed as replacements for original equipment, implying that they had seat belts. As I recall, the 1966 Olds Cutlass Supreme my parents almost bought new had seat belts in it. And I know that the 1964 Cadillac they did buy had seat belts. ---
**Author:** ![keith](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/keith/32/5518_2.png) [@keith](https://community.cartalk.com/u/keith)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2008, 2:51am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/1967-oldsmobile-cutlass-convertible-safety-issue/11441/22 "2008-03-06T02:51:24Z")
All cars since 57 had anchor points for seatbelts in them, so installing seat belts will not butcher up your car. I think seatbelts were mandatory before 68, seems like it was 63 or 64. My mothers 58 olds and my Dad’s 64 Pontiac had them. I don’t remember if is 60 Chevy had them but my 60 El Camino did, as did my 60 Fiat, 64 Rambler, 66 Pontiac, 66 Ford and 66 Dodge. ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://community.cartalk.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2008, 2:57am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/1967-oldsmobile-cutlass-convertible-safety-issue/11441/23 "2008-03-06T02:57:04Z")
I did also think that was a little strange that the OP’s car doesn’t have them-- the big three had them standard by 1964 or 65 I think, although they weren’t actually required 'till 68. My '64 LeSabre has 'em, and it doesn’t have too many bells and whistles. I understand that removing them was a pretty common practice at that time, though. ---
**Author:** ![Craig58](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3da27b/32.png) [@Craig58](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Craig58)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2008, 3:38am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/1967-oldsmobile-cutlass-convertible-safety-issue/11441/24 "2008-03-06T03:38:42Z")
Would you ride a motorcycle (without seatbelts)? Realistically that’s much more dangerous than driving a sedan without seatbelts and we all jump on a motorcycle without a second thought of “danger.” What if you found a nice 40/50s car that had been “upgraded” with the latest technology from the 70s, would you be happy with it or would you be looking for the correct original parts? If you “upgrade” a 60s car now, it will also be a worthless mess in 20 or 30 years. There is no point in owning one of these if you are not going to preserve it. If you just want something that looks old, just buy a cobra kit car or something similar with a modern drive train. ---
**Author:** ![MikeInNH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a587f6/32.png) [@MikeInNH](https://community.cartalk.com/u/MikeInNH)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2008, 3:49am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/1967-oldsmobile-cutlass-convertible-safety-issue/11441/25 "2008-03-06T03:49:16Z")
I wouldn’t ride a donor bike… > There is no point in owning one of these if you are not going to preserve it. Again…that’s your OPINION…NOT MINE. ---
**Author:** ![Craig58](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3da27b/32.png) [@Craig58](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Craig58)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2008, 2:44pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/1967-oldsmobile-cutlass-convertible-safety-issue/11441/26 "2008-03-06T14:44:06Z")
OK, obviously we see things differently. ---
**Author:** ![MikeInNH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a587f6/32.png) [@MikeInNH](https://community.cartalk.com/u/MikeInNH)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2008, 5:43pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/1967-oldsmobile-cutlass-convertible-safety-issue/11441/27 "2008-03-06T17:43:23Z")
Yup…which is fine. I completely understand why you see things differently. I think there’s enough room for both schools of thought. [Previous page](https://community.cartalk.com/t/1967-oldsmobile-cutlass-convertible-safety-issue/11441.md?page=1)