# seat belt laws in the rear



## ytank (Jan 9, 2008)

hi can any one tell me if you need to were seat belt in the rear on side facing seat :?: :twisted:


----------



## chapter (May 1, 2005)

if there fitted yes 
chapter


----------



## aultymer (Jun 20, 2006)

Hi, 
The side facing seat and seatbelt debate has been well covered in these forums. 
This a great chance for you to hone your search skills using the 'Search Forums' line from the left hand sidebar in the 'Home' page. 




Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day! 
Teach him to fish and you feed him for life. (that's fine if he likes fish!!)


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

ytank said:


> hi can any one tell me if you need to were seat belt in the rear on side facing seat?


Google is always your friend. This from the Dept of Transport in 2006:-

There is currently no legal requirement to have seat belts fitted to side-facing seats or seats that make up the accommodation area in motor caravans.
Regulation 46 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986: as amended states motor caravans first used on or after 1st April 1982 but before 1 October 1988 shall be equipped with anchorage points for the driver's seat and specified passenger seat (if any); and for motor caravans first used on or after 1st October 1988 shall be equipped with anchorage points for the driver's seat and any forward-facing front seat.
You can download a copy of the SI at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2001/20011043.htm.

However, this does not preclude manufacturers fitting seat belts to forward facing or rearward facing seats within the accommodation area if they wish to do so.

Where seat belts are fitted they must be worn.

Re. the carrying of passengers in unbelted seats:-

... seats in the rear of a campervan/motorhome do not, at present, require seatbelts (whether forward, rearward or sideways facing) and it is not illegal to carry unrestrained passengers in them while travelling, providing the vehicle is not overloaded. It is not something we would recommend, however.

Although current seat belt wearing regulations do not currently prohibit carrying more passengers in vehicles than there are seat belts available, the police may prosecute drivers for carrying passengers in a manner that may injure someone. We would advise that no-one should be carried in any unbelted seat in the rear of a motorhome.

A recent Directive (2005/40/EC) on the installation of seat belts requires that from 20 October 2007 new vehicles will have to have seat belts fitted on all seats except those seats intended solely for use when the vehicle is stationary.

Where seat belts are fitted, from May 2009, the seat belt wearing Directive will prevent more passengers being carried than there are seat belts in the rear of vehicles.

The new requirements will mean that from May 2009, in any vehicle of whatever age, where seat belts are fitted in the rear, more passengers may not be carried in the rear than there are seat belts available.

The critical points are that for owners of older motorhomes, it will not become illegal to carry passengers in the rear, provided that no seatbelts are fitted to any seats behind the driver and front passenger seats. Owners of any motorhome that has belts fitted to any seat in the rear will need to be aware that, from May 2009, it will be illegal to carry passengers in any unbelted seats.

The advisability of carrying unrestrained passengers is another matter:-

'... the police can already act where people in the rear of any vehicle are considered to be carried in a dangerous manner because they are unrestrained. [Owners] should beware of unbelted passengers. In a crash, they can injure others in the vehicle

There ya go.

Dougie.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

aultymer said:


> Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day
> Teach him to fish and you feed him for life


Or:-

Give a man a search button and you get asked why it isn't working.... 

Dougie.


----------



## ytank (Jan 9, 2008)

*thanks to all*

that help me a lot had seat belts in last van


----------



## Pusser (May 9, 2005)

So if the police deem it is unsafe if they see passenger\s on rear unbelted seats presumably they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is unsafe. But I presume it would be reasonable to assume that it is not as safe as wearing seatbelts but is it as safe as riding in the back of a police van unrestrained or a bus or coach. So are we are talking about levels of safety rather than something which is absolutely unsafe to the point of stupidity. Is it safe to walk around a plane while it is in the air where air pockets are common place. No it is not but why then is it allowed. It is allowed because it is considerably safer than landing or taking off without a seatbelt.

I would imagine that with caution there is no reason why someone should not be carried as a passenger in the back while being aware that this is more dangerous than someone in the back with a seatbelt but where are we going to draw the line re safety.

I hasten to add I am not advocating one thing or another but I hate laws and interpetations of laws that are left to the plods to ponder looking at their record of safety on our roads.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Pusser said:


> I hate laws and interpetations of laws that are left to the plods to ponder looking at their record of safety on our roads.


As ever, never one to resist having a cheap pop, eh.

Dougie.


----------



## Pusser (May 9, 2005)

asprn said:


> Pusser said:
> 
> 
> > I hate laws and interpetations of laws that are left to the plods to ponder looking at their record of safety on our roads.
> ...


Yes I am sorry about that but it is mainly because I believe that overall the service we get from the police is poor. I have the same view about the NHS, Education, and other public services. The police are now reactive rather than proactive and while I do accept the dangers of the job, it is not the only job that has dangers and like other dangerous professions it is the choice of the individual. Of course one may argue that it is not the fault of the average policeman and I suspect this is true but that does not negate from the money and pension they get paid that therefore they generally only do what is the bear minimum. Just a month ago, 5 policeman arrived at a clients house to arrest a carer for possible fraud. Meanwhile at exactly the same time, 4 policemen arrested another carer who is also a client of mine. I think on balance the two carers could well be guiltly but just think of the extra work the not needed spare 5 policemen could be doing.

The downside to my having a pop is that I will of course upset policemeand women who work their backside off but I'm afraid that is the price to pay to highlight things which I feel should be highligted.

If there are members on here, which I am sure there are, that think we get value for money from the police then let us hear their reason which will be perfectly valid. Just because I hold a view does not mean I am right and unlike a lot of people, my views are not set in stone and will change if needed.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Pusser said:


> If there are members on here, which I am sure there are, that think we get value for money from the police then let us hear their reason which will be perfectly valid


History has shown here that even if they were to speak up, it would be as inconclusive as it would be vitriolic, which is why I am ............. outta here.......

<click>


----------



## Pusser (May 9, 2005)

asprn said:


> Pusser said:
> 
> 
> > If there are members on here, which I am sure there are, that think we get value for money from the police then let us hear their reason which will be perfectly valid
> ...


Well please do not refrain from saying your bit on my behalf. But we would probably need a new thread in the members bar otherwise this post which I found very useful and the info you stuck in will be spoilt so sorry for that.


----------



## carolgavin (May 9, 2005)

Pusser said:


> asprn said:
> 
> 
> > Pusser said:
> ...


Pusser petal whilst not negating your right to hold views on anything under the sun, including of course any public service you can think of ( none are without problems!!) as you have mentioned. Surely you can see the problem of having an unsecured person or three flying through the air in the event of an accident. I am pretty sure Dougie did say the police can act if the passengers were carried in a dangerous manner and it is anybodies interpretation of what is dangerous or not. Perhaps then there is a need to say no one can be carried in the rear without belts then no plod could interpret it incorrectly!!
The law as it stands needs to be tightened up but that is down to elected officials till then everyone is gonna have to make do with the inefficient plods :roll: :roll: :roll: 
As you know Gav is one of them and I am in the NHS........suppose between us we are two of the people resposible for the poor service as you put it....................feel free to ignore us as part of the great unwashed petal!!!  

PS Meant to say that neither of us are in any way offended or put out by your opinion, nor is any offense meant in our response!!


----------



## GerryD (Sep 20, 2007)

The simple answer is that if you do not have seat belts then your insurance company will not provide cover. If any part of the vehicle or persons or goods carried in it are not covered then it can be deemed that the whole vehicle does not have cover. In that case you can be prosecuted for having no insurance.
Also, no insurance company will nowadays cover any passenger in a sideways facing seat.
In other words don't do it.
Surely common sense should prevail. Just because these vehicles cover lower mileage and are likely to be better maintained by their owners does not mean that they are exempt from accidents. And, please dont anybody jump in and say that a MH driver will take more care. All accidents are down to the other driver.


----------



## vardy (Sep 1, 2006)

So does this mean I can 'belt up' my mates, - put 'him indoors' in a beltless seat, plan an emergency stop and get away with it with a bunch of character witnesses????? 
- Useful leftovers in our house are the pile of patio slabs I've saved........
If this gets out, the beltless seat in the back will have to have to be put on a waiting list (for unsatisfactory husbands). Wonder how many I could get away with before rumbled!!!!!
SSSSSSShhhhhhhhh - don't tell the cops on here. :lol: 
The above is my sickly humor, but thinking seriously, missing someone out of a belt is a bit like valuing them less - plus who else they could be flung into. It's so tempting though, when we can't get all the folk/kids in. I have personally never broken the rule. - But I don't feel smug, as I have to fight myself when I tell the grandkids they can't all come at once.


----------



## Pusser (May 9, 2005)

I do see dangers in unbelted passengers and I am sorry I spoilt a good post for jumping out my pram with my bizarre views but a few years ago people were moaning about wearing seatbelts. A few years ago people were moaning about banning smoking in places. The thing is how I have I gone in my life from driving my kids around in cars without seatbelts to almost certain death if I carry a passenger in the back. 

If we are worried aboiut back seat passengers, then why are we not so concerned when we step on a bus or a coach or to the best of my knowledge will the police arrest people and make them travel in the paddy wagon without restraint.

Are we not being particularly uneven minded and having double standards and while accepting there are dangers, are there similar dangers which for some reason we accept without question.


----------



## Briarose (Oct 9, 2007)

GerryD said:


> The simple answer is that if you do not have seat belts then your insurance company will not provide cover. If any part of the vehicle or persons or goods carried in it are not covered then it can be deemed that the whole vehicle does not have cover. In that case you can be prosecuted for having no insurance.
> Also, no insurance company will nowadays cover any passenger in a sideways facing seat.
> In other words don't do it.
> Surely common sense should prevail. Just because these vehicles cover lower mileage and are likely to be better maintained by their owners does not mean that they are exempt from accidents. And, please dont anybody jump in and say that a MH driver will take more care. All accidents are down to the other driver.


I am not sure this is true see this post



> Posted: 2008-01-08, 13:42:37
> 
> Chascass
> 
> ...


In the very same thing discussed a week ago in the Swift forum, my friend also rang Autotrail a few days ago to ask their opinion, the guy she spoke to said and I quote ' if you have a 6 berth and are carrying 6 passengers including the front two passenger seats, at this moment in time it wouldn't be against the law' he also referred to the driver carrying them in a responsible way and not overloading the motorhome.

Best to check with your own insurance company I think.


----------



## GerryD (Sep 20, 2007)

Pusser, like me you are being forced kicking and screaming into this wonderful namby-pamby PC life.
This probably explains why the coastguard resigned this week following complaints that he did not follow safety regulations before saving a life. 

Paperwork is now more important than life.

God, how I regret the danger, pain and stress that I must have caused to my parents, relatives and anyone else that knew me every time I climbed a tree when I was a kid.

This is not in any way aimed at any person or perfession that may be affected by my views or lack of consideration in sending this post.

Seriously, however, I do agree with the seatbelt regulations and would never support anybody who put a passenger in a non-belted seat.


----------



## GerryD (Sep 20, 2007)

Briarose said:


> GerryD said:
> 
> 
> > The simple answer is that if you do not have seat belts then your insurance company will not provide cover. If any part of the vehicle or persons or goods carried in it are not covered then it can be deemed that the whole vehicle does not have cover. In that case you can be prosecuted for having no insurance.
> ...


Briarrose,
Absolutely correct, and it will only be true if the insurance put that into writing as part of your policy. 
My betting is that they won't.
A few words over the phone have little effect after an accident. The important point is the number of seats under type approval.

Regards,
Gerry


----------



## Briarose (Oct 9, 2007)

Discussion can be found  HERE TOO if you haven't already seen it :wink:


----------



## carolgavin (May 9, 2005)

Pusser said:


> Are we not being particularly uneven minded and having double standards and while accepting there are dangers, are there similar dangers which for some reason we accept without question.


Probably but then tis not you or I who makes the rulesies petal!!!!
Why don't you start a new thread on how you would change/adapt the current laws to ensure no double standards or interpretation problems by police. 
One reason we got rid of our Lunar is because it only had two belted seats U lounge at back. It was a 4 berth, not illegal for our sons to travel but highly questionable with a view to safety. That is why we really only did short trips and took the car!!! We did not have an accident in that time but if we had, well the consequences for our boys was not good. Why did we buy it?? Good deal, good trade in and FIL with a desperate need to spend money. My reaction on seeing it for the first time was choice, but it was done. Worry over safety prompted us into changing it.
Was it dangerous?? Did not ever want to have the accident to find out!!!!!


----------

