# Seatbelt Debate



## Caggsie (Aug 19, 2008)

[Moderator Note-After a recent classified ad veered radically off topic to discuss the legality of seat belts in the rear of a motorhome the thread has now been split out.

The original query from Caggsie is about travel seats in the rear.If you have any comments to make please tag them on to the end of this thread.]

There's no mention of travel seats, doesn't look as though there are additional to drivers and passenger. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Regards

Karen


----------



## Boolush (Jul 30, 2009)

Hi Karen,

There are obviously seat belts for passenger and driver in the cab, but the bench seats are sideways on and so there are no seat belts there.

As far as I understand it (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) if seat belts are fitted then they must be worn. In the absence of seat belts then it's not against the law to travel without wearing one. The exception is children; they MUST wear a seat belt at all times.

There's conflicting opinion on the do's and don'ts, but essentially an adult is not breaking the law travelling in the sideward facing bench seats and not wearing a seat belt if seat belts aren't fitted. However, it is against the law for a child to.

There are several posts on the subject (on Motorhome Facts and other websites) and I've added a link to one within MHF below.

The passage reads:

There is another aspect to the "family motorhome". Although they may be advertised as "6 berth" or "4 berth", sometimes the travelling accommodation is compromised. Current UK law states that all travelling passengers must have seat belts if they are seated in forward-facing seats. Some motorhomes provide only lap belts, which some purchasers may not be comfortable using. In law, you are allowed to travel "unbelted" in the rear of a vehicle if there are insufficient seatbelts, but the wisdom of this must be questioned. Not wearing a seatbelt (where there is one available) carries a fine of £500.

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/modules.php?name=Beginners_Guide

Hugh


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

Boolush said:


> ..................................... but essentially an adult is not breaking the law travelling in the sideward facing bench seats and not wearing a seat belt if seat belts aren't fitted...................


Hi Boolush,

It depends on the year of manufacture,the law changed for vehicles registered after Oct.2007.After that date all rear seats that can legally carry passengers are marked as designated passenger seats and have seatbelts fitted.

If none of the rear seats have seat belts fitted then it is illegal to carry passengers in the rear.For vehicles registered before that date it is still legal to carry rear passengers,whether you choose to do so is a different matter.


----------



## Boolush (Jul 30, 2009)

Thanks for clearing that up Steve.

Whenever I've looked I've found the information to be contradictory. Even now if you go to the direct.gov.uk it states:

If your vehicle has no seat belts.
You can't carry any children under three years old in vehicles without seatbelts, like classic cars. If you're travelling with children over three years old, they must only sit in the back seats.

I'm not arguing the common sense of it; it's just difficult wading through the mixture of opinion and legislation.

Another website I checked (http://www.ukmotorhomes.net/motorhome-faqs.shtml#seatbelts) stated the following:
----------------------------------------------------
The original advice given to us by the DfT was that, where seat belts are fitted, from May 2009, the seat belt wearing Directive would prevent more passengers being carried than there are seat belts in the rear of vehicles. This would have meant 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.

They now tell us:

"There will be no change in the regulations in May - our lawyers tell us that is not necessary because the existing regulations already adequately deal with the requirements of the seat belt wearing Directive. Our earlier view that we would need to change the regulations was mistaken."

"Seat belt wearing regulations cannot apply in seats where seat belts are not fitted. Therefore there can be no specific prohibition on using such seats even if other seats in the rear of the vehicle have seat belts fitted. Specifically, the regulations exempt passengers from using a seat belt if a seat belt is not "available". If all the seats with belts are already occupied, then seat belts are clearly not "available" and the remaining passengers can use the seats without belts."
----------------------------------------------------

In the absence of 'concrete' information, I think asking a police officer directly or checking with your insurer may be the most sensible thing to do.

Thanks again for your advice/information.

Hugh


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

Hi Hugh,

I agree it is difficult to wade through all the seat belt information and get a definitive answer.

Autotrail have attempted to clarify the rear seat belt issue on their website.........

http://www.auto-trail.co.uk/index.php/seat-belt-variations

I think this deals with the legislation that came into force from 20th Oct.2007 and answers the question about rear designated passenger seats.

The important bit is............

''These seats will be clearly marked with a label adjacent to the seat indicating that they are designated travelling seats.''

So if you haven't got rear seat belts in a vehicle registered after 20/10/07 it is illegal to carry passengers in the rear,hope that clears it up.


----------



## VanFlair (Nov 21, 2009)

Hi Wak44

I dont read anywhere on the Autotrail link that it is illegal to travel in the rear without a seat belt, it just says that if seat belts are fitted they must be used it doesn't say to me that the seats without belts can not bee used.

Vanroyce


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

This is a case where the law is far from clear, or vehicle is 2003 and it is perfectly legal to carry adults in the rear without seatbelts but not children.

The regulations changed after 2007 and have not been clarified since - at present the phrases in the various sections are contradictory.

Asking a policeman is unlikely to get the clarification that you require, an experienced traffic policeman may well give guidance but they can only do what they have bveen told and the situation is not clear.

Sorry to add to the discussion, but the answers that the directgove link provides are far from clear as it says if no seatbelts are fitted to the seat you are using it is legal to use it and does not differentitate between pre and post 2007;

_You must wear a seat belt if one is fitted in the seat you're using._

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Roadsafetyadvice/DG_4022064

Until the law is clarified such confusion will continue, it is certainly not advisable but is legal.......

We used to operate an ambulance with sidefacing rear seats with belts - that was also perfectly legal to use.

Dave


----------



## Boolush (Jul 30, 2009)

My thanks to Wak44, Vanroyce and Penguin for their feedback on this - it's a confusing issue.

However, given the amount of differing opinion, I decided to ring the Department of Transport direct to see what their official line was; this is what I was told:

Having explain that I own a Motorhome with side-facing seats I asked if she could clarify the law with regard to using the seats while in transit. 

She instantly replied (I assume she/they may have been asked this question several times...) that while it was illegal for a child to use these seats, it was NOT illegal for an adult to. 

She further explained that if seat belts were fitted then they must be used but stated that more harm could be done with the use of lap belts (on side-facing seats) and said that these must not be used.

According to the lady I spoke to the decision of whether to use the seats while in transit is down to individual, adult choice.

Sorry if this kick-starts the whole discussion again, but I figure if the DfT say it isn't illegal then it MUST be okay...

Hugh


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

Thanks for that Hugh,

Apologies for going a bit off topic but I think this issue needs clearing up once and for all.This subject occasionally crops up and invariably ends in a state of confusion with different people interpreting the seatbelt law in different ways.

An interesting reply from the DoT which confirms that you can travel in the rear in non designated travel seats.Early this morning,in an attempt to get a definitive answer whether this is legal or not I have sent the following e-mail to .............

● The Department of Transport

● Ask the Police

● Autotrail

● An aftermarket seat belt specialist

''Can I be prosecuted for travelling in a non designated passenger seat in the rear of a motorhome where no seatbelt is fitted or is it just advisory?''

I will be more than happy to be proved wrong with my interpretation of the law if there is a consensus from these different bodies that answers the thorny question once and for all.

I don't want to discuss the moralities of this issue,we all have our own views an whether we would do it or not,just the legal aspect.


----------



## lifeson (Sep 13, 2010)

You should probably also add to your question...
"Can the driver be prosecuted for having an unsafe load? (i.e. unsecured passengers)
Its not just the passeneger who can be prosecuted.

When I asked this of Autotrail they agreed to amend the layout and fit forward facing seatbelts free of charge - think that indicates the answer.


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

[Moderator Note-After a recent classified ad veered radically off topic to discuss the legality of seat belts in the rear of a motorhome the thread has now been split out.

The original query from Caggsie is about travel seats in the rear.If you have any comments to make please tag them on to the end of this thread.]


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Rear Seatbelts-The Definitive Answer(I Think)*

Please bear with me as I am going to try and give my interpretation of the seat belt law for rear passengers as this has been a thorny issue which causes confusion every time it rears it's ugly head. :roll:

As promised earlier on this thread I have sent the following e-mail to various bodies.......
_''Can I be prosecuted for travelling in a non designated passenger seat in the rear of a motorhome where no seatbelt is fitted or is it just advisory?_''

It went to the following yesterday..........

● The Department of Transport

● Ask the Police

● Autotrail

● An aftermarket seat belt specialist

So far I have received 2 replies,the first from an aftermarket seat belt specialist who will remain nameless.He merely quoted passages from the Dept.of Transport website that served to confuse the issue initially :roll: ,so this can be discounted.

The second reply came from the ''Ask the police''website and proved to be very informative and I think helps to understand why this subject creates so much confusion........

_''Steve
Please see the below in relation to this - there is a possible offence of
carrying passengers in such a manner as to cause danger which you can fall
foul of even when there is no seat belt offence.

from Department for Transport:

"There is no current legal requirement to have seat belts fitted to
sidefacing seats, or seats that make up the accommodation area in motor
caravans, which are normally used only when the vehicle is stationary and
are not designated as travelling seats. Seat belts are not designed to be
used with side-facing seats and, although it is not illegal to use them,
with or without seat belts, we would not advise that they are used. Seat
belts on these seats may help to prevent the wearer being thrown around the
vehicle or from being ejected, but in a frontal crash they can increase
injury risk by subjecting vulnerable parts of the body to higher loads than
belts used on forward facing seats. Our advice is that passengers are
safest in a forward or rearward facing seat equipped with a lap belt or,
preferably, a three-point belt. Any seat belts fitted must comply with the
latest British or European standards and be marked accordingly with either
the 'e', 'E' or BS 'Kitemark'. The seat belt anchorage points should also
be designed so that they will be capable of withstanding the high forces of
an impact. We strongly recommend that they are installed professionally by
qualified persons (such as at a commercial garage or seat belt specialist).
Seat belt wearing regulations require all seat belts to be worn where they
are fitted. You also ought to be aware that if the police see people being
carried in the rear of a vehicle in what they consider to be a dangerous
manner, then they have powers that will enable them to prosecute. They do
use this to deal with adults or children not using seat belts in the rear
of vehicles."

Section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 creates the offence of using a
motor vehicle in a dangerous condition.

40A A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits
another to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when -

(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or
equipment, or
(b) the purpose for which it is used, or
(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are
carried, or
(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in
which it is secured,

is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of
injury to any person.''_

If this reply is dissected into smaller passages I think it helps to understand the law.........

''carrying passengers in such a manner as to cause danger which you can fall foul of even when there is no seat belt offence.''

The words ''even when there is no seat belt offence''in reply to my original query(can I be prosecuted......)suggests to me that no offence is being commited.

"There is no current legal requirement to have seat belts fitted to 
sidefacing seats, or seats that make up the accommodation area in motor 
caravans, which are normally used only when the vehicle is stationary and 
are not designated as travelling seats.''

So it is acceptable to sit legally in seats in the habitation area which are not designated passenger seats and are unbelted.

''Section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 creates the offence of using a 
motor vehicle in a dangerous condition.

40A A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits 
another to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when -

(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or 
equipment, or 
(b) the purpose for which it is used, or 
(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are 
carried, or 
(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in 
which it is secured,

is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of 
injury to any person.'' 

This bit is the grey area and a police officers coup de grace if you fail the attitude test and he is having a bad day.They could say that

''the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.'' 

I can't think of many scenarios where this could happen,perhaps if there is a load of kids messing around and breakdancing in the back and distracting the driver you might get a ticket.

To conclude,it seems to be acceptable to travel in any unbelted seat in the rear without breaking the law,*but* you could be prosecuted for travelling in an unsafe manner.

In the real world if your passengers are travelling quietly in the back I think any right thinking officer of the law would not give you a second glance-unless you upset them of course.(also make sure the motorhome is not overweight)

I have attempted to explain the law from a legal aspect and do not want a debate on the morality of carrying unbelted rear passengers,so let's not go there again please.


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Update from the Department of Transport*

Further to the seat belt debate I have today had an e-mail from the dept.for transport.My preceding post contained a reply from the ''ask the police''website who had replied quoting the DOT regulations which I copied and then tried to decipher using plain common sense.

This reply is directly from the DOT so straight from the horse's mouth so to speak,it's taken nearly 3 weeks but I think it explains the seatbelt law a little clearer..............

_Motorhomefacts.com

Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 4DR
Tel: 0300 330 3000
Fax: 020 7944 9643

Web Site: www.dft.gov.uk

Our Ref: 22737
Your Ref: 
2 December 2011

Dear Sir,

Motorhome seatbelt law

Thank you for your email of 15th November enquiring about whether you can be prosecuted for travelling in a non designated passenger seat in the rear of a motorhome where no seat belt is fitted.

The rules for seat belt use in motorhomes are the same as for cars and goods vehicles. The summary table in The Official Highway Code sets out the rules out for adults and children and can be viewed online at http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelA...de/index.htm?cids=Google_PPC&cre=Highway_Code

There is no legal requirement for seat belts to be fitted in sideways facing seats - in an impact, anyone using a belt in a sideways facing seat is at increased risk of serious injury. But if seat belts are installed then they must be used by adults.

Nothing in seat belt wearing legislation prevents the carrying of adults in seats that do not have seat belts installed - even if other seats in the rear have belts fitted. It goes without saying however those seats with seat belts should be used first.

The police can take action if, in the judgement of an officer, passengers are being carried where "the manner in which they are carried is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person". The penalties for this offence are notably higher than for a seat belt wearing offence.

If you are likely to carry passengers without seat belts, you might consult your insurer about their attitude should there be a claim. And bear in mind that if there is an impact, the body of anyone unrestrained is likely to be a considerable risk to those seated in the front or elsewhere in the rear.

Yours sincerely,

JOHN DOYLE_


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

> If you are likely to carry passengers without seat belts, you might consult your insurer about their attitude should there be a claim.


That is the important bit.................... you can decide to do what you want, but if your insurer doesn't like it.......... :?


----------



## Ozzyjohn (Sep 3, 2007)

*Re: Update from the Department of Transport*

Hi,

So, reading this part:- 
"The police can take action if, in the judgement of an officer, passengers are being carried where "the manner in which they are carried is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person"."

Followed by this part:-
"And bear in mind that if there is an impact, the body of anyone unrestrained is likely to be a considerable risk to those seated in the front or elsewhere in the rear."

My conclusion would be that the carrying of unrestrained passengers is likely to create a considerable risk of injury to other passengers in the vehicle and that such behaviour involves a danger of injury. Therefore, the DRIVER could be prosecuted for this offence - but the passenger isn't committing an offence.

But, I'm not a legal expert - the above is just my opinion...

Regards,
John


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: Update from the Department of Transport*



Ozzyjohn said:


> ..............
> My conclusion would be that the carrying of unrestrained passengers is likely to create a considerable risk of injury to other passengers in the vehicle and that such behaviour involves a danger of injury. Therefore, the DRIVER could be prosecuted for this offence - but the passenger isn't committing an offence.
> 
> But, I'm not a legal expert - the above is just my opinion...
> ...


If that is the case John there are several thousand bus drivers in trouble. :lol:

I think that part of the law is meant to deal with anyone in the rear travelling in unbelted seats fooling around and distracting the driver or too many people travelling in the rear in which case there would be an issue if the MGVW is exceeded.

I don't think any police officer would bat an eyelid if there was a couple of people sat quietly in the back travelling in unbelted seats.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

*Re: Update from the Department of Transport*



wakk44 said:


> Ozzyjohn said:
> 
> 
> > ..............
> ...


Until something happened..............

Buses/coaches are subject to completely different laws as are trains and planes, or even ships for that matter.


----------



## Ozzyjohn (Sep 3, 2007)

Steve,

Bus drivers at least have their passengers in properly constructed seats which are firmly anchored to a rigid structure. The same could not often be said for sideways facing seats in a motorhome. 

I did carefully choose the word "could" rather than "would" in the final sentence of my penultimate paragraph. 

Whilst not wishing to take the thread in a direction you have said you want to avoid - the risk being taken regarding prosecution is exceptionally trivial when compared to other risks the occupants are being exposed to when travelling other than in a designated travel seat.


Regards,
John
ps I hadn't seen Stanner's post.


----------



## rogerblack (May 1, 2005)

Leaving aside the obvious common sense/morality view, from a strictly legal standpoint this is interesting but still potentially ambiguous:

 "even if other seats in the rear have belts fitted. It goes without saying however those seats with seat belts *should *be used first. " 

(my emboldening)

there's a world of a difference between *"should"* and *"must"* in this context . . .


----------



## Ozzyjohn (Sep 3, 2007)

Morning all,

I was considering checking with my insurance company - but then found that they have already provided a view on their website. I won't reproduce it selectively, but here is a link to a page on the Caravan Guard website.

In case you miss it, the words are a reproduction of an article in MMM from 2006. So, it may still be necessary to contact your insurers to get them to state a view if it is important to you.

Regards,
John
ps It is also worth reading the comment letters at the bottom of the page.


----------



## Ozzyjohn (Sep 3, 2007)

Steve,

The google search which led me to the Caravan guard page also brought up this one from Auto Trail. I note from your earlier post that you have written to them.

Regards,
John


----------



## lgbzone (Oct 8, 2008)

We sought advice regarding the legalities from the police station in Morecambe, it took a couple of visits but we did get an appointment with a policeman at the station, he provided us with a couple of leaflets etc and came outside to see our van and explain it to us. His explanation ties in with the email posted earlier.

Essentially the salient points we took away were;

Any belted seats must be used first.
Any further belts we have fitted must comply with the appropriate standards etc and then must be used first.
If and only if all belted seats are occupied then passengers can travel in unbelted seats, "but they must be traveling safely".

We inquired if simply sitting in a seat without a seat belt, whilst all belted seats are already being used, could be classed as traveling unsafely. He didn't give a yes or no answer, but stated that; the reality of the situation is that if the passengers in unbelted seats are sitting down properly etc you would not have a problem, however if they are climbing on the seat, rolling around etc etc or otherwise being a dangerous nuisance/distraction, then you most likely would have a problem.

Although babies and toddlers were briefly mentioned we didn't discuss it as it wasn't applicable to us.


----------



## Mandale (May 18, 2011)

lgbzone said:


> We sought advice regarding the legalities from the police station in Morecambe, it took a couple of visits but we did get an appointment with a policeman at the station, he provided us with a couple of leaflets etc and came outside to see our van and explain it to us. His explanation ties in with the email posted earlier.
> 
> Essentially the salient points we took away were;
> 
> ...


Did he confirm what safely is?

If you had an accident and a passenger was seriously injured, me thinks the same officer would be trying to prosecute!
Its not just about the thoughts of an officer before you have an accident, its also about the resulting consequences and their view after the event. It is probably a lot easier to prove the passenger was travelling in an unsafe way when injury has occurred.


----------



## lgbzone (Oct 8, 2008)

He said safely was sitting down in the seat properly as it was designed to be used, as opposed to standing, walking/climbing around etc.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

lgbzone said:


> He said safely was sitting down in the seat properly as it was designed to be used, as opposed to standing, walking/climbing around etc.


Just try and get him to appear in court on your behalf and confirm he told you it was "legal" if a prosecution should occur.

Just don't hold your breath, I asked a PC to do that once over parking of a vehicle with no MOT on a private road and the PC's Sergeant told me to my face that he would order the PC to go to court and deny what he had said to me.


----------



## lgbzone (Oct 8, 2008)

Stanner said:


> lgbzone said:
> 
> 
> > He said safely was sitting down in the seat properly as it was designed to be used, as opposed to standing, walking/climbing around etc.
> ...


Stanner

The legalities of traveling in an unbelted seat in a motorhome, when all belted seats are in use, can be confusing to people that don't have a good understanding of the laws involved and/or the people that enforce them, especially as there is so much misinformation and opinion around.

My understanding of this thread is that the posters are trying to get an understanding and clarify the situation, therefore I've offered some information i was given which i think is applicable and may be useful, if it's useful to you then consider it, if it's not then don't.

I've no desire to get anyone to appear anywhere on my behalf, for my own reasons that have nothing to do with the law, I don't carry unbelted passengers, but that's a different debate that i'm not interested in getting into and from what i can see off topic.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

lgbzone said:


> Stanner said:
> 
> 
> > lgbzone said:
> ...


My point was simply that anything a policeman tells you is just an "opinion" pure and simple. If he tells you it is OK to do something just do not rely on it as a defence if the worst should happen.

As I have said before, the people you need to ask are your insurers (the company NOT the broker) as they will be the final arbiter in most cases.


----------

