# Passenger safety?



## mygalnme (Jul 12, 2009)

Can anyone help regarding rules for safety belts :?: We have an autotrail
cheyenne 740S 09 model, which has 2 side seats and no seat belts....how many passengers are we allowed to have :?: :?: We were told it is ok to take as many as can sleep, but the actual law is not very explicit when I looked it up....can anyone put it in plain English please


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

See here Crazyhead,

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopic-72058.html

Those explanations are accurate, there is no simple answer to your question. If you want certainty then only people who have seat belts should travel. The decision is yours, Alan.


----------



## mygalnme (Jul 12, 2009)

sorry ernboy, have apologised on other post  having brain problems
this week..ie if had one would be dangerous :lol:


----------



## merlinsdragon (Sep 15, 2009)

I was told that as long as you used side facing seats then you could travel without seat belts ,that they were only required by law if you travelled facing forwards,that was two years ago when I purchased a new van that was a 4 berth but only had two seat belts in the front cab.


----------



## anita302 (Feb 11, 2007)

I am in the process of purchasing a new motohome which has side facing seats that my two children would travel on. (They are aged 7 & 12yrs)

Now, I'm not sure what to do as not sure if it is illegal or not :? 

Anita


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

anita302 said:


> I am in the process of purchasing a new motohome which has side facing seats that my two children would travel on. (They are aged 7 & 12yrs)
> 
> Now, I'm not sure what to do as not sure if it is illegal or not :?
> 
> Anita


It's not illegal but then it's not safe either.

Sit them on the seats then drive down the road and do an emergency stop, then ask them what they think of it when they come out of the coma.

But then of course the H&Sphobics will only tell you not to get hysterical about it.


----------



## TheBoombas (Aug 23, 2006)

Buy a different Van!
The law on this is vauge! you may be able to have lap belts fitted to the bench seats check before buying or choose a better suited van


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

Stanner said:


> anita302 said:
> 
> 
> > I am in the process of purchasing a new motohome which has side facing seats that my two children would travel on. (They are aged 7 & 12yrs)
> ...


You don't have to be that extreme.

Belt yourself in as a passenger in a front seat with the seat right back and release the seat catch when the driver brakes and see how difficult it is to prevent your forward movement. I did that by accident once and don't want to repeat it.

Then imagine the effect on an unbelted passenger or any loose object.

No one will fit seat belts to a side facing seat anymore Anita302 its too dangerous as the body is not meant to bend that way.


----------



## GerryD (Sep 20, 2007)

As I have said on another thread, whilst the law is vague the final say may be with your insurance company. A lot of insurance companies will not cover passengers unless they are in belted designated passenger seats.
You do not have to declare the passengers to your insurance company, but to be on the safe side try asking them for their ruling.
Gerry


----------



## cronkle (May 1, 2005)

anita302 said:


> I am in the process of purchasing a new motohome which has side facing seats that my two children would travel on. (They are aged 7 & 12yrs)
> 
> Now, I'm not sure what to do as not sure if it is illegal or not :?
> 
> Anita


You may find the attached interesting.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/think/focusareas/children/childincar?page=FAQ

My understanding of this is that your 7 year-old would definitely have to travel in the front passenger seat using the only belt available. Presumably this would then mean that one child and one adult would then be tavelling unrestrained in the back. That's my understanding of the law.

Hope that helps.

Personally I would buy a different van


----------



## jhelm (Feb 9, 2008)

Always an issue with kids. The safest place is what, perhaps it's a forward facing seat all belted up. Ours has seat belts in the two forward facing seats but none in the rear facing seats. How safe are they in the rear facing seats. There is also the possibility of sitting on the rear bed facing backwards with their backs against the wall of the closet or toilet. In a straight on collision they might be safer in the back with the whole camper able to absorb the energy of the crash, I don't know. There is also the over cab bed. How unsafe/safe is that. 

On a long trip with kids it's very hard to confine them to those only two belted positions and in a way defeats the whole concept of traveling in a camper vs a car. 

Riding on buses it seems the only one using a seat belt is the driver.


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS (Jul 24, 2006)

As John above.

Thousands of children went to school this morning on busses and coaches.

How many were fitted with seat belts.

Dave p


----------



## cronkle (May 1, 2005)

cronkle said:


> anita302 said:
> 
> 
> > I am in the process of purchasing a new motohome which has side facing seats that my two children would travel on. (They are aged 7 & 12yrs)
> ...


Having reread the web-site that I posted earlier I note that it now says:

'A child 3 years and over may travel unrestrained in the rear seat of a vehicle if seat belts are not fitted in the rear.'

Sorry, but I had forgotten that there had been a change in the 'official' guidelines on the regulations. However, I would take the advice of others and check what your insurance company would make of the situation.

Edit: Jezport's entry below has prompted me to say that I would like my last sentence to read 'Ask your insurance company if the pasengers carried in the rear of the vehicle would be covered by them.' as I would, as I said in my previous post, find an altrnative vehicle and therefore I personally would not need to ask that question as my original post implied that I might.


----------



## Jezport (Jun 19, 2008)

Allowed legally or not, I would never allow anyone to travel on a sideways seat for safety reasons. Also you will find that you are not insured to carry passengers in these seats.


----------



## CaGreg (Mar 28, 2007)

At the risk of sounding tedious I have to put my personal view in here (unapologetically) and refer to the title of this post 'Passenger Safety?' May I plead with the OP to consider the safety of passengers above all consideration of legal issues.

There is only one way to carry passengers in a motorhome that is safely secured in a three-point seatbelt. 

Believe me, you don't want to be me  

Ca


----------



## karlb (Feb 22, 2009)

people keep on refering to insurance, has anybody got any links? i do not intend having any un-belted passengers but can we keep to the facts,this is not a insurance risk/problem as far as i am aware.


----------



## Pugwash (Jun 12, 2005)

*Unrestrained passengers*

The important thing here is not what's legal but what's safe.

Lapstraps on rearward facing seats are an acceptable compromise. Just.
Lap straps on forward facing seats are dangerous.
Lap straps on sideways facing seats are lethal.

Never, ever let anyone travel on a sideways facing seat in a lapstrap. Ever.

Suggestions that meaningful experiments can be done by applying the brakes whilst people are in various positions to check their safety miss the point completely. The deceleration achieved even by emergency braking is absolutely nothing compared to the deceleration if the vehicle hits something. A lap strap does immense damage to internal organs and can in itself cause death due to this.

If you want to carry passengers in the back then buy a motorhome with forward or rearward facing seats fitted with seat belts attached to anchorages which meet European standards.

Regarding buses and seatbelts:
Although deceleration in an accident depends to some extent on what the vehicle hits, the lighter the vehicle the more likely it is to experience high deceleration. For this reason the probability of a bus experiencing high deceleration forces are much lower than a lighter vehicle, simply due to its own inertia. (But in an ideal world buses should be fitted with belts). Imagine a bus hitting a Honda Civic. The bus would bulldoze it out of the way, whilst the smaller car would experience huge deceleration as it was instantly stopped then probably pushed backwards. Which would you want to be in? In most circumstances this issue of relative weight means the heavier vehicle's occupants are much less likely to experience high G's and are therefore less likely to be injured. When a truck and a car have a head on the truck driver often walks away whilst the car's occupants are killed. It's all to do with deceleration. The truck is stopped over a distance of many yards. The car is stopped instantly.

Just my opinion of course.

Pugwash.


----------



## cronkle (May 1, 2005)

karlb said:


> people keep on refering to insurance, has anybody got any links? i do not intend having any un-belted passengers but can we keep to the facts,this is not a insurance risk/problem as far as i am aware.


I think it may be in that if the passengers are not covered by the insurance then there may be legal implications to that. Would they be travelling legally if they are not covered by the insurance?


----------



## Jezport (Jun 19, 2008)

karlb said:


> people keep on refering to insurance, has anybody got any links? i do not intend having any un-belted passengers but can we keep to the facts,this is not a insurance risk/problem as far as i am aware.


My Ford Transit V5C states : Number of seats including driver 6
If I was to travel with 7 people in the van and have an accident my insurers would probably refuse to pay out.

My GVW is 3.5ton If I exceed this and have an accident my insurers would probably refuse to pay out.


----------



## karlb (Feb 22, 2009)

Jezport said:


> karlb said:
> 
> 
> > people keep on refering to insurance, has anybody got any links? i do not intend having any un-belted passengers but can we keep to the facts,this is not a insurance risk/problem as far as i am aware.
> ...


i am now trawling the net i can find no evidence of non payment due to carrying passengers is this related to getting gassed in france ?


----------



## jhelm (Feb 9, 2008)

cronkle said:


> karlb said:
> 
> 
> > people keep on refering to insurance, has anybody got any links? i do not intend having any un-belted passengers but can we keep to the facts,this is not a insurance risk/problem as far as i am aware.
> ...


Good explanation; Two comment, the MH is a fairly heavy vehicle compared to the Honda and I think there would also be some benefit from energy absorbed as the force moves towards the back of the MH.


----------



## GerryD (Sep 20, 2007)

karlb said:


> Jezport said:
> 
> 
> > karlb said:
> ...


Not certain where the gassing in France comes in.
I have asked and do ask my insurance company for their policy on passengers. In 2001 the C&CC said that they would cover any number of passengers that could sit comfortably in the vehicle. I had that in writing.
The following year when I asked I was told that the policy had changed and that they would only cover passengers provided they were using designated passenger seats.
I have had the same answer every year since then.
My reason for asking was that invariably we were three couples in three motorhomes, but when we went out we only wanted to use one vehicle. That is not possible with my current insurer and vehicle.
I don't care what the legal situation is, I want to make sure that in the event of an accident all of my passengers will be properly covered.
I would hope that any responsible driver would feel the same.
In the same light, I have also told my insurers that I have had a towbar fitted and that I tow a car. I cannot afford mistakes with insurance.
Gerry


----------



## karlb (Feb 22, 2009)

@gerry

there again we are in a grey area what is a designated passenger seat in a motorhome? for myself its a seat with a 3 point belt but for others with a 6 berth motorhome and only two belted seats in the front it all gets very blurred.


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

*Re: Unrestrained passengers*



Pugwash said:


> clipped ...Suggestions that meaningful experiments can be done by applying the brakes whilst people are in various positions to check their safety miss the point completely. The deceleration achieved even by emergency braking is absolutely nothing compared to the deceleration if the vehicle hits something. ..clipped
> Pugwash.


The point I was making is that even just under braking (which only has to be moderate) you can't hold yourself in place. I was leaving it up to the reader to imagine how much worse this would be in an accident.


----------



## Jezport (Jun 19, 2008)

karlb said:


> Jezport said:
> 
> 
> > karlb said:
> ...


Its up to you.

Personally I value my family so dont seat them where they are not safe to travel, and when a V5C document is printed in black and white I dont argue.

I suppose if you phone your insurance up and tell them that you have had an accident with 8 people in your van when it was clearly designed to carry 6 they will say "Thats Ok we will pay out because you couldnt find evidence of non payment due to carrying passengers when you trawled the internet."


----------



## karlb (Feb 22, 2009)

Jezport said:


> karlb said:
> 
> 
> > Jezport said:
> ...


but this whole topic is because of the daft grey area with motorhomes, they make a 6 berth van with only 2 belted seats and the law is as clear as mud!


----------



## Jezport (Jun 19, 2008)

karlb said:


> Jezport said:
> 
> 
> > karlb said:
> ...


I think its not so grey as it looks. If people use common sense its quite clear. If you have belted passenger seats, these are the only ones that are safe to travel in.


----------



## karlb (Feb 22, 2009)

Jezport said:


> karlb said:
> 
> 
> > Jezport said:
> ...


and that is why i walked away from a fantastic deal on a lunar 786 only last week. fantastic value all the space and berths i need but only two belted seats!!


----------



## Jezport (Jun 19, 2008)

karlb said:


> Jezport said:
> 
> 
> > karlb said:
> ...


I also have walked away from a frankia and others because of seatbelts


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS (Jul 24, 2006)

I sat i an aeroplane for several hours a couplel of months ago. I never loosened or removed my seatbelt. Many of the occupants remoed their seatbelts when the safety light went out even though we were warned to expect turbulance. We were shown an in flight safety video which demonstraded the use of life jackets. It seemed to be assumed that if the plane went down it would be in the sea.
The only water that we crossed was the English Channel!

I feel the majority of people find seatbelts a hindrance rather than a safety device.
In my mind safety and common sense go together.
Dave p


----------



## anita302 (Feb 11, 2007)

Will I have phoned various Insurance companies today and had a mixed responce. Some will cover passengers with no problems at all as it is not against the law to have passengers on side facing seats in the rear.

But as for me and the safety of my family,I am going to travel many miles tomorrow to go and look at another vehicle that is fitted with 3 point seat belts in the rear as I would never live with myself if something happened to my kids.

I have also phoned and emailed the DVLA today, but as yet have not received a reply from them on this issue.

Anita


----------



## mygalnme (Jul 12, 2009)

Hubby popped into local cop shop today and the sergeant on the desk said he had a MH himself and had wondered about this....he rang Autotrail to ask and was told it's not against the law but would advise to only carry adults and not children.....still a case of common sense and personal choice :?: :?: I think so....Thank you for all comments
M & T


----------



## anita302 (Feb 11, 2007)

Well I've solved the problem of the seat belts for us.

We pulled out of the deal for the Cheyenne with side facing seats today and brought at Swift Kon Tiki 699 instead, that has belts fitted in the rear.

Cost us alot more than the Cheyenne was going to, but at the end of the day you cannot put a price on your kids lives.

Anita


----------



## CaGreg (Mar 28, 2007)

anita302 said:


> Well I've solved the problem of the seat belts for us.
> 
> We pulled out of the deal for the Cheyenne with side facing seats today and brought at Swift Kon Tiki 699 instead, that has belts fitted in the rear.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Ca


----------



## anita302 (Feb 11, 2007)

Update on what I did.

We did carry on and purchase the Kon Tiki 669 with fitted seat belts in the rear.

Which I'm so glad we did, as on our way home last night (first trip in it) 
I looked around and both my kids where fast asleep. 

Just watching them sleeping it was a relief knowing that they were safety being held upright and secure by their belts.

Anita


----------



## GerryD (Sep 20, 2007)

anita302 said:


> Update on what I did.
> 
> We did carry on and purchase the Kon Tiki 669 with fitted seat belts in the rear.
> 
> ...


QED
Gerry


----------



## dilly (Jan 19, 2007)

Designated passenger seats in the rear of a motorhome are those seats specifically designed to be
used by passengers whilst the vehicle is in motion. These seats must have either forward or rear
facing seatbelts and these seatbelts must be used by any passengers travelling in the rear of the
vehicle. These seats will be clearly marked with a label adjacent to the seat indicating that they are
designated travelling seats.
New European Legislation (EC Directive 2005/39/EC) states that to travel in a sideways facing seat
with a seat belt is unsafe and that from 20th October 2007, new vehicles will not be allowed to be
registered with sideways facing designated travelling seats.
We have had cases where people have been stopped for having people in side facing seats without
seatbelts and the police have brought forward a case for "carrying passengers at danger" on the
grounds that they should not be used for passenger transport when the vehicle is in motion.
--
With the compliments of Law Answers
e: [email protected]

Ian.


----------



## Bacchus (Mar 27, 2008)

Personally I think that companies like autotrail are quite irresponsible in manufacturing motorhomes with fewer homologated seats than sleeping births. I've got a chieftain G on order and I have had to order an "L" variant that has two additional forward facing seats - a cost option. I remember some time ago commenting to a dealer about this in relation to a motorhome I was interested in. He said he said he could fit some lap belts!!! We've already read that lap belts in this configuration are dangerous but I would also add that they would probably fail in a collision because the seats are not built directly onto the chassis of the motorhome.


----------



## Bacchus (Mar 27, 2008)

Personally I think that companies like autotrail are quite irresponsible in manufacturing motorhomes with fewer homologated seats than sleeping births. I've got a chieftain G on order and I have had to order an "L" variant that has two additional forward facing seats - a cost option. I remember some time ago commenting to a dealer about this in relation to a motorhome I was interested in. He said he said he could fit some lap belts!!! We've already read that lap belts in this configuration are dangerous but I would also add that they would probably fail in a collision because the seats are not built directly onto the chassis of the motorhome.


----------



## jam35007 (Aug 8, 2009)

I have recently purchased an Autotrail Scout 6th Berth. It has 2 forward facing belts and 2 in the cab. It is a 2009 model so you would think by now that Autotrail would fit 6 belts. I was advised that children under 14 had to be belted- all belts that existed had to be used. I am in the process of arranging to have 2 further belts added - at gret expense as I want 2 more 3 pin belts. I may only be able to get 1 more 3 pin and a lap belt. If that is the case then all children will be in 3 pin belts and I would use the lap belt.

We will have to see!


----------

