# Advance apology - the seat-belt law question AGAIN.



## LondonMotorhomeHire (Jan 20, 2008)

Old topic - new question.

All that's gone before about the rights and wrongs of it, can anyone please clear up one burning question.

If one has 5 seat belts fitted to one's motor-home but your V5 log-book states 'Number of Passengers - 6' can a 6th person sit in the rear while not wearing a seatbelt. This is on the condition that all fitted seat-belts are being used by the other 5 occupants.

I have read that in the eyes of the Department of Transport, you can.

In the same way that you can drown in an inch of water, any distance travelled unrestrained carries a risk but I'd really appreciate some help getting to the legal bottom of this enigma.

We are travelling in tandem with another vehicle to France, splitting everyone between the two. While in France, we would love the option of popping to the local shops in one vehicle. This would place us in the situation described above and I'm wondering what reception we'd get from the local young bill.

Thanks.


----------



## ICDSUN (Oct 10, 2006)

LondonMotorhomeHire said:


> Old topic - new question.
> 
> All that's gone before about the rights and wrongs of it, can anyone please clear up one burning question.
> 
> ...


*

Hi

it is disappointing that you as a trader hiring motorhomes to the general public cannot answer this question or it seems not taken legal advice to the exact position with the relevant authorities.

My personal opinion
Mods hat firmly off

Chris*


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Although I might agree with your reply Chris, it does not assist the op.
my question is what is the age of the vehicle, as the laws vary on the age as well as other points.

cabby


----------



## LondonMotorhomeHire (Jan 20, 2008)

Well Chris, for a MOD I'm surprised and disappointed that your reply was of such little use - in fact, down right sanctimonious. Quite frankly, that's not what I pay to subscribe for. I might expect that from another member, peer to peer, but not from one who dons an official cap when it suits him.

I have never sought an answer to this, because I WOULD NEVER allow or encourage a hirer, who's safety is being placed in my commercial care, to do it. 5 seat belts, 5 passengers.

For 3 years now, I have hired-out numerous vehicles to probably over a hundred hiring groups and have NEVER breached or allowed others to breach what are very confusing laws in different aspects of motor-homing. You will not find me placing people on SD&P Insurance policies to get around Hire and Reward and neither will you find me allowing International, Non-EU drivers to drive around in anything weighing more than 3500kgs; two of the most commonly flaunted laws broken by 'Hirers' in the UK.

I made it very clear in my question that I am to be the driver and I am asking about a matter of the law which is complex and confusing. This has nothing to do with being a trader. In many phone conversations with DVLA or the DOT, you will get different interpretations from one member of staff, from another. If you know the answer, do all of us a favour and post it instead of bringing into question my integrity as someone who introduces dozens of newbie families into this fraternity every year, some of whom go on to buy-into it having enjoyed their time, on holiday, in a motorhome.


----------



## LondonMotorhomeHire (Jan 20, 2008)

Cabby, 

Apologies, the age would help, you're right.

The vehicle is an October 2008 registered Swift Kontiki 645.

Thanks.

PS. Sorry if I sounded somewhat narked-off in my previous reply, but, well, I was.


----------



## CliveMott (Mar 10, 2008)

Interestingly I am putting together a technical file on this very subject and the broader topic of whole vehicle type approval. It is true the answer is not immediately clear. However what I have deduced is that your initial understanding is correct BUT the Police (UK) can take the view that carrying an unbelted passenger is considered to be an unsafe load. In an accident a person from an unbelted rear seat would become a missile inside the vehicle and could potentially de-capitate forward passengers or the driver in a worst case scenario.
The other consideration is that in the event of an accident your insurance company could wipe their hands unless of it they had previously agreed formerly in writing to the practice you propose, and this is very unlikely.

Don,t do it.

C.


----------



## ICDSUN (Oct 10, 2006)

cabby said:


> Although I might agree with your reply Chris, it does not assist the op.
> my question is what is the age of the vehicle, as the laws vary on the age as well as other points.
> 
> cabby


Cabby

The regulations are wide and varying as you correctly point out, due to the complexity of the regulations this is a very fundamental area that any business hiring motorhomes to the general public should have clear and exact understanding of and be capable of ensuring that they give the correct advice to their hirers, hence the lack of assistance on this occasion

Chris


----------



## charlieivan (Apr 25, 2006)

There is possibly another issue to contend with here and that is the one concerning payload. What is the allowable payload of the vehicle and what will be the combined weight of all 5 / 6 passengers.


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*Seats*

I will reply in more detail when I have more time.

Our Motorhome only has 4 seatbelts.

However, according to the manufacturer, it has 8 designated passenger seats. And they supply a document to confirm this and where the seats are.

4 forward facing and 4 side facing (unbelted) seats.

TM


----------



## ChrisandJohn (Feb 3, 2008)

I presume it is French law on these matters that you need to understand?


Chris


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

Check out this post-

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopicp-609189.html#609189

The bit that relates to your situation is

''Where seat belts are fitted, from May 2009 the directive will prevent more passengers being carried than there are seat belts in the rear of vehicles. This 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.''


----------



## ICDSUN (Oct 10, 2006)

LondonMotorhomeHire said:


> Well Chris, for a MOD I'm surprised and disappointed that your reply was of such little use - in fact, down right sanctimonious. Quite frankly, that's not what I pay to subscribe for. I might expect that from another member, peer to peer, but not from one who dons an official cap when it suits him.
> 
> I have never sought an answer to this, because I WOULD NEVER allow or encourage a hirer, who's safety is being placed in my commercial care, to do it. 5 seat belts, 5 passengers.
> 
> ...


My opinion was expressed as a member, the issue of being a Moderator has no bearing on that,I also don't recall questioning the integrity of your operation, I just feel that having traded for the last 3 years and the complexity of the issue at hand you had not sought legal advice from your lawyers dissappointing, you have obviously sought advice from the DVLA etc and hit the usual crescendo of differing opinion, non of it much use as you have seen, as your questions are still largely un-answered. If you consider my comment as sanctimonious then that is entirely up to you, I would have taken the prudent route to get clarification from my lawyers as a basic business requirerment so I can be clear in my liabilities to my customers, having had to pay lawyers for clarification over the last 30 years in business it always galled me somewhat that we were not able to get a simple answer to an area of law that is less than clear, but sometimes it is the only viable route

I hope you continue to trade succesfully, but my opinion is mine and will not change because you pay your subs and I just happen to be a volunteer moderator

Chris


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

wakk44 said:


> Check out this post-
> 
> http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopicp-609189.html#609189
> 
> ...


This link refers to the advice originally given by the DfT but the advice was subsequently changed to confirm that seated passengers do not require to be belted so long as all available seats with belts have been used. Have a look here.


----------



## LondonMotorhomeHire (Jan 20, 2008)

Thank you all and especially to wakk44(Steve)
I recall seeing that post first time around but simply couldn't sniff it out again.

I think I'll try to enquire of the DFT/DOT but I think you've covered it.

Mark.


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

peribro said:


> This link refers to the advice originally given by the DfT but the advice was subsequently changed to confirm that seated passengers do not require to be belted so long as all available seats with belts have been used. Have a look here.


Good link peribro which shows the addendum to the original statement.Specifically the bit that says ''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.''



LondonMotorhomeHire said:


> If one has 5 seat belts fitted to one's motor-home but your V5 log-book states 'Number of Passengers - 6' can a 6th person sit in the rear while not wearing a seatbelt. This is on the condition that all fitted seat-belts are being used by the other 5 occupants.
> .


*

So the answer to the original question is yes,the 6th passenger can travel in the remaining unbelted seat providing the existing belted seats are occupied.That is in the UK,however you said-


LondonMotorhomeHire said:



We are travelling in tandem with another vehicle to France, splitting everyone between the two. 
Thanks.

Click to expand...



I have no idea if this is the law throughout the EU,perhaps someone could confirm this or otherwise,when I did the original seatbelt FAQ's I was only concerned with the law in the UK.*


----------



## aivlys (May 1, 2005)

*Re: Seats*



teemyob said:


> I will reply in more detail when I have more time.
> 
> Our Motorhome only has 4 seatbelts.
> 
> ...


Just had our new Autocruise Startrail delivered and it is only registered for 2 persons. Reading your note suggests that we could carry additional persons on the side facing seat - is that correct? We only have seat belts on the driver and passenger seats.

Tks.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

wakk44 said:


> I have no idea if this is the law throughout the EU,perhaps someone could confirm this or otherwise,when I did the original seatbelt FAQ's I was only concerned with the law in the UK.


I also was only referring to UK law although I believe there is a general principle that if it is legal in one member state then it is legal throughout the EU. However this needs to be treated with care as the Spanish have proved with their apparent ban on A frames.


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: Seats*



aivlys said:


> Just had our new Autocruise Startrail delivered and it is only registered for 2 persons. Reading your note suggests that we could carry additional persons on the side facing seat - is that correct? We only have seat belts on the driver and passenger seats.
> Tks.


You can only carry unbelted passengers in the rear if the motorhome was registered before Oct.2007.


----------



## dikyenfo (Feb 16, 2008)

There are always grey areas and if seat belts are not fitted then you cannot wear them but it is ok to put 5 people in a 4 seat car. There is no unsafe load law for interior vehicles - this would imply dogs and cats were not permitted so wrong there as well.
Also Clive it is perfectly ok for me to drive my classic MG without belts as they were not OEM then so what you deem as law is not in fact correct either.
Some people never wear seat belts ever and flaunt the law as do those who use mobile phones and very seldom get caught so how anyone from police drivers or checks can see in tinted windows above head height can say wether the seats are belted or not is hard to figure.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

It strikes me that the OP asked the question because he wanted to find the correct answer. I commend that. His wanting to understand shows a proper professional approach to his business activities.

It's simplistic to suggest talking to your own lawyers. Anyone who has ever done that on a complex topic will know very well that there is little chance of them taking any firm view. That would be far too risky for them on any matter which is less than crystal clear. More likely that they would add to the confusion and charge for their time while doing so, or simply offer the strictest interpretation to keep them safe in the event that their opinion might later be subjected to scrutiny.

It's an open forum and we are all entitled to opinions but it would be nice to see helpful posts and a little less criticism of people who are brave enough to ask questions in public when they have made it quite clear that they are aware the topic may attract personal comments and bring out some firmly held views.

One thing it quite clear. It's a difficult topic and even those who have tried to reach a conclusion do not agree with each other, Alan.


----------



## SaddleTramp (Feb 15, 2007)

erneboy said:


> It's an open forum and we are all entitled to opinions but it would be nice to see helpful posts and a little less criticism of people who are brave enough to ask questions in public when they have made it quite clear that they are aware the topic may attract personal comments and bring out some firmly held views.
> 
> Alan.


Here Here.


----------



## pippin (Nov 15, 2007)

I appreciate the reason for and the validity of the question posed by the original poster.

However, the over-riding questions are: Despite the law

- in the event of an accident what would be the view of the insurance company and their pay out in the event of an accident.
As is well known, insurance companies can be a law unto themselves.

- what would be the thoughts of an unbelted rear passenger as he/she flies through the air immediately prior to smashing into the head of a belted front seat person.

There are many instances of the Law being an ass - this is one of them.

I hope this post is pragmatic and helpful, it is certainly not meant to be inflammatory.


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

pippin said:


> .......... what would be the thoughts of an unbelted rear passenger as he/she flies through the air immediately prior to smashing into the head of a belted front seat person.


Unprintable I would think,however if we allow millions of bus passengers to legally travel in unbelted seats every day I don't think it is a valid argument.

Morally I accept it is questionable,but try explaining the dangers to all the bus passengers,I don't think it would make much difference to their opinion on wearing seat belts.



pippin said:


> ..........There are many instances of the Law being an ass - this is one of them.
> I hope this post is pragmatic and helpful, it is certainly not meant to be inflammatory.


Totally agree with that pippin,the law re.seat belts is an ass and open to different interpretations which is why there are differing points of view and some ambiguity.I know you don't intend to be inflammatory but by definition it will be whilst the rear seatbelt law remains unclear.

I have tried to explain the legal aspect of carrying passengers in the rear of a motorhome,whether anyone wants to do it is their choice after weighing up all the different opinions and making an informed decision after assessing the risks involved.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

wakk44 said:


> Unprintable I would think,however if we allow millions of bus passengers to legally travel in unbelted seats every day I don't think it is a valid argument.
> 
> Morally I accept it is questionable,but try explaining the dangers to all the bus passengers,I don't think it would make much difference to their opinion on wearing seat belts.


The big difference is that buses and coaches rarely hit anything same size/bigger/heavier than they are and in the even of an accident usually suffer much gentler decelleration than car and m/homes which usually do hit something same size/bigger/heavier that they are.

Not an excuse or justification, just an explanation. Also when a bus or coach has a collision sufficient to injure or kill a passenger it is still rare enough to make the news. Just imagine if every car/motorhome accident involving death or injury were to be reported?


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

dikyenfo said:


> There are always grey areas and if seat belts are not fitted then you cannot wear them but it is ok to put 5 people in a 4 seat car. There is no unsafe load law for interior vehicles - this would imply dogs and cats were not permitted so wrong there as well.
> Also Clive it is perfectly ok for me to drive my classic MG without belts as they were not OEM then so what you deem as law is not in fact correct either.
> Some people never wear seat belts ever and flaunt the law as do those who use mobile phones and very seldom get caught so how anyone from police drivers or checks can see in tinted windows above head height can say wether the seats are belted or not is hard to figure.


No no one will catch you out apart from the grim reaper


----------



## pippin (Nov 15, 2007)

As an aside, perhaps to explain my preference for seat belts:

In 1968 I bought my first car, a second hand Mini Clubman Estate NME 512, with the wooden bits of trim.

I had great difficulty then in buying seat belts to retro-fit but I was determined to be safe.

Seat belts weren't then even on the horizon of the law.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

As I understand the law all FORWARD facing seats must be fitted with seat belts. (side facing seats do NOT require seat belts to be fitted, which is why you no longer see crew bus type Transits with rows of seats down the side) 

ALL available seat belts must be used by anyone in the vehicle.

If ALL the seat belts are in use there is no requirement for additional passengers to be belted (as there are none its pretty common sense really) 

Its very difficult to see how you could be prosecuted for not using something that is not actually available for your use isnt it ?? !! 

HOWEVER !!!!!

You COULD leave yourself liable to being prosecuted for "carrying a passenger in a manner liable to cause danger" This is the one I used to use when people would ride in the back of a something like an MGB, sitting on the boot lid with their feet inside the car ! (yes people really did do that !!!)

If you have a classic car that did not require seat belts when it was contructed but has them now you are still required to use them. 

Simple maxim is "If fitted, must be used!"


----------



## thieawin (Jun 7, 2006)

peribro said:


> wakk44 said:
> 
> 
> > I have no idea if this is the law throughout the EU,perhaps someone could confirm this or otherwise,when I did the original seatbelt FAQ's I was only concerned with the law in the UK.
> ...


You have to be careful about this, it is not al encompassing

It is not true that if its legal here its legal in EU or that it has to be legal here to use in rest of EU

It is only the regulations regarding construction etc, type approval that are recognised and compliance in one (home state) is taken as allowing temporary use in the other (visited state)

So the number of seat belts to be fitted or whether a car becomes a trailer under UK law when attached to an A frame are mattesr for UK law if registered in UK.

However things like MOT or vehicle tax or number of passengers you can carry are local to the country you are visiting just like drink drive limits, road signs, precedence at junctions and roundabouts and speed limits, also tyre tread depth and actual safety of the vehicle

So OP it is France that you need to find out about

And I agree that the mod was being uneccessarily unhelpful in trying to score a point, but you had not initially explained it was not for your business and that you only allowed 5 ( or whatwever the number of belted seats) in business hires any way. Maybe you need two subs, one for business and one for personal


----------



## LondonMotorhomeHire (Jan 20, 2008)

Well, here is the latest. 

Thought I'd share this mornings calls with you.

After speaking to a couple of DFT people, I was routed to the Health & Safety Team of the DFT, Marsham Street, SW1.

I have categorically  been told that passengers are permitted to travel in side-facing seats without a seatbelt, unless an existing seat-belt is available. This applies in cases where the V5 permits up to that number to be carried. 'She' said that the time-stipulation as to date/year of manufacture did not apply in this set of circumstances. Still scratching my head on that one.

Understandably, she qualified that the DFT do not encourage passengers to travel in this manner but it is not against the law and risks should be taken into consideration.

For anyone thinking about having side-facing seat belts fitted, again all arguments over safety etc aside as I'm solely trying to share useful Service-Provider information, GT-towing in Stanmore, Middlesex are specialists. I went to them, as my 5-berth Kontiki 645, with a V5 saying 6, only had 4 seat-belts. They inspected my vehicle's infrastructure and pointed out how a perfectly legal, and as safe as could be, lap-belt could be installed. With that passenger sitting with a bulk-head directly beside them to the front, they reported that it was 'safe' as there would be no resultant forward movement in case of collision. I pressed them as to the legality of the retro-fit and in a very polite manner, they pointed out that they were one of the finest and most experienced supplier-fitters in the UK and had been trading for years and it was a point of law that they certify every single installation as meeting DFT technical and safety requirements. 
I was delighted with the service they provided and would recommend anyone thinking about it to seek advice from them.

Good-day all.


----------



## pippin (Nov 15, 2007)

So, this topic can finally be laid to rest.

On a practical note however, can we please have individual experiences of what it is actually like to be a side-facing passenger, restrained or otherwise.

I have been and it is the most awful of sick-inducing ways to travel - and I don't generally suffer from travel/sea/airsickness.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

thieawin said:


> And I agree that the mod was being uneccessarily unhelpful in trying to score a point,


But he was not speaking as a Mod, and made that abundently clear to anyone who bothered to look, and he wasn't scoring a point - it's you who are doing that, otherwise why bother to drag it up yet again ???

I have no idea how the OP runs his business, but like Chris, I would have expected him to be very familiar with the law since he clearly has a duty of care to his clients. :roll:

Nothing more nor less than that - just an expression of concern on behalf of the party of four hiring a two berth with the kids sleeping in their tent!

Please yourself whether you take this as a Mod comment or not. The disclaimer at the bottom seems to mean nothing! :roll:

Dave


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Whoa there Dave. 

It was clear to all that the post was not made with a mods hat on but Chris is still a mod and he was, in my opinion, point scoring which is unworthy regardless of head gear, Alan.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Nonetheless as thieawin points out in this case it isn't some woman at the DFT you have to argue it out with if something goes wrong - it will be with a Gendarme and your insurance company.

And in both cases I don't think "Ohh, so that's OK then!" will be the most obvious response.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

Stanner said:


> Nonetheless as thieawin points out in this case it isn't some woman at the DFT you have to argue it out with if something goes wrong - it will be with a Gendarme and your insurance company.


Yep - spot on Thieawin and Stanner! That's the reality of the ongoing situation. 



Stanner said:


> And in both cases I don't think "Ohh, so that's OK then!" will be the most obvious response.


Ever tried to argue the point with a stroppy Gendarme!! :roll:

Plain common sense to ensure that everything is done right and proper as far as you possibly can, or the holiday could be severely ruined.

Stroppy Gendarmes are a law unto themselves, much like gas station attendants in the other thread. No point in protesting - you will only get the classic Gallic shrug. :roll:

Dave


----------

