# safe to travel?



## mygalnme (Jul 12, 2009)

Just want some advice please  we have a 740S Autotrail Cheyenne, as there are no seat belts on the side seats are we allowed to take passengers :?: if so how many :?: 
ps. don,t want a coach load mind you...


----------



## steco1958 (Mar 5, 2009)

I believe it is illegal to cary passengers unless you have a 3 point seat belt for them, and that has to be on a front facing seat

But I am sure someone will answer this with the actual ruling.

Steve


----------



## shingi (Apr 18, 2008)

type 'seat belts and the law' in the google search above and you will get the definitive answer.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

If it has front facing seats then you are required to have seat belts fitted.

Side facing seats are not required to have seat belts fitted.

If seat belts are fitted they MUST be used.

Therefore if your intended purchased has side facing seats there is no requirement for them to have seat belts fitted, if they are not fitted they cannot be used can they??.


----------



## Rosbotham (May 4, 2008)

I thought it depended on the age of the MH.

Pre October 2007, there was no requirement to fit seatbelts in seats in the rear of the MH, regardless of whether they're forward, reverse or side-facing. From Oct 2007, implementation of a EU Directive means there's an obligation to fit seatbelts on any seat intended for use when in transit.

If seatbelts are fitted, they must be used, if not, there's no _legal_ reason not to use them. Of course, from a _safety_ perspective...


----------



## oddball135 (Jul 30, 2009)

crazyhead said:


> Just want some advice please  we have a 740S Autotrail Cheyenne, as there are no seat belts on the side seats are we allowed to take passengers :?: if so how many :?:
> ps. don,t want a coach load mind you...


Our van also has got side seats, which is a 2005, I looked into it, and NO you dont need seat belts on side seats.
Our moterhome is a 6 berth, so we can carry 6 people, ask your Ins. company.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

oddball135 said:


> crazyhead said:
> 
> 
> > Just want some advice please  we have a 740S Autotrail Cheyenne, as there are no seat belts on the side seats are we allowed to take passengers :?: if so how many :?:
> ...


"Berths" are for sleeping in a stationary van not for "carrying" in a moving van! Seatbelts are never fitted to side facing seats and anyone who carries people in side facing seats, legal or not, must have no regard for their passenger's safety; as it is lethal.

Noel.


----------



## krull (Jul 22, 2006)

Noel said:


> "Berths" are for sleeping in a stationary van not for "carrying" in a moving van! Seatbelts are never fitted to side facing seats and anyone who carries people in side facing seats, legal or not, must have no regard for their passenger's safety; as it is lethal.
> 
> Noel.


Talk about hysteria. :roll:

If not fitted, seatbelts do not have to be worn.

Only 'lethal' if you have an accident. Assess the risk and make your choice accordingly.

On a long haul, we will take turns to sleep on the back bunk whilst the other drives.


----------



## Rosbotham (May 4, 2008)

krull said:


> On a long haul, we will take turns to sleep on the back bunk whilst the other drives.


As a matter of interest, what's the legality of that? We were considering doing similar next year to cover long distance over-night, but wasn't sure what the legal situation was of someone being asleep in the back.

Appreciate the _safety_ issue, but per the original poster, my query is specifically about the _legality_.


----------



## Tezmcd (Aug 3, 2009)

I looked into this quite a lot when deciding what to eventually buy as i really liked a 4 berth rear L shaped lounge layout, but finally decided against it because of seat belts (would not want to see one of my kids flying through the front windscreen if I had to emergency brake!)

From what I have found, on motor homes pre 2007 there is no requirement for rear passengers NOT sitting in a forward facing seat to have a belt fitted.

So in a side or rear facing seat, passengers can travel without a belt.

Having said that there may be issues with getting insurance for this and furthermore if you have an accident you may stilll be prosecuted for carrying passengers in an unsafe manner (despite the fact that as long as you dont have an accident you cannot be prosecuted!)

After 2007 I believe the rules are a little different and all passengers carried must wear a belt - though I stand to be corrected on all the above


----------



## GerryD (Sep 20, 2007)

Most insurance companies will not cover passengers in a motorhome unless they are using manufacturer fitted belted seats. The definitive answer has to be your insurance company as they may impose stiffer conditions than the law.
Gerry


----------



## colonel (Oct 11, 2008)

To clarify (a little) I understand that if you have forward facing seats that have belts fitted, these seats MUST be used first. Only if they are already occupied can you use side facing seats without belts.

As others have said, I would not allow people to use seats if there are no belts fitted to them but it is an individual choice, so asses the risk, check with your insurers and then decide. Clearly if you have an older van and you have no seat belts then you don't have much choice.

As for laying in bed whilst the vehicle is in motion, I think this may be an offence but the legal eagles on here will know better. :? :?


----------



## MyGalSal (Dec 8, 2008)

As from May 2009:

Vans pre Oct 97 passengers must wear seat belts - if fitted.

Vans post Oct 97 all forward and rear facing seats must have belts and be worn. Seat belts are not fitted to side facing seats and therefore side facing seats cannot be used for travel.

Sal


----------



## ThursdaysChild (Aug 2, 2008)

I am not quite clear what is meant in earlier posts about the "insurance" aspect. I have never been asked by any insurance company whether I will be carrying any unbelted passengers - in fact I cannot recall any questions about passengers at all.
Every year I complete at least six quotation requests, and the only "people" questions relate to drivers. No questions about berths for sleepers or seats for wakers.


----------



## Rochdalemasher (Jun 22, 2009)

Just found this bit of info.

Seatbelts and the law 
(last updated April 2009)

We asked the Department for Transport for their interpretation on the law as it applies to seatbelts fitted in motorhomes, this article gives the essence of the information that they gave us.

The information below relates to the fitting of seatbelts and the wearing of seatbelts by adults. There is specific legislation, introduced in 2006, concerning the carrying of children in vehicles. Rather than trying to present all the somewhat complicated regulations here, please see: www.dft.gov.uk/think/focusareas/children/childincar?page=FAQ

For vehicles built up to Oxtober 2007 there was 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 did not preclude manufacturers fitting seat belts to forward facing or rearward facing seats within the accommodation area if they wished to do so. 
Where seat belts are fitted they must be worn.

Seats in the rear of a campervan/motorhome did not, prior to October 2007, 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 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.

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

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."

The advisability of carrying unrestrained passengers is another matter, to quote the DfT spokesman:

'... 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 ...'.

In addition to considering the legal and safety issues involved, owners who intend to carry passengers in unbelted seats must check with their insurers to confirm that this is acceptable to them.

Our advice is that, regardless of the letter of the law, all passengers should wear seat belts.

We are indebted to Rohan Pohl and Tim Norman from the Department for Transport for their time and patience in answering all our questions on this subject.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

GerryD said:


> Most insurance companies will not cover passengers in a motorhome unless they are using manufacturer fitted belted seats. The definitive answer has to be your insurance company as they may impose stiffer conditions than the law.
> Gerry


Exactly - just because something isn't "illegal" doesn't mean that it is "legal" it is a very large, murky, grey area and it's very easy to fall between into it and only find out you have problems when it is too late.

Have an accident with unbelted passengers in side facing seats (or lying down in a bunk) and see how your insurer deals with it! And see how the Police look at it as well.

Some things are only "illegal" after they have happened.

Same as accident blackspots are only dealt with after enough people have died.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

ThursdaysChild said:


> I am not quite clear what is meant in earlier posts about the "insurance" aspect. I have never been asked by any insurance company whether I will be carrying any unbelted passengers - in fact I cannot recall any questions about passengers at all.
> Every year I complete at least six quotation requests, and the only "people" questions relate to drivers. No questions about berths for sleepers or seats for wakers.


Insurers do not need to ask anything whatsoever, the onus is upon you to provide them with any relevant information you think they will need. 
They will only decide whether or not they needed it when assessing your claim. 
If they then think you should have done and you didn't, they can void your insurance and refuse your claim.


----------



## Rosbotham (May 4, 2008)

They might try to, but they wouldn't get very far. If something is not legally prohibited (which the DfT advice clarifies is not the case pre-2007 build), and there is no exclusion in the contract of insurance, they would have no grounds for not paying out. Not saying they might not try it on, but unless there's a specific endorsement to the policy saying that all passengers must be belted, they couldn't enforce it.

NB I've no axe to grind on this as I don't carry passengers in back.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Rosbotham said:


> They might try to, but they wouldn't get very far. If something is not legally prohibited (which the DfT advice clarifies is not the case pre-2007 build), and there is no exclusion in the contract of insurance, they would have no grounds for not paying out. Not saying they might not try it on, but unless there's a specific endorsement to the policy saying that all passengers must be belted, they couldn't enforce it.
> 
> NB I've no axe to grind on this as I don't carry passengers in back.


You've clearly had few, if any, dealings with the UK motor insurance industry.


----------



## Noel (May 1, 2005)

krull said:


> Noel said:
> 
> 
> > "Berths" are for sleeping in a stationary van not for "carrying" in a moving van! Seatbelts are never fitted to side facing seats and anyone who carries people in side facing seats, legal or not, must have no regard for their passenger's safety; as it is lethal.
> ...


No, not hysterical but any driving is about some responsibility to others and having a grownup and non-ostrich like attitude. Unbelieveable :!:


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Noel said:


> krull said:
> 
> 
> > Noel said:
> ...


Hysterical is when an unrestrained 12 stone adult hits them in the back when they stop and the unrestrained 12 stone adult doesn't.

Well it'll be "hysterical" for those of us watching.

Haven't they seen the advert on TV where the boy "kills his mother and sits down again" ?


----------



## mickyc (Jan 20, 2006)

Hmmm wonder how you'de stand visiting the loo whilst driving, as my lot do on a regular basis - the seat is forward facing, and has no belt (best get one fitted sharpish!!)

:wink:


(obviously I don't mean stand in the literal sense, or the driver visiting the loo!!!)


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

mickyc said:


> Hmmm wonder how you'de stand visiting the loo whilst driving, as my lot do on a regular basis - the seat is forward facing, and has no belt (best get one fitted sharpish!!)
> 
> :wink:
> 
> (obviously I don't mean stand in the literal sense, or the driver visiting the loo!!!)


Do any of them regularly stay there for the whole journey? - it is an available seat that hasn't got a seatbelt fitted and so it's use doesn't require that one is worn.

Well whatever, I guess they are already in the right seat for when the accident happens.


----------



## mygalnme (Jul 12, 2009)

*Silly B!!!!!illy*

   OOER whose a silly b.... I haven,t been on for a bit and forgot to check if any replies from before.... then went into a different forum....so sorry and thank you to everyone who did answer..I will try and get it right in future :roll:  NEWBIES EH :!: :!:


----------



## skiboycey (May 21, 2009)

> Hysterical is when an unrestrained 12 stone adult hits them in the back when they stop and the unrestrained 12 stone adult doesn't.


Stanner you could always choose not to crash - I mean it's not that hard, really is it?

One thing that always irritates me about safety zealots is that they treat crashes as though they are bolts of lightning that come out of the blue and strike without warning. You can very easily choose to mitigate most if not all of the risk by driving in an appropriate way. If someone in the back wants to go to the loo wouldn't it just be sensible to drive carefully for the duration of their visit or say 'no' if you feel that's not possible due to traffic conditions? When I carry my baby in my motorhome she has to travel in the front seat as I have an Autotrail Cheyenne with no rear seatbelts which means my missus has to travel on those without being belted up. As I know I'm carrying precious cargo I just have to drive carefully and consider what I'm doing a bit more.

Of course there are mechanical failures like blowouts to consider but they're about as rare as lighting striking and the only way to avoid that is not to go walking on rainy days which most of us would consider an over-reaction. Why then is this sensible attitude to reasonable risk management frowned upon as soon as a motor vehicle is involved?

I hate to think how you'd all deal with life at 8000m in a blizzard in the Himalayas or caught in strong conditions on my paraglider. Probably ban those of us that like those activities from ever doing them I'd imagine...

Regards, Mark


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

skiboycey said:


> Stanner you could always choose not to crash - I mean it's not that hard, really is it?


 8O

Choice??

What choice did the motorists caught up in this have?

http://s392.photobucket.com/albums/pp6/908HY/?action=view&current=saferrrrrrTruck.flv

And what choice do you have if this is coming the other way?
http://www.gwent.police.uk/leadnews.php?a=2172

Friends of mine were killed when a lorry coming the other way jack-knifed, I don't think they chose to hit it.

If you think crashes are a matter of choice for the innocent parties who just happen to get caught up in them........................

:roll:


----------



## TDG (May 26, 2009)

crazyhead said:


> Just want some advice please  we have a 740S Autotrail Cheyenne, as there are no seat belts on the side seats are we allowed to take passengers :?: if so how many :?:
> ps. don,t want a coach load mind you...


I strongly recommend a detailed risk assessment :wink: - aka - the application of a good dose of common sense 8)


----------



## rickwiggans (May 10, 2006)

I believe the meaning of rules have recently been re-interpreted. When first announced it was decided that post 2007, or when ever it was, you could only carry as many passengers as there are belts. However, as I understand it, the rule has been reinterpeted (not changed), and whilst it still stands, it has been decreed that rules regarding seat belts cannot be applied to seats that don't have them. The upshot is , that you can find conflicting "official" advice, depending when it was published. However, none of this addresses whether it is sensible to carry unbelted passengers. Also, I believe there is an offence of carrying passengers in an unsafe manner, or something like that - so it is possible to find yourself running foul of that, I guess

Rick


----------



## GerryD (Sep 20, 2007)

skiboycey said:


> you could always choose not to crash - I mean it's not that hard, really is it?
> 
> Regards, Mark


Has to be the most ridiculous statement I have ever seen on here.

How insulting and offensive to insinuate that those people killed or maimed in road accidents had a choice in the matter.

Gerry


----------



## karlb (Feb 22, 2009)

this subject will roll and roll at the end of the day it is down to the individual to do there own risk assesment as in all walks of life and hobbys. accidents do happen, i am having a grandson soon and i personally will change the van rather then take the risk of travelling without a belt. the law in this area is very grey but surely common sense prevails.


----------



## krull (Jul 22, 2006)

GerryD said:


> skiboycey said:
> 
> 
> > you could always choose not to crash - I mean it's not that hard, really is it?
> ...


Gerry

The man has a perfectly valid point, well put. No need to blast him just because you don't agree with his POV.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

krull said:


> GerryD said:
> 
> 
> > skiboycey said:
> ...


The only way to choose not to have a crash/accident/whatever is to choose not to leave home.

But then most accidents happen at home...............so you can't win there either.


----------



## skiboycey (May 21, 2009)

> The only way to choose not to have a crash/accident/whatever is to choose not to leave home.


You can't choose not have all accidents in the same way that by living a very healthy lifestyle you can't choose to avoid all terminal illness.

You can however massively mitigate both by making easy choices. You can choose not to smoke, not to drink heavily, to eat sensibly, to take excersise and probably avoid 90% of illness but not all. You can drive sensibly, do some motor racing so you know what to do when it all goes wrong and choose the time of day and types of road you travel on to avoid perhaps 99% of accidents. You can't avoid a lorry coming the other way on the wrong side of the road, it's true, but the only way to avoid this would be, as you suggest, to never leave home in which case the individual may feel life wasn't worth living anyway.

So I stand by the statement 'You could always choose not to crash' as long as you deemed that the particular stretch of road you were on and the time of day allowed this decision to be reasonably made. If you felt it didn't then you have to say 'no' to the person wanting to use the loo or never take a person in the vehicle who's not belted up...

After a life spent mountaineering, flying, extreme skiing and finding other ways to cheat death I've got to admit I don't lose a lot of sleep about riding in the back of a vehicle without a seatbelt. In fact I don't lose a lot of sleep about riding on the roof whilst drunk and trying to imitate a big wave surfer. Each to their own I suppose... 

'Life is a sexually transmitted disease which is always fatal' as R D Laing famously mused. Some people are obsessed with ensuring they have as much _quantity_ of life as possible and others like me are obsessed with having as much _quality_ even at the risk of shortening the quantity available...

Regards, Mark


----------

