You are a Guest, please Join now to allow full access to the website and be part of our community. You can register by clicking the "Click Here to create an account" link at the top left of the page under our Logo
Hi,
The side facing seat and seatbelt debate has been well covered in these forums.
This a great chance for you to hone your search skills using the 'Search Forums' line from the left hand sidebar in the 'Home' page.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day!
Teach him to fish and you feed him for life. (that's fine if he likes fish!!)
The following members of MHF thanked aultymer for this posting
hi can any one tell me if you need to were seat belt in the rear on side facing seat?
Google is always your friend. This from the Dept of Transport in 2006:-
There is currently no legal requirement to have seat belts fitted to side-facing seats or seats that make up the accommodation area in motor caravans.
Regulation 46 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986: as amended states motor caravans first used on or after 1st April 1982 but before 1 October 1988 shall be equipped with anchorage points for the driver's seat and specified passenger seat (if any); and for motor caravans first used on or after 1st October 1988 shall be equipped with anchorage points for the driver's seat and any forward-facing front seat.
You can download a copy of the SI at
Only registered users can see links on our Forum Join Now or Login
However, this does not preclude manufacturers fitting seat belts to forward facing or rearward facing seats within the accommodation area if they wish to do so.
Where seat belts are fitted they must be worn.
Re. the carrying of passengers in unbelted seats:-
... seats in the rear of a campervan/motorhome do not, at present, require seatbelts (whether forward, rearward or sideways facing) and it is not illegal to carry unrestrained passengers in them while travelling, providing the vehicle is not overloaded. It is not something we would recommend, however.
Although current seat belt wearing regulations do not currently prohibit carrying more passengers in vehicles than there are seat belts available, the police may prosecute drivers for carrying passengers in a manner that may injure someone. We would advise that no-one should be carried in any unbelted seat in the rear of a motorhome.
A recent Directive (2005/40/EC) on the installation of seat belts requires that from 20 October 2007 new vehicles will have to have seat belts fitted on all seats except those seats intended solely for use when the vehicle is stationary.
Where seat belts are fitted, from May 2009, the seat belt wearing Directive will prevent more passengers being carried than there are seat belts in the rear of vehicles.
The new requirements will mean that from May 2009, in any vehicle of whatever age, where seat belts are fitted in the rear, more passengers may not be carried in the rear than there are seat belts available.
The critical points are that for owners of older motorhomes, it will not become illegal to carry passengers in the rear, provided that no seatbelts are fitted to any seats behind the driver and front passenger seats. Owners of any motorhome that has belts fitted to any seat in the rear will need to be aware that, from May 2009, it will be illegal to carry passengers in any unbelted seats.
The advisability of carrying unrestrained passengers is another matter:-
'... the police can already act where people in the rear of any vehicle are considered to be carried in a dangerous manner because they are unrestrained. [Owners] should beware of unbelted passengers. In a crash, they can injure others in the vehicle
There ya go.
Dougie.
______________________________________________________________ I´m playing all the right notes... but not necessarily in the right order.
.
The following members of MHF thanked asprn for this posting
So if the police deem it is unsafe if they see passenger\s on rear unbelted seats presumably they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is unsafe. But I presume it would be reasonable to assume that it is not as safe as wearing seatbelts but is it as safe as riding in the back of a police van unrestrained or a bus or coach. So are we are talking about levels of safety rather than something which is absolutely unsafe to the point of stupidity. Is it safe to walk around a plane while it is in the air where air pockets are common place. No it is not but why then is it allowed. It is allowed because it is considerably safer than landing or taking off without a seatbelt.
I would imagine that with caution there is no reason why someone should not be carried as a passenger in the back while being aware that this is more dangerous than someone in the back with a seatbelt but where are we going to draw the line re safety.
I hasten to add I am not advocating one thing or another but I hate laws and interpetations of laws that are left to the plods to ponder looking at their record of safety on our roads.
______________________________________________________________ Emptying the Porta Pottie is known as Ground Bog Day in our van.
The following members of MHF thanked Pusser for this posting
I hate laws and interpetations of laws that are left to the plods to ponder looking at their record of safety on our roads.
As ever, never one to resist having a cheap pop, eh.
Dougie.
Yes I am sorry about that but it is mainly because I believe that overall the service we get from the police is poor. I have the same view about the NHS, Education, and other public services. The police are now reactive rather than proactive and while I do accept the dangers of the job, it is not the only job that has dangers and like other dangerous professions it is the choice of the individual. Of course one may argue that it is not the fault of the average policeman and I suspect this is true but that does not negate from the money and pension they get paid that therefore they generally only do what is the bear minimum. Just a month ago, 5 policeman arrived at a clients house to arrest a carer for possible fraud. Meanwhile at exactly the same time, 4 policemen arrested another carer who is also a client of mine. I think on balance the two carers could well be guiltly but just think of the extra work the not needed spare 5 policemen could be doing.
The downside to my having a pop is that I will of course upset policemeand women who work their backside off but I'm afraid that is the price to pay to highlight things which I feel should be highligted.
If there are members on here, which I am sure there are, that think we get value for money from the police then let us hear their reason which will be perfectly valid. Just because I hold a view does not mean I am right and unlike a lot of people, my views are not set in stone and will change if needed.
______________________________________________________________ Emptying the Porta Pottie is known as Ground Bog Day in our van.
The following members of MHF thanked Pusser for this posting
Bookmarks
Watched Topics
