3 point belt to replace lap belt

In message , Duncan writes

There will be legal implications on any modification to the seat belt mounts and as such the vehicle should be inspected and issued with a certificate before an MOT inspector will pass the belt..... That is if the testers actually realises that the set up has been altered from standard !!

Wait and see what Landrover have done themselves when it comes to the second row seat mounts for the 2007 MY Defender as all seats in that will have 3 point belts. It maybe that LR will start doing a retro kit ( at a less than retro price naturally )

This seat belt law is a total farce and we might find them back tracking with regard to older vehicles..... We just need some one on the press to pick up on it.

Actually people seem to be missing that it already does allow for older cars, at least in part, to quote the police guidance: "NOTE: If no seatbelts at all in rear then children over 3 may travel unrestrained in the rear of a vehicle." So any vehicles too old to have them is exempt for over 3's, even if you have lap belts fitted in a vehicle that doesn't need them they could be removed, not exactly a step forward but it may help some to get around this mess. Greg

Marc, Thanks for your prompt reply, could you or any body interested have a look at my questions

Who would inspect it and what certificate would be issued, where would I get this done if I fabricated something myself?

I have seen the 2007 defender, the middle seat has the seat belt fitted to the seat, therefore that would mean a complete new set of seats. Which my guess would be expensive.

I am quite happy with fitting 3 point belts after all my childrens saftey should come first, just wondered if somebody had done this conversion. I spoke to Exmoor trim they only could advice on fitting the inertia reel to the floor which would take up the load space. It needs to be at a 45 degree angle

Thanks Duncan

In article , Marc Draper writes

Went to put littlest's booster seat in the middle row this afternoon and realised that the middle row seats are higher than the front seat *with* the booster fitted.

Also, having read the guidelines carefully, it seems that it's OK for her to sit on the bench seats, unrestrained (as they don't have belts fitted), but not facing forward.

The whole thing is utterly bonkers. I'd like to see the statistics about how many deaths and serious injuries it is supposed to prevent...

Regards,

Simonm.

is there even any pretence it's an aid to safety?

simply makes it less hassle to count the bodies.

I think that Marc's statement is probably over the top. The law says very little about the detail of seat belt mounts and neither should it. That is something for the manufacturer to work out for his particular vehicle to meet specified regulatory needs.

With a new vehicle, the person 'putting the vehicle on the market'(assuming it's in the EU) will have to meet certain strength requirements for the mountings. This is done as part of the type-approval business for the manufacturer. That is a legal thing. (Before we go off at a tangent on type-approval, remember that it is irrelevant to the end user).

The next thing in a vehicle's life is keeping it in a safe condition leading to a requirement for the mountings to meet the MOT requirements. Here again there is no detail on the design of mount and it does not require any strength requirement to be met. There is no certification requirement of which I know.

There is therefore, I believe, nothing that stops you designing and making your own mounts. There are many in this group who are qualified both in terms of doing this job to a decent standard at the practical level and also at an appropriate academic level.

A big 'however', though - your insurance company will most certainly be interested and may wish to inspect what has been done. They may even not want to know and decline to insure you.

Personally, unless I misunderstand, I don't like the sound of your bar below the headlining without understanding what is going to support it.

If you are talking, as I think you are, about the second row of seats I think you've got problems. Put in a full roll cage and you might have a chance.

Were it the front row you might like to look at the optional seat belt mountings that were used on soft tops on e.g. the 90 (MRC 7354). (There's a military roll bar which also might be usable in a similar manner.) This provided a suitably braced sturdy hoop above the bulkhead at a bit above shoulder height to mount the reels. But it catered, I think, only for the two outer seats. It would modify very easily, I feel, to add provision for another belt in the middle. I'll e-mail you a picture of that for your information.

It might also be worth trying the roll cage specialists e.g.

to see if they have done anything that might help. Ring them - it might not be in the catalogue.

While you're at it, how many restrained front seat occupants are damaged by unrestrained projectile children in the event of a collision.

Quite.

I can't see how this helps anyone except the 'safety product' manufacturers who evidently lobby very effectively.

What's worse, one aspect of this problem is *entirely* of their making: the problem of airbags for small front-seat passengers (including drivers).

When we recently bought our first airbag-fitted car I struggled unsuccessfully with the manufacturer (Seat/VW) to get both front airbags disabled, or have switches fitted. This is a common modification in the USA. I have calculated that there is a reasonable possibility that my wife would be killed by any deployment of the steering wheel airbag, based on her height and the proximity of the wheel (there are at least half a dozen well-documented instances of this in the USA).

Now we have the utter absurdity of safety legislation to prevent fatality risk caused by other safety devices. Naturally any modifications we are eventually forced to make won't be at the expense of the vehicle or safety device manufacturers!

Sorry, the more I think about this...

Regards,

Simonm.

Having been involved in scooping up the remains of projectile children who had been propelled through the windscreen in a couple of accidents I think the changes would be a bloody good idea if they had been implemented in a workable manner.

Just saw this on the BBC web site - had to smile...

------------------- >8 -------------------- Added: Friday, 15 September, 2006, 10:53 GMT 11:53 UK

Personally I think that many old people would also benefit from these. I have lost count of the number of times I have been following a ghost car (appears to have no-one driving it). Some OAPs can barely see over the steering wheels.

Clare, Bexhill

-------------------------------------------

Regards,

Simonm.

I agree completely, I've read some peoples posts arguing that properly restraining children is somehow a bad thing and wondered what planet they're on!. The simple fact is that a lot of parents are irresponsible enough to allow their kids to go unrestrained even though their cars have restraints (that need additional boosters/seats depending on the child's size) so the principle of enforcing their use sound, it's just the complete mess they've made of introducing it that's the problem. It's been made a whole lot worse by the press who seem completely unable to report the truth, my local rag has a front page picture of one of those very expensive seats and is telling everyone that their under 12's MUST have such a seat!. Greg

Presumably you haven't read them here - or I must have missed them. Some comments have been made along the lines of "children over three can travel without a seatbelt if none is fitted", but I have taken these as a comment on the ridiculous wording of the legislation, rather than a "that's what I'll do then" comment.

The point I think is that existing legislation, if applied properly, was perfectly adequate for the job, whereas the new wording (if applied as most people seem to think it should) will make persistent offenders of all Land-Rover owners with more than two children.

Of course, the new law won't actually stop the "child through the windscreen" scenario, since if a driver didn't insist on children using the belts before (as they should have done), they won't do it now. I on the other hand will continue to put my two boys in lap belts on the side facing bench seat of my 110, whilst my two girls flank the baby (2 year old) in his four point harness in the centre row. And I shall do so if I ever drive back in the UK (unlikely as that may be), 'cos it is perfectly safe!

Stuart

Stuart

In message , Duncan writes

On the old style MOT certificate there is a section "For all vehicles with more then 8 passenger seats " "Instillation checked this test" "previous installation check date"

This is aimed at mini buses etc but the 110 CSW falls into the group due to capacity.

If the vehicle is as it came out of the factory then no further inspection is needed. But if it is non standard then it needs to be checked. Contact VOSA for more details on current legislation.

A badly designed / installed 3 point belt Will be more dangerous than a factory lap belt. Over the years I have seen some potentially lethal attempts by parents to secure their children in Defenders.

On or around 19 Sep 2006 03:55:27 -0700, "Duncan" enlightened us thusly:

the auto-safe lot do one, don't know if you can fit it to a defender.

See other posts...

Marc Draper wrote: ..

..

Have a look at the bottom of the following page. It looks as if Land Rover Defender 110 Station Wagons are exempted from the minibus seatbelt regulations.

Colin

On or around Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:04:54 +1200, EMB enlightened us thusly:

they are workable. I doubt that the enforcement will be any better than before, mind.

There will always be problems with specific vehicles (such as ones never designed to have seat belts in the rear) and there will always be problems with specific people...

But the regulations make sense, in that there are few exceptions. Granted, it's not going to be possible to adequately secure 5 kids in the back of a typical motor, but that's because it never was, not because the law is a ass

- if you allow more than a very few exceptions (like the thing about necessity: if your child needs to got to hospital and there's no suitable belt, that's allowed, ferexample, or if you suddenly have to pick up a friend's child from school) then you may as well not bother, because half the people will go "oh, but I don't do it because..."

In some specific cases, such as defenders, it might be more difficult, but that's partly due to the fact that the middle-row seats are a hangover from a design 40 years ago (109 SW), as is the whole vehicle in fact.

sideways bench seats have been deprecated for some time and have been illegal for children on organised trips for several years in the UK. I'd tend to argue that the single side-facing folders with lap belts in the discos are not much less safe than a forward-facing lap belt-only seat - the back of the middle-row seat, which they'll hit in the event of a front-end shunt, is padded and the headrests come up quite high, with respect to children. The back door would be the worst risk, in the event of a serious rear-ending.

If you're bothered about carrying children suitably in a 110, you're going to have to get it worked on, and then inspected, as there aren't suitable belts. You'll also have to accept that you can't fit 12 people in, and secure them adequately. I reckon I could get 8 people in a defender and fit suitable belts, including the fabrication of mounting points where there are none, it would then need a seatbelt installation check. It comes down to the fact that the defender, big as it is, is not a big motor inside.

The question is how highly do you value your children...

BTW, if anyone wants a genuine 12-seater 110, I reckon I've got most of the process of fitting a transit body to the 110 chassis sorted out in theory - if I'd not run out of money this summer I'd have built one by now.

It'll run you about 2 grand more than the cost of a 110 and a suitable transit, ballpark figure. might be a bit less, if there are enough good parts to be sold. If, however, you start from a 110 with good chassis and drivetrain but s**te body and a sound tranny body with shagged engine, there's not going to be much value in the residual bits. I'm inclined to think that I'd return the possibly-saleable parts, and the owner could recoup as much as they manage to from them.

On or around Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:49:05 +0200, Srtgray enlightened us thusly:

some old classic cars don't have rear belts or indeed mountings for them...

Indeed, my old SII had no belts at all, front or rear.

Stuart

The New Zealand law is fairly sensible and strikes a good balance between safety and practicality. The link below is to the infosheet that puts it all into plain English for the ordinary motorist.