Insurance problems for side facing seat Defenders

Just read this and thought some here might be interested.

formatting link
I have enough problems with my 2.5 petrol which according to most insurers does not exist.

-- Regards Bob Hobden

1986 90 Utility 2.5 petrol
Reply to
Bob Hobden
Loading thread data ...

Just read this and thought some here might be interested.

formatting link
I have enough problems with my 2.5 petrol which according to most insurers does not exist.

The interesting thing is that having worked in the NHS in radiography since

1976. I have never heard of anyone being injured while travelling in a side facing seat.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but in the grand scheme the numbers must be pretty low.

TonyB

Series III LWB 2.5 petrol 6 cylinder ( sold ).

Reply to
TonyB

formatting link
>

It has happened in the past. The best known case (from 19930 was a school who owned a Transit type minibus with (IIRC, as the news archives just say there were no seat belts fitted) side facing seats which was involved in a collision on the Motorway. Search for "Hagley school minibus crash" to see the info I just found.

All the children ended up mashed into a (dead) pile at the front of the vehicle, which then went up in flames.

Since then, schools have got rid of all their crewbuses with side facing seats.

Reply to
John Williamson

formatting link

It has happened in the past. The best known case (from 19930 was a school who owned a Transit type minibus with (IIRC, as the news archives just say there were no seat belts fitted) side facing seats which was involved in a collision on the Motorway. Search for "Hagley school minibus crash" to see the info I just found.

All the children ended up mashed into a (dead) pile at the front of the vehicle, which then went up in flames.

Since then, schools have got rid of all their crewbuses with side facing seats.

Reply to
TonyB

formatting link
>>

with side facing

I had to go back that far because the lesson was learnt, and nobody now uses side facing seats in minibuses in the UK. All such minibuses were taken off the road quite quickly after that incident.

So, to get back to your point about it not happening, it doesn't happen now, because the seating layouts have been changed by law to stop it happening. The side facing seats in modern Land Rovers have to pass the same safety tests as the forward facing seat. I don't remember seeing a bench seat in a new Land Rover in a long time.

Land Rover fitted side facing seats in the 90 are a twin seat, and, IIRC, they are also twins in the 110, with restraints fitted, if they were put in at the factory, which makes them safer than the long bench seats which were in use in Transit type vehicles at the time of the incident. They were popular because they left the centre free for use as a van when passengers weren't being carried.

That's not what the emergency services said at the time. If the occupants had been wearing seat belts, they would probably have been able to get out or be got out by bystanders before the vehicle caught fire. As it was, they couldn't, and rescuers couldn't reach them because of the way they were all crushed into the front of the vehicle.

The incident also led to a tightening up of the controls on teachers driving in excursions, as the teacher had been up since early that morning, supervised the children all day at a concert, and was driving back, not having had a break all day.

Reply to
John Williamson

I had to go back that far because the lesson was learnt, and nobody now uses side facing seats in minibuses in the UK. All such minibuses were taken off the road quite quickly after that incident.

So, to get back to your point about it not happening, it doesn't happen now, because the seating layouts have been changed by law to stop it happening. The side facing seats in modern Land Rovers have to pass the same safety tests as the forward facing seat. I don't remember seeing a bench seat in a new Land Rover in a long time.

That just proves the point yet further. The seats have been improved, the dangerous ones taken off the road and as I said, virtually no injuries now caused by the remaining, relatively safe, sideways seats.

Land Rover fitted side facing seats in the 90 are a twin seat, and, IIRC, they are also twins in the 110, with restraints fitted, if they were put in at the factory, which makes them safer than the long bench seats which were in use in Transit type vehicles at the time of the incident. They were popular because they left the centre free for use as a van when passengers weren't being carried.

Yep, point taken, but why are the companies suddenly making a fuss about it when there's little or no data to prove their point?

That's not what the emergency services said at the time. If the occupants had been wearing seat belts, they would probably have been able to get out or be got out by bystanders before the vehicle caught fire. As it was, they couldn't, and rescuers couldn't reach them because of the way they were all crushed into the front of the vehicle.

You mean if the occupants had been wearing seatbelts in normal front facing seats? Yes of course. But had they been in side facing seats, I suggest belt or no belt would not have made the slightest difference. Belts don't work in sideways facing seats.

The incident also led to a tightening up of the controls on teachers driving in excursions, as the teacher had been up since early that morning, supervised the children all day at a concert, and was driving back, not having had a break all day.

Ah, now that really is addressing the cause of the accident!!

TonyB

Reply to
TonyB

Because their margins are being hit and they are looking for excuses to increase premiums? Not to mention the ambulance chasers threatening "no win, no fee" cases, which cost the companies a fortune even if they don't lose.

Yes, that.

A full harness belt will provide some protection, but you also need head restraints in that case, or the sideways forces can break the wearer's neck. Generally, you're right, and they can, in fact, cause more problems in that the wearer will suffer pelvic crush injuries and spinal injuries from the torsion forces if a belt is worn.

Yup. One report said that the driver had his glasses in his hand, as if he had been wiping his eyes to clear his vision, as people do when they are tired..

Reply to
John Williamson

Because their margins are being hit and they are looking for excuses to increase premiums? Not to mention the ambulance chasers threatening "no win, no fee" cases, which cost the companies a fortune even if they don't lose.

Valid points!

A full harness belt will provide some protection, but you also need head restraints in that case, or the sideways forces can break the wearer's neck. Generally, you're right, and they can, in fact, cause more problems in that the wearer will suffer pelvic crush injuries and spinal injuries from the torsion forces if a belt is worn.

Yup. One report said that the driver had his glasses in his hand, as if he had been wiping his eyes to clear his vision, as people do when they are tired..

Oh dear, bit of a damming clue that one!

TonyB

Reply to
TonyB

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.