Transporting young people (Scouts)

A good start would be to find a current copy of POR[1] which will probably have something to say about it.

P.

[1] Policy, Organisation and Rules - the bible of what Scouts can and can't do.

You could try asking on uk.rec.scouting ?

Lizzy

I suspect you'll find that IF you are using a vehicle with seating for more than 8 passengers (9 including the driver) then using inward facing seats isn't allowable - for under 16's anyway - the problem being that the vehicle will fall into the mini-bus /passenger carrying vehicle regulations.

However, in the case of your 90, its not a mini-bus, its classed as a normal car. As the seating capacity falls outside those regs and as such the restriction on using inward facing seats for under 16's as specified in the pcv regs isn't applicable. No doubt well-meaning parties will be interpreting the regs in their own way.

Whether carrying children in inward facing seats is a good idea anyway is another matter altogether and even having used a 110 some years ago for the purpose, I now have severe reservations about doing so. Even with lap-belts (an absolute minimum moral, if not necessarily a legal requirement, depending on the age of the vehicle) I'm now of the personal view that there is too high a risk of injury to passengers carried on inward facing seats.

As Lizzy suggests, get onto uk.rec.scouting and see what sort of response you get !!!! I'd also check with your DC to see whether there are any "local" rules (much beloved in Scouting) and you could also check with HQ at Gilwell and get their views.

A quick Google search produces this

which will point you in the right direction re legislation. POR is here you will find this

HIH - Mike.

I'm fairly certain that inward facing seats are a no no!

John

The Cadet Forces were stopped from using Landies and Bedfords with side facing (either inwards or outwards) seats to transport Cadets several years ago. From memory - and it's not what it used to be - the reason we were given was to conform with the Childrens Act (or whatever it's called).

My experience of the scouting movement, however restricted that may be, is that they will continue to do what they've always done until someone gets seriously injured (or killed) and then blame the driver. Not much different from teachers in that respect.

Dons flame-proof suit and armour and awaits brick-bats to arrive :-)

Regards Steve G

On or around 12 Jul 2004 07:34:09 -0500, "JJ" enlightened us thusly:

AFAIK the prohibition is on sideways-facings seats in general, for vehicles used to transport children on organised trips. They won't allow 'em for school transport.

Asked the very same question for the very same reason 2 yrs ago. No one could answer the question fully. Land Rover couldn't yet they still produce new vehicles with side facing seats. No response from Dept Transport or whatever they are called :>). My insurance company had to agree that the specification of the vehicle was for 7 passengers (County model with factory fitted seats but prior to sealt belt legislation). Scouting Legal dept, after a bit of prodding, agreed that there was no 'ruling' on the matter but 'suggested' that it would not be a good idea. They also quoted the Cadet forces ban on side facing seats. Basically make your own mind up and if anything happens we will sort it out then.

George, thats the name of my Landy (sad init?) is used as a tow truck and luggage carrier, water bowser, radio shack and anything else that comes along in a Scouting world.

MAB

2nd Fair Oak

Who is "they"?

On what grounds, if not in a pcv ?

POR

Hmmm - where ?

On or around Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:55:35 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Buckley" enlightened us thusly:

the govermint. more bloody laws. It was aimed at stopping people using crewbuses with long, unbelted seats along the sides, but has typically hit other things too.

I might be able to find which chapter and verse, hang on...

C and U 1986.

48A. Minibuses and coaches to be fitted with additional seat belts when used in certain circumstances

(1) No person shall use or cause or permit to be used on a road a coach or minibus wholly or mainly for the purpose of carrying a group of 3 or more children in the following circumstances unless the appropriate number of forward-facing passenger seats fitted to the vehicle meet the requirements of this regulation.

(2) The circumstances are that :-

(a) the group of children are on an organised trip; and

(b) the journey is being made for the purposes of the trip.

elsewhere it says that the regulation covers vechicles which do not look like minibuses but nevertheless have more than 8 seats. Mind, that doesn't in fact cover the 7-seater 90 mentioned in the OP. It also says that rearward-facing seats are OK.

Indeed. The regs are intended to catch the people carriers in their net, as well as the obvious crew-bus / mini-bus situations.

7 seater 90's don't fall into the regs. it seems! Which in turn means that carrying under 16's in the rear is ok.

Mike.

On or around Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:44:48 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Buckley" enlightened us thusly:

you might however find that you get hassle if anything goes wrong.

On or around Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:44:48 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Buckley" enlightened us thusly:

neither do discos, with the 2 sideways seats at the back, since they're only

7 seats total as well.

"Minibus" is 9-17 seats including driver, or 8-16 passengers.

Hmm. I'm not sure I'd use a 90 or a Disco's inward facing seats on a "school-run" contract I have to say. I would be interested to see how there could be any hassle though, given that the mini-bus/pcv legislation doesn't cover them. Even within Scouting there is no specific reference to any "ban" on using inward facing seats, other than in compliance with statute.

Mike.

On or around Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:23:05 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Buckley" enlightened us thusly:

I'm prepared to argue the point about the Disco, should the need ever arise, since:

a) seats have belts b) they're single seats, not benches c) they're immediately behind the tallish back of the middle seats, and in the event of a front-end impact (the only one in which the sideways nature of the seats could add more risk than a forward-facing with lap belt, such as most of the minibuses and coaches have) there's no-where to slide to. The back of the middle seat is slightly padded, too.

forward-facing seats with lap belts are a nice recipe for a broken neck, IMHO, if behind another seat and if the inhabitant is tall enough that when their torso flips forwards their head contacts the back of the seat in front.

but I don't make the regs., and in this case the regs (amazingly) seem to recognise the impossibility of upgrading all the seats and belts in all the buses nationwide to full 3-point "M2" spec.

Now I recall in my schooldays that the school held all sorts of events to buy a minibus, and what did they get. A transit with sideward facing seats, and bloody primitive ones at that which would not have been out of place on horse bus.

Dunno bout scouts but I recently saw a whole bunch of guides disgorge from a

110.

Yep! It poses an interesting question as to how schools and the like view their customers when they buy (as they could then of course) the cheapest, and potentially most lethal, form of multiseat transport then available.

If it wasnt for legislation forcing them/us to have proper seats, belts, wahtever then it has to be quesitoned as to whether kids would still be carted around in glorified cattle trucks by organisations seeking to spend the least posible amount of money on doing so.

Scouts / Guides / BB / youth clubs - doesnt matter - there are plenty of well-meaning people who dont know about the problems with carrrying under

16's on inward facing seats in a vehicle which is regarded as a pcv. As soon as you use the thing to carry other peoples kids on any form of an "organisaed trip" (and even the school run or a quick trip to camp is such) then you have to conform to the regs.

A 110 doesnt conform. Period. Its a pcv.

A 90 or a Disco would appear to. As its not a pcv.

So what could possibly go wrong? Have an accident and find your insurer refusing to cover ANY of the claims - prosecution for driving without insurance, as you aren't if you use a pcv/minibus insurered on an ordinary car type policy - probable prosecution for breaching whatever part of the RTA deals with kids/seat belts / pcv's - etc.

Oh yes, probable prosecution for using a vehicle without an MoT if its more than 1 year old - minibuses / pcvs need an MoT after 1st year and most 110 drivers dont realise that.

These are, of course, just the conclusions drawn from having researched this a while back. As with all advice on usenet, draw your own conclusions from your own research - - - -

Mike.