Damn Bloody Seatbelt Laws

Cue video of child like dummies in side seats during impact test.

Perversely there doesn't appear to be a compulsion for side facing seats to need belts but children must be belted!

AJH

Andy,

This is from the DfT web site ~

D. My vehicle has sideways-facing seats There has never been a legal requirement to fit seat belts in sideways-facing seats. The human body bends forward from the waist - it does not bend sideways and the potential for internal and spinal injury is high therefore if a passenger is secured with a seat belt in a sideways-facing seat. For similar reasons, the type-approval standard for child seats and boosters does not include fixing them in a sideways-facing seat.

A child who is required to use child seats/boosters (ie all those under

Here is the URL to the site:

HTH

Thanks, I know safety is an issue and the kids are the most valuable cargo I carry. What I find odd is that until this law was recently changed it was deemed perfectly acceptable to travel in sideways seats. It won't be the main transport, just occasional.

Guess I carry on searching for a 110!!

Best to call the DoT and the Construction and Use lot, some of it depends on vehicle age, after a lot of toing and froing I was told both by the DoT, the C&U and the Bristol Police that I was legally allowed to carry children above the age of 3 unrestrained in the side-facing rear seats of the pinzgauer, up to 10 at a time.. All fully covered by my insurance. It's a maze of exceptions largely based on vehicle age, but the simplified stuff you get on the websites doesn't cover that, it just covers the most restrictive cases.

The police do have a catch-all however in that they can fine me if in the policeman's opinion I am carrying a child without care for their safety, so essentially the exemptions don't mean jack s*it because whether I'd get done or not is down to the character of the policeman who sees me. Needless to say I backed out of that particular situation (quite thankfully, didn't fancy carrying a load of kids about through Bristol city centre anyway).

That's the main point Andy, what's more important following the law or making sure your kids are as safe as they can be. If your kids were killed in a car crash due to not being restrained properly you won't be worried about getting prosecuted for carrying them incorrectly but more worried about never forgiving yourself for not doing as much as you could have. If they changed the seatbelt law tomorrow and said that seatbelts weren't necessary at all, then I'd still make sure that they were all properly restrained. You wouldn't put them on the back of a motorbike without a helmet on legal or not!!

How many kids?

I'm thinking Exmoor trims forward facing rear fold down seats with 3 point seatbelts, approve for use with child seats.

Any more than five kids and you're nackered mind.

Lee D

oh.

I have forward facers in the 90 that I have just sold but you can only fit 2 in the back, I have 4 kids so I'm stuffed.

I have discovered that a/c can be retro-fitted to a 110 for about £1500 so that helps with the search.

twelve seats in a 110 - only six are sideways facing.

fwiw: never needed or wanted a/c in the 110. step on the loud pedal, open the window and give your L/R elbow an airing :)

"A child 3 years and over may travel unrestrained in the rear seat of a vehicle if seat belts are not fitted in the rear." should be applicable if side facing seats without belts are fitted. Having scanned this question a number of times over the years there doesn't really seem to be a safe answer on rear side facing seats for any form of belt. In the IPL there is instruction on fitting side facing belts in a 110, but general opinion seems to favour the "the body flexes best forwards and backwards" logic.

I have taken the approach that no child travels in the back unless their parents specifically permit it, and on any long journey the kids go in the front with full belts, and the missus goes in the back, but there's still the flying granny syndrome for her so I guess the only really safe answer is don't go anywhere...

Bob Miller

That was what the PTB told me when I was looking into this, although it had to be the case that the vehicle came equipped with side-facing seats that never had any belts, fitting seats yourself or removing belts yourself didn't count. IIRC after a certain year of manufacture, it wasn't possible to supply any seats without belts.

On or around Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:34:23 +0100, "Andy" enlightened us thusly:

Just had the bumf about this from the council...

How many are you looking to carry?

You can't use child restraints on sideways seats, and in general you must use child restraints.

However, you have a get-out clause:

a child 3 and over and [under 135cm high OR under 12 yrs] may travel unrestrained in rear seats if no seat belts are available, also you 're only required to fit as many child restraints as will fit - if you can't fit enough, additonal children can wear adult belts (practically, a centre lap belt) or be unrestrained.

children over 135cm or 12-13 yrs can wear adult belts.

in all the above cases, it's the driver's responsibility to ensure suitable restraints are used, if available.

Children over 14 must wear belts but it's the passenger's responsibility to ensure that they do. Although in the case of your own kids, you'd still end up paying the fine, so it's a moot point.

On or around Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:01:52 GMT, SteveG enlightened us thusly:

see my post for an exemption. You must fit such restraints as you can, but additional children can be unrestrained.

If you're not looking for more than 7 seats total, you can fit forward-facing ones in the back.

If a policeman catches you and decides that you're carrying them without worrying about their safety, there are fines of up to 5 grand available. That's entirely down to the policeman's judgement, not something I'd leave myself open to personally from past experience.

Actually it's supposed to be up to the court to decide what fine to impose on conviction not the policeman.

What I mean is it'd be down to the officer to decide whether someone is being carried dangerously, I was told by Bristol police that they couldn't guarantee that one of their lads wouldn't pull me over and book me if I was carrying kids legally in the back of the pinz, then I'd have to go before the beak and it'd be my word against the officer's. It'd be my license and my wallet at the mercy of kids, policement and judges, with far too much subjectivity thrown into the mix for comfort. I don't believe that a policeman isn't going to bend what he saw a bit in order to stop him losing the case, I've already had them bend what happened twice so far when there was less at stake so I'd not like to be in the situation when one makes an arrest and then has to either make it stick or have it kicked out.

Yea, they don't like you to get off!

On or around Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:01:23 +0100, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

Mind you, there's a cast-iron get-out: you don't have to use child restraints in a licensed taxi or PHV.

whether this still applies if it's your own kids and your own taxi, I don't know.

Handy, though, since we now have to be licensed to do the school work. Although mine has height-adjustable belts which, AFAIK, are "suitable child restraint"

As I understand the C&U Regs this applies to forward facing seats only but as the Regs are rather complicated with dozens of exceptions it's difficult to know exactly what's what :-)