Well, my mate's gotta sell his disco.... with a wife and 5 kids, the rear seat were a godsend but now as he cannot by law allow kids to use the seats due to the lap seatbelts fitted there he now cannot take them anywhere. He has them all writing a shitty letter to 10 downing street too!! On the other hand, his missus is chuffed....no more screaming brats to take shopping.
Wolfie
I just had a look at the guidelines what a dogs breakfast per usual the only get out clause for the rear sideways seats is for kids over 4'5 or 12 years old or if proper child restraints are fitted though I doubt that any are approved for sideways fitting as per
Yes! Some vehicles such as camper vans and four-wheel drive vehicles are fitted with sideways facing rear seats. A child restraint in a sideways facing seat does not meet the legal requirements. A child restraint has to be fitted to an approved anchorage, which does not include a seat belt on a sideways facing seat. Therefore a child restraint cannot be used on such a seat.
which is contradicted by
Children under 3 must use the correct baby seat or child seat so they would need to be travelling in the front in the correct child restraint. Children
3 and up to 135 cms in height must use child seats or boosters in the rear where seat belts are fitted. The law is not going to make people fit restraints in the rear of vehicles where the seats do not have seat belts; but remember it is not safe for children to travel unrestrained. Cars dating from April 1982 will have seat belt anchorage points if they don't have seat belts - so fitting is easy. See also the FAQ above about sideways facing rear seats.about the only clear part in the shambles is this gem
Children are not small adults. They are proportioned differently and their key organs are in different places
Yep the people who drew this up are either aliens or have b*ll*x where their brains should be
Derek
Doesn't that suggest the existence of something that is obviously missing?
Yea but think about it. A back handed way to try and force folks to change their 4x4's maybe?
Well - I guess that applies to my Disco too. No point in having it if the kids cant use those rear seats. Little mileage to be gained from having the adults sit in them - can't reach the steering wheel from back there :)
Those are the seats that are fited, those are the belts that are fitted - by the factory in both cases. Guess the vehicle is not fit for the purpose intended.
hrmm - I suppose the 110 would need re-purposing too - no belts for the
3-up bench seats.I sometimes wonder at the sense of this stuff? Effectively criminalising a significant percentage of ordinay folk. and for what purpose? The conspiricist would suggest "divide & rule" - it's hard to argue against.
Too late for that I reckon, but nonetheless a useful introduction to politics and how it can screw with everyone even those that that keep their heads down and mind their own business.
What's left - transit/sherpa type mini bus?
I expect it's yet another dictate from Europe trying to make everything Euronorm, the politicians rarely say this though as they daren't let people know that they have delegated most of our law making powers to Europe and in effect we already have a Federal government.
Greg
Not really - for example, here in France no-one under the age of 10 can travel in the front seat, but they do allow two children under ten to sit in the same seatbelt! (lap belts are fine). As it said in the BBC article, Europe sets the minimum standard, it's up to the member countries to implement them and garnish as necessary. I rather think it is more British anti-4x4 / anti-family stuff.
Stuart
Derek uttered summat worrerz funny about:
I read that as if you have three kiddie seats in the rear of your Disco today then under the new legistlation you can have two in the back and one in the front (aged under 3... after which your stuffed) with Mum .... or Dad (if it's on the way back from the pub say) sat in the rear middle lap belt such is a Discos arrangement.... any more than three though and your knackered.
Of course sticking an adult in the middle of two full on kiddy seats will be real feasible.
This legistlation should have been applied on NEW cars... that way at least peeps wouldn't suddenly have to sell motors and buy the likes of an Espace to comply.
Hopefully Landrover will come up with a cunning three point centre seat belt system for those without.... but I shan't hold my breath.
Perhaphs it's a new government incentive to limit the size of a family.... mind before long we'll all be riding on a horse and cart so it won't make alot of difference. Bring back the cobbles I say. Though animal rights may have a field day if I park my horse up in the city for 9 to 10 hours before trotting home.
Lee D
Sounds like we'll all be fitting 'limosine black' before long.
agreed - this type of retrospective action is tantamount to bullying of the worst possible kind. I suspect the dailys are busy trying to find an angle that doesn't make them appear to be supporting the dirty, smelly 4x4 brigade.
Not gonna happen here - I have no other use for an espace. I've only ever see one put to work, the inside collapsed within weeks, rendering it useless as family transport.
Frankly, I'd be more interested in forward facing 'back-row' seats with a
3-point.As you say, the middle seat in the middle row is about as much use as a chocolate tea-pot when the flanking seats have the child paraphernalia fitted. I'd be happy to remove it and use it as stowage - if it weren't for the stupid 60/40 split seat arrangement.
So that would make two in the back, two in the middle and two in the front
- works for me, but unfortunately not much help to the o/p.
aye - home grown breeding interferes with the imigration 'policy'.
np - just bring back the stables at the rear of every pub. oh wait a minute, they were all flattened for carparks and have now been sold off for urban rabbit hutches/ studio lifestyle living units.
planning? what's that all about then?
where are the guidelines? just been looking at the gossip (newspaper) sites - exemptions are for taxi trips, ?unexpected necessities,? or if three children need to share the back seat but there is only room for two child seats.
Now that lot leaves huge holes - no mention of four (or five) children though.
One thought springs to mind - I do hope the police that have to enforce this mess are extremely well briefed.... and the follow on thought, if they can be well briefed, then surely the rest of us could be? too simple? yeah well - I have this major problem with 'complex' :)
William Tasso uttered summat worrerz funny about:
Lee D
Now assuming this is the way that plod are going to be interpreting the law, then this suggests that Disco's with kids in the back, providing they are in an appropriate booster are still ok, ie plod wont care because a belt is being worn...
"now m'lud, interpretation of the law no 152......"
where do i apply for my breathing permit, y'know, the one that tells you how many breaths per second is legal?
Si
We're notorious for implementing these European directives to the letter and enforcing them without any common sense, France is notorious for ignoring them 8-), even when they do enact laws they have a culture of ignoring the ones they don't like!. Greg
well poor old mate of mine's been to the LR dealer this morning who isn't interested in a trade-in but and read this! - guess what he was told by the salesman.... "there actually isn't anything in the current lineup of Land Rover that will allow him and his large family to drive legally and safely" so he has been shown the way to the Jap crap corner which has an abundance of people carriers.....Also, according to the salesman, there have been numerous calls and visits of the last week with many customers concerned about this seat belt law. Hmmm, what next.....a 4x4 LR people carrier?? I can see a slump in the price of 2h LR's which i'm sure will please some but upset many.
Wolfie
Thanks - seems a little lightweight in terms of content, but taking it at face value it would appear that there's little need for alarm.
Children up to 3 years old
Front seat - correct child restraint MUST be worn Rear seat - correct child restraint MUST be worn
Makes perfect sense - can't see there will be many problems with that.
Children from 3 years up to 135cm (approx 4'5") OR 12th birthday
Front sear - correct child restraint MUST be worn Rear seat - correct child restraint MUST be worn
Exceptions: Adult belt can be worn ONLY if [...] there are 2 occupied child restraints fitted which prevent the fitting of a third
NOTE: If no seatbelts at all in rear then children over 3 may travel unrestrained in the rear of a vehicle.
So - I read that as you must use properly fitted child seats until all available slots are filled, after that kids may be seated wherever/however.
Children over 135cm ( approx 4'5") or 12 or 13 years old [also: over 14 and adults] Front seat - seatbelt MUST be worn (if available) Rear seat - seatbelt MUST be worn (if available)
No change there I think.
Could be completely mistaken, but reading that page doesn't indicate to me that current practice (in our household anyway) needs any modification.
Unless the o/p is blessed with more than three children under three, I can't see any problems there either.
With three under three a second adult would be required to use one of the dickie seats or squeeze into the middle of the second row. Not ideal but do-able if needs must.
Questions?
NOTE: If no seatbelts at all in rear then children over 3 may travel unrestrained in the rear of a vehicle
What a load of testes!
The above doesn't seem to mention the booster seats for short children inder 12 explicitly - that's the bit that's causing the problems, as booster seats have not been mentioned in the law before - rightly of wrongly everyone just used a seat belt "when the kids are big enough", but now they *must* have seat rather than use the belt - that's a radical change even if the wording above doesn't make the point clear.
Richard
Well if the current Land Rover lineup hasn't adressed this issue but the Japs have then there should be some heads rolling in the Land Rover forward planning department as it'll cost them very dearly. What should have been a load of customers begrudgingly trading up to the latest models becomes a load of customers abandoning the brand probably never to return.
Greg
I think the OP meant MPV's, not 4x4's. The Japs 4x4's are in exactly the same boat as LR on this new legislation.
Richard
rather worryingly, I have yet to come accross a legal definition for "booster seat" - wondering ... would an old cushion suffice if it raised the child to a sensible height? Then there's the definition of "sensible height" to consider.
it may be a radical change but the wording "... occupied child restraints fitted which prevent the fitting ..." seems quite clear.
Yes - children must use proper (varies with age/height) restraints, but only where they can be safely fitted.
IANALNDIPOOTV - I must say I do look farward to seeing the subtleties of the above tested in court - although I wouldn't wish the experience on anyone.
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.