That's very interesting, assuming these are indeed the gudelines that the police are going to follow they leave it up to the officer to decide what is a "correct child restraint" which is surely going to cause a heck of a lot of arguments. For example if the car has a seatbelt that can be adjusted sufficiently to rest on the child's shoulder without the use of a booster is it going to be accepted?. Greg
That's deliberate - don't forget Smiling Tony's missus is a lawyer, and doubltless reminds him to keep the legislation nice and wooly so he can keep her mates in jobs.
Richard
It's the way law in this country has always been, the law is made wooly and is solidified by individual precedents in law caused when a prosecution is made. This is because otherwise the law lords would sit there forever trying to take every situation into account, which isn't practical. If this wasn't done, laws would take decades from being proposed to being implemented. It's the practical method, "suck it and see" if you like.
The real issue is not the way laws are made, it's the number of them being made and the illiberal, prescriptive, finger-wagging nature of the laws that are being made under our current bunch of muppets.
Sorry my fault, the offending text is still there but I thought it looked different. The line is (now): Rear facing baby seats MUST not be used in a seat where there is a frontal air bag UNLESS it has been deactivated
the term deactivated can apply equally to the airbag or the seat!
I would suggest : Rear facing baby seats MUST not be used in a seat where there is a active frontal air bag. Is better terminology.
NB cannot use 'activated' as the opposite of 'deactivated' because that means the bag has been fired. Which incidentally is the ONLY verifiable state for an airbag!! bit like matches, how can you guarantee a live? match will ignite. You can however be pretty darn sure a spent one won't.
Isn't Tone too?
yes - but he hasn't got any mates left.
Figgers
It's true for practically the whole dishonest lot of them.
On or around Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:22:43 +0100, beamendsltd enlightened us thusly:
AAAaaaaarrgh!!!
the law does NOT say booster seats. NOT NOT NOT!
The media has latched onto booster seats, and, typically, not having checked its facts, is going "Booster seat booster seat booster seat".
(1) For a child of any particular height and weight travelling in a particular vehicle, the description of seat belt prescribed for the purposes of section 15(3) of the Act to be worn by him is :-
(a) if he is a small child, a child restraint of a description specified in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) of paragraph (2);
(b) [no longer applies]
(c) if he is a large child, a child restraint of a description specified in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (2) or an adult belt.
(2) The descriptions of seat belt referred to in paragraph (1) are :-
(a) a child restraint with the marking required under regulation 47(7) of the Construction and Use Regulations if the marking indicates that it is suitable for his weight and either indicates that it is suitable for his height or contains no indication as respects height;
(b) a child restraint which would meet the requirements of the law of another member State corresponding to these Regulations were it to be worn by that child when travelling in that vehicle in that State.
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.