# The law and travelling unstrapped in the back of a coach built van.



## Geraldine (Apr 19, 2012)

Please could any members out there advise us on how the law stands on this? Because they are side facing seats we cannot have seat belts fitted in the body of the van. Can we travel in the back unbelted?


----------



## groyne (Apr 19, 2012)

My mate's got a Citroen Romahome and I've travelled in the back of it. He checked with his Insurance Company that it was OK to have unbelted passengers in the back, because he often takes his grandson with him when he and his Mrs go off for the weekend.

But best to check with your own Insurance for peace of mind.


----------



## donkey too (Apr 19, 2012)

Davidv said:


> Please could any members out there advise us on how the law stands on this? Because they are side facing seats we cannot have seat belts fitted in the body of the van. Can we travel in the back unbelted?



NO! unless the seat is rear facing. If a seat in the back is front facing the person riding on it must be belted.


----------



## n brown (Apr 19, 2012)

got a feeling its down to the cop who stops you,but my argument would be that its good enough for buses,and the passengers are paying for their trip,yours aren't,i never give it a thought,lifes a gamble anyway,make your choice and go for what you're happy with.


----------



## shortcircuit (Apr 19, 2012)

donkey too said:


> NO! unless the seat is rear facing. If a seat in the back is front facing the person riding on it must be belted.



Is this a legal reply or an opinion?


----------



## fairytooth (Apr 19, 2012)

shortcircuit said:


> Is this a legal reply or an opinion?



Opinion I think.  

What I read very recently is that all forward facing seats must have seat belts.  Therefore side facing seats are exempt.

Not recommended but legal to sit sideways.


----------



## n brown (Apr 19, 2012)

Seat belts - Regulations and guidelines for camper vans and motorhomes | Camper Van Life


----------



## fairytooth (Apr 19, 2012)

n brown said:


> Seat belts - Regulations and guidelines for camper vans and motorhomes | Camper Van Life



I agree with all of that except that I fail to see how an insurance company can refuse to cover you for something you may do legally i.e.carry sideways facing passengers.  It sounds more like insurance company hype than legal fact to me.


----------



## n brown (Apr 19, 2012)

i tend to think,perhaps naively,that the very fact that i have a vehicle presumes that at some point i may transport people in it,and would quite reasonably expect any passengers to be covered.it would sound a tad unrealistic if the insurance company said that such behaviour was a surprise to them


----------



## shortcircuit (Apr 19, 2012)

n brown said:


> Seat belts - Regulations and guidelines for camper vans and motorhomes | Camper Van Life



Come on, the OP asked what the law was and this is just a link to another forum.  The advise by the DOT in the posting were guidelines and not definitive so NO is not acceptable as an answer.


----------



## maingate (Apr 19, 2012)

The law keeps changing on seatbelts but there is usually no retrospective action needed to comply with the new rules.

Nowadays, ALL seatbelts must be 3 point ones (like in the cab). I had a 56 reg motorhome with 2 side facing seats with lap belts only. It is still legal to use them. If your van was built to conform with the regulations at that time, it is still legal to travel in the back unbelted.

That is my opinion and it can only ever be an opinion because I am not a Lawyer.


----------



## Thorgrim (Apr 19, 2012)

In my experience of MOTing old/ classic vehicles, you only need to have fitted the seat belts that were fitted at the time of manufacture. Ie my old 110 land rover only had front seatbelts fitted but still had front facing middle and rear side benches without belts. It was legal to MOT and legal for adults to use all the seats but by law children may only travel in a front facing seat with a 3 point belt what ever the vehicle. They may not use side facing seats. For a motor home to be approved for the road it would have to have been inspected and passed for safety, I would expect that the rear lounge type seating was not intended for road use when passed. 
However not wearing a seat belt is just stupid.


----------



## Geraldine (Apr 19, 2012)

The consensus so far is that it is ok to do so .Thank you all !


----------



## Sparks (Apr 19, 2012)

Post Deleted


----------



## shortcircuit (Apr 19, 2012)

Sparks said:


> On rare occasions I've carried passengers in the rear side facing seats but have informed them before hand that they wouldn't be insured.



Need to check the small print in my policy, but does it actually say this in your policy?


----------



## al n sal (Apr 19, 2012)

this has been covered on many forums and it still seems to be a very grey area, and this point has come up a few times, even if the insurance says its ok to carry passengers the police officer stopping you could still possibly fine you for carrying an unsafe load? don't know for a fact if this is actually possible but does sound plausible...so to me it seems to b a case of, you take yer chances......


----------



## grumpy2 (Apr 19, 2012)

My answer is why would you want to risk anyone unrestrained in your van especially your grandchildren, i certanly would not.


----------



## Beemer (Apr 19, 2012)

My van is a six berth, and is constructed to carry 6 people belted.  Two are lap belts on the backward facing dinette and the other four are three point, driver, passenger and the two front facing seats at the dinette.
However, I have been informed (and I cannot remember where it came from), that I could carry other passengers on the U shaped seating at the back of the van (no belts).  If the passengers were, in the opinion of the police, making the vehicle 'unsafe' by their movements in the back then I could get cautioned (as the driver).
The wording I have used above was not the exact wording I were told/advised...it was a while ago!


----------



## groyne (Apr 19, 2012)

> My answer is why would you want to risk anyone unrestrained in your van especially your grandchildren, i certanly would not.



His grandson gets the front passenger seat, his wife sits in back.  :raofl:


----------



## veedubmatt (Apr 19, 2012)

i have read that you can carry passengers with no belts in the back of your MH if the van is older then 2001 
i did it last week to cornwall put the missus and mum in the back kids up front with me


----------



## Sparks (Apr 19, 2012)

Post Deleted


----------



## shortcircuit (Apr 19, 2012)

Sparks said:


> The V5 says it's a three seat vehicle (all in cab) so a fourth passenger would be an obvious get out for the insurance company.



No, it cant be that simple.  My V5 says two seat but its a 4 berth motorhome.  Interesting to no what it says on Beemers V5


----------



## Beemer (Apr 19, 2012)

shortcircuit said:


> No, it cant be that simple.  My V5 says two seat but its a 4 berth motorhome.  Interesting to no what it says on Beemers V5



My V5 states that "Number of seats, including driver" 2  .........:scared: WTF


----------



## shortcircuit (Apr 19, 2012)

Beemer said:


> My V5 states that "Number of seats, including driver" 2  .........:scared: WTF



Well thanks Beemer. Its really very confusing now.


----------



## maureenandtom (Apr 19, 2012)

It might be interesting to re-read this:

http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums...478-passenger-seatbelts-back-motorhome-2.html

though I think nothing concrete came of the discussion then.


----------



## n brown (Apr 19, 2012)

i still say its down to the cop who stops you,the law as far as i can tell is unclear,the dvla passes the buck to the courts which gives the impression that its a matter for adjudication,in which case what would the charge be,carrying unrestrainable passengers,unsafe load etc . i think its like the old pornography law,subjective,one cop is horrified,another couldn't care less.i like the fact that it's still a matter of personal choice,and if i and my passengers make the wrong choice,tough titty for us.[just to make it clear,my grandkids get strapped in even if my unrestrained wife has to sit in the back,adults make their own decisions]


----------



## ozzo (Apr 19, 2012)

well this from the DOT website:-

http://www.dft.gov.uk/think/education/early-years-and-primary/docs/lower-primary/hls_Theme3.pdf

it clearly states that you must wear seat belts where fitted nowt else


----------



## Mad Manx (Apr 19, 2012)

I can only really comment on the Law as it stands over here but I know its similar.
Construction and use regulations state that if the seats were original fitted with seat belts they must be i working condition and used.
if an adult fails to use them its a fine up to £1000 if i child fails to use the the driver gets fined and penalty points.
Also it should state on your registration documents number of seats if you carry more than that you are in breach of the road traffic regulations  the construction and use regulations and could invalidate your insurance.
apart from the fact that not having a seat belt on is utter madness.


----------



## shortcircuit (Apr 19, 2012)

Mad Manx said:


> I can only really comment on the Law as it stands over here but I know its similar.
> Construction and use regulations state that if the seats were original fitted with seat belts they must be i working condition and used.
> if an adult fails to use them its a fine up to £1000 if i child fails to use the the driver gets fined and penalty points.
> Also it should state on your registration documents number of seats if you carry more than that you are in breach of the road traffic regulations  the construction and use regulations and could invalidate your insurance.
> apart from the fact that not having a seat belt on is utter madness.



So all those 6 berth motorhomes registered with only two seats are used illegally.  Get real and lets see if we can establish some facts.  Hopefully somebody can come on to answer the OPs question about the "law"


----------



## n brown (Apr 19, 2012)

how life has changed!i never had a crash helmet,nor did my mates.seat belts weren't fitted,and even when they were we didn't have to wear them,our attitudes were different.driving round europe with my kids in a one and a half decker,i had a trapeze in the back to keep them amused and they would sit on skateboards and roll up and down with the van movement. how terrible! but i would drive for 10 hours straight and keeping 4 kids strapped down for that long is cruel,and there were so many things we could have died of but didn't,that no seat belts didn't even register.maybe we were all more foolhardy or perhaps a bit more gutsy,so saying that travelling without a seatbelt is stupid is just a point of view


----------



## maingate (Apr 19, 2012)

I find it amusing about the comments of 'stupidity' and 'sheer madness' when talking about travelling without wearing a seatbelt. Most of us oldies did just that for many years until the law on seatbelts was introduced.

Don't get me wrong, I believe it is a good law and has saved countless lives. It just goes to show how attitudes can be greatly changed in just a short time.


----------



## n brown (Apr 19, 2012)

maingate said:


> I find it amusing about the comments of 'stupidity' and 'sheer madness' when talking about travelling without wearing a seatbelt. Most of us oldies did just that for many years until the law on seatbelts was introduced.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I believe it is a good law and has saved countless lives. It just goes to show how attitudes can be greatly changed in just a short time.



and amazingly,stupid and mad as we were,we're still here despite having to look after ourselves ! maybe we're just lucky.


----------



## Firefox (Apr 20, 2012)

When you think carefully about it, you don't wear seat belts in trains and they travel faster than cars, although I guess the deceleration is usually going to be slower

I don't think I'd fancy wearing a lap belt in a sideways facing seat, it could cut you in half, I'd rather take my chance on a fixed bed or rewards facing seat or sitting on the floor against a bulkhead or similar with padding like a duvet or bedding to the front.


----------



## scampa (Apr 20, 2012)

Of course in the old days most of us didn't know the full safety aspects of wearing seatbelts, and how effective they are in reducing serious injuries and deaths in road accidents. So most of us wouldn't have worn them, and wouldn't have been thought "stupid" at all.

It was acceptable in the same way that working with asbestos without safety gear, or encouraging a youngster to start smoking was, before we all knew better.

But these days, now that we do know better and have learned to appreciate just how valuable seat belts are, I think we'd all call someone who allowed anyone they cared about to travel unrestrained "irresponsible" at least?  (but I also have doubts about the effectiveness of seatbelts on side-facing seats)

And here's a cheerful thought...  almost all of the people who have been injured or killed in road accidents were not expecting to have an accident that day!


----------



## Firefox (Apr 20, 2012)

I've been in a head on when travelling at 40mph, some idiot decided to test his new company car out at 60mph on a bend in the wet ended up hitting me on my side of the road. I was wearing a seat belt. For those who haven't had chance to test it out, seatbelt injuries at those speeds are not pleasant. Seat belts can save your life, but are not a universal panacea. 

My motorhome has a fixed transverse bed in the rear with a 2 foot access in the middle and 2 foot bulkheads on either side. At that impact speed, I would have been a lot less injury free travelling lying in a bed like that with cushions and padding on the bulkheads. I would have been restrained and the forces spread over a much bigger body area than seatbelts can give.


----------



## mustardseed (Apr 20, 2012)

Still none the wiser about whether it's actually legal or not TBH.
My VRC is totally blank re no of seats (mind you it also describes my vehicle as a "Panel Van" even though it now has windows all round except for the back half of one side!).  My insurance document says it has four seats.


----------



## sean rua (Apr 20, 2012)

I'm still confused about the law , but then I think even the authorities may be. It can be complex, as there are so many different vehicles.
Probably, airbags are the safest development, but I really don't know.

Btw, what's the law about tractors, dumpers, quadbikes, and motor-bikes? Does anyone know?  I know we don't use them in the horsecarts or sulkies.

I've been in taxis where the driver insisted in all forward-facing passengers belting-up. but didn't say anything about the rear-facing dudes on the jump seats.

I've been in hundreds of buses all over the world without a belt, and, in ONE National Express coach in which the driver refused to move till all were fastened in. He said it was law.

Never been asked to belt-up in a lift, escaltor, elevator, or in a coalmine, or on top of the Empire State, or in  the ferry to AlCatraz, or on the ferry to Dublin.

So, all in all, I'm one crazy, mixed up kid, who ain't got a clue about the seatbelt law, I'm afraid. 

However, I do know that walking into the back of a milkvan ( when the milkman, I was helping, stopped sooner than I thought he would) hurts! Four miles per hour, but the bent nose stays bent for life!
Collisions can be painful even at walking speed.

I greatly admire the workers in A&E. Anything that makes their job easier must be good, I suppose. 


sean rua.


----------



## scampa (Apr 20, 2012)

Firefox said:


> I've been in a head on when travelling at 40mph, some idiot decided to test his new company car out at 60mph on a bend in the wet ended up hitting me on my side of the road. I was wearing a seat belt. For those who haven't had chance to test it out, seatbelt injuries at those speeds are not pleasant. Seat belts can save your life, but are not a universal panacea.
> 
> My motorhome has a fixed transverse bed in the rear with a 2 foot access in the middle and 2 foot bulkheads on either side. At that impact speed, I would have been a lot less injury free travelling lying in a bed like that with cushions and padding on the bulkheads. I would have been restrained and the forces spread over a much bigger body area than seatbelts can give.



I agree Firefox, wearing a seatbelt doesn't mean that you'll completely avoid having any injuries.  In your accident, as you know, the combined impact speed was 100mph (so it's like hitting a brick wall at 100mph!)  If you hadn't worn a seatbelt though, your injuries would probably have been far worse...imagine head hitting windscreen, chest stoved in against steering wheel, legs smashed against fascia, all at 100mph impact.

Even in your transverse bed situation, there's still a good chance that parts of your body, including your head, would've hit something hard enough to cause serious damage at that impact speed (plus the police may have been curious about why you were driving from your bed!)

As for the original question about the law on wearing seatbelts in the rear, like most people I'm not sure either!  I remember past discussions on here where it seemed that it was not a legal requirement for all passengers, although you could be found guilty of carrying an "unsafe load".  Even if it is legal, insurance companies will greatly reduce or refuse any claims for injuries to an unrestrained passenger.


----------



## Firefox (Apr 20, 2012)

I haven't fitted the mods to drive from the bed yet :lol-053: But as a passenger in the rear I think I'd be safer in the bed. If the bulkhead is padded, all I could hit would be that. Maybe even wearing a crash helmet in bed would help! But it would be definitely be safer than some seat belt scenarios or traveling in a train or coach without belts.


----------



## Deleted member 21686 (Apr 20, 2012)

grumpy2 said:


> My answer is why would you want to risk anyone unrestrained in your van especially your grandchildren, i certanly would not.



Good point grumpy.

I only allow my mother in law to ride in the back.


----------



## Geraldine (Apr 20, 2012)

Hi Guys, Thank you all for your contributions to this subject. I contacted my Insurance company 2gether insurance and they said No to a passenger been covered in the back of the campervan while travelling .I pushed alittle further and they contacted the underwriters Highway Insurance Co and they also said No. So the situation is the cab can only safely secure 2 grandchildren and one adult in a 4 berth caravanette.Where do I go from here ?


----------



## shortcircuit (Apr 20, 2012)

I would ask Highway to confirm this in writing with reference to where in the policy.  It just does not make sense for MH manufacturers to provide say a six berth vehicle and the insurers, who must no this, to then say, after they have taken your money, that you are not covered?

Certainly is clear as mud.


----------



## Airecraft (Apr 20, 2012)

Davidv said:


> Where do I go from here ?



Ask them where it is stated in your policy document, which forms the contract you have with the company, that passengers cannot be carried in the rear. If a statement to that effect is in there then that's that. If it isn't, it is not within the power of the insurance company to impose additional terms once the policy has started and, if they refuse to change their stance, go to the insurance ombudsman. 
I think the link supplied by n brown makes it pretty clear that there is no legal barrier to people being carried in the back. The quoted text is from the DoT, issued May 2011:

“There is no current legal requirement to have seatbelts fitted to side facing seats, ...
Although it is not generally illegal to use side facing seats, with or without seatbelts, ..."


----------



## grumpyengraver (Apr 20, 2012)

I hate to say this but I think it should be up to us , if we dont want to wear a seat belt why should we, I have seen many a person killed because they where wearing a seat belt. I used to be a recovery driver and beleave me seat belts don't alway save lives.
But as we are TOLD to do things we have to do as we are told dont we


Tony
grumpyengraver


----------



## n brown (Apr 20, 2012)

''you won't get old if you don't do what you're told''..catchy little slogan don't you think?


----------



## grumpyengraver (Apr 20, 2012)

n brown said:


> ''you won't get old if you don't do what you're told''..catchy little slogan don't you think?



I'm old and never have done as I'm told :banana:


----------



## scampa (Apr 20, 2012)

grumpyengraver said:


> I hate to say this but I think it should be up to us , if we dont want to wear a seat belt why should we, *I have seen many a person killed because they where wearing a seat belt. I used to be a recovery driver and beleave me seat belts don't alway save lives.*
> But as we are TOLD to do things we have to do as we are told dont we
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry Grumpyengraver, but I really cannot believe or agree with your statement here. Only a very tiny proportion of casualties have suffered worse injuries through wearing a seatbelt.

There will always be those "rebellious" and "non-conformist" types who will find a few odd examples to back up their theories, but there are also several ex fire & rescue members on here who have seen it all at first-hand on numerous occasions and over many years.

I was in the fire brigade for a few years before the wearing of seatbelts became compulsory, and for many years afterwards, so I saw the difference that seatbelts made to the types and extent of injuries sustained by the casualties. I can't remember the number of road accidents that I attended over the years, but I was usually based at stations with specialist rescue vehicles, so it must be in the thousands.

I certainly have no doubts whatsoever about the huge positive difference that seatbelts make when used correctly, and I cannot take seriously anyones' advice about not wearing them!

And with respect, in almost all cases the casualties will have been extracted from their vehicles and be en-route to hospital long before a recovery vehicle will have been allowed anywhere near the scene.


----------



## Deleted member 13543 (Apr 20, 2012)

There is quite a lot of info on here:

UKMotorhomes.net - Motorhome FAQs

which seems to suggest that it is ok legally to carry passengers in unbelted seats, but a dangerous thing to do in practice.

At the end of the day, I think it is up to the individual as to whether they take the risk, and whether their insurance will cover them if anything happens.


----------



## grumpyengraver (Apr 20, 2012)

scampa said:


> Sorry Grumpyengraver, but I really cannot believe or agree with your statement here. Only a very tiny proportion of casualties have suffered worse injuries through wearing a seatbelt.
> 
> There will always be those "rebellious" and "non-conformist" types who will find a few odd examples to back up their theories, but there are also several ex fire & rescue members on here who have seen it all at first-hand on numerous occasions and over many years.
> 
> ...



When I done recovery work 40 odd years ago I was often the first on the sceen, I worked on the M2 and A2 and was sent by the police, fire brigade etc and was often there before the main services got there. I have seen people burn no more than 6ft away from me, peopledrown because we could not get to them before they passed out, all sorts of fatal accidents etc.
I not saying that you should not wear seat belts I'm saying it should be up to you.

grumpyengraver


----------



## n brown (Apr 20, 2012)

freedom of choice.so many things out there that'might' kill us,isn't it refreshing theres a few left where we can make our own minds up.i never had a nanny but it seems i'm being governed by people who can't imagine life without one. how the human race managed till now is a miracle.


----------



## scampa (Apr 20, 2012)

grumpyengraver said:


> When I done recovery work 40 odd years ago I was often the first on the sceen, I worked on the M2 and A2 and was sent by the police, fire brigade etc and was often there before the main services got there. I have seen people burn no more than 6ft away from me, peopledrown because we could not get to them before they passed out, all sorts of fatal accidents etc.
> I not saying that you should not wear seat belts I'm saying it should be up to you.  grumpyengraver



I'm not doubting that these can happen, obviously I've seen a few myself.  But without going into any details, my point is that it's genuinely only a very tiny minority of cases where a vehicle catches fire (unlike all the crashes you see on TV) or is submerged, or similar, and the outcome in those cases would usually have been the same whether they were wearing a seat belt or not. (In my own experience I would roughly guess that only around 1% or less of road traffic collisions involved a vehicle fire or submersion)

The problem is that a couple of such cases out of many hundreds of others can feed peoples wariness of wearing seatbelts, when seatbelts will in fact help to reduce injury and save life in the vast majority of survivable accidents.

It was your comment  _"I have seen many a person killed because they where wearing a seat belt"_ that I found to be unreasonable.

I'm not getting into a discussion about personal choice or being "nannied", but I will repeat the comment that I made earlier...

_"And here's a cheerful thought... almost all of the people who have been injured or killed in road accidents were not expecting to have an accident that day!"_


----------



## n brown (Apr 20, 2012)

i don't think anybody's saying don't wear a belt,from my point of view its to do with a general fear of making choices,that may be a bit strong,but please,next time you cross the road,look at the other people,the majority are looking for the green man.they don't look at the traffic! the traffic is the danger and that's what i'm aware of,but when a large gap appears,nobody moves! the green man hasn't given permission.this may sound trivial but i see it as a sign of weediness--blimey don't we even trust ourselves to cross the road?


----------



## scampa (Apr 20, 2012)

n brown said:


> i don't think anybody's saying don't wear a belt,from my point of view its to do with a general fear of making choices,that may be a bit strong,but please,next time you cross the road,look at the other people,the majority are looking for the green man.they don't look at the traffic! the traffic is the danger and that's what i'm aware of,but when a large gap appears,nobody moves! the green man hasn't given permission.this may sound trivial but i see it as a sign of weediness--blimey don't we even trust ourselves to cross the road?



I hate to admit this, but I completely agree with you!!


----------



## n brown (Apr 20, 2012)

yeah,but have you any idea how dreadful it feels to be so right? i can hardly stand it


----------



## scampa (Apr 20, 2012)

Don't worry, that feeling doesn't usually last for long!


----------



## n brown (Apr 20, 2012)

i know,don't worry i've got no side,but i really am concerned that people are being fooled into thinking that somebody else knows best.trouble with the herd instinct is its easily manipulated,but hey ho life goes on.if you want to know something about suggestibility,tell them the word 'gullible' doesn't appear in any dictionary


----------



## scampa (Apr 20, 2012)

I'll let someone else check the dictionary for you!

As for the herd instinct, I love it.  While everyone else is busy following the crowd, it leaves plenty of areas for me to explore without the crowds getting in the way.  I'll bet they'll be staying on campsites next!  (hard-hat at the ready)


----------



## Viktor (Apr 21, 2012)

Davidv - there have been many discussions on this forum about this....the law is actually quite straightforward.

The law permitted you to carry passengers in side facing seats without seatbelts for a period up to about 2009 when a further law
superceded this loophole which made it illegal to carry passengers in a vehicle without being in belted forwarded facing seats.

(Buses and trains have an exemption except for children).

Additionally another law is in place in relation to carrying unrestrained loads....so the bottom line is if you do it and _if you are caught you
face prosecution.  _In the event of an accident you may well be left with no insurance cover should your passengers decide to seek damages,
and you will have to find the money for injuries yourself....bye bye life savings, and possibly your house.

You can look up these laws if you search for them....I can't quote the relevant legislation off the top of my head.

Effectively this means older Romahomes, and multi berth motorhomes with side seats are now effectively 2 berth while travelling and only
multi berth when stationary....which is why many are now up for sale....I was nearly caught myself when i was looking at a motorhome some
time ago......additionally many of the older motorhomes are not LEZ (low emmission zone) compliant...so you are screwed taking them into the London LEZ and many other zones which are cropping up frequently across the EEC.


----------



## shortcircuit (Apr 21, 2012)

Unfortunately Viktor I still find this very confusing.  Taking on board what you said I looked at brand new MH for sale.  4/6 berth models did not come with seat belts in all seats and I noted that with one manufacturer the seat belts to rear facing seats was an optional extra.  I am not going to take the time to look up the legislation, but as you have, can you please substantiate your statement as I find it difficult to believe that manufacturers are producing vehicles that would make you liable to be illegal


----------



## AndyC (Apr 21, 2012)

A while ago I asked the Department for Transport about seat belt legislation, the essence of what they told me is here: UKMotorhomes.net - Motorhome FAQs together with extracts of the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Act and Construction and Use Regulations.

AndyC


----------



## AndyC (Apr 21, 2012)

shortcircuit said:


> Unfortunately Viktor I still find this very confusing.  Taking on board what you said I looked at brand new MH for sale.  4/6 berth models did not come with seat belts in all seats and I noted that with one manufacturer the seat belts to rear facing seats was an optional extra.  I am not going to take the time to look up the legislation, but as you have, can you please substantiate your statement as I find it difficult to believe that manufacturers are producing vehicles that would make you liable to be illegal


Manufacturers will say that the motorhome is designed to sleep more people than there are travelling seats, to allow for the accommodation of visitors. In many cases there isn't the payload to carry any more people than there are berths.

AndyC


----------



## Geraldine (Apr 21, 2012)

Thanks everyone. Viktor's answer clarifies the law for us, so thanks Viktor. Guess we're just stuffed!!! We can look on the positive side, maybe taking just one grandchild at a time might have its benefits!


----------



## shortcircuit (Apr 21, 2012)

I have to disagree with you David as nothing has been clarified.  From what I have read seats can be used to carry passengers whether they have seat belts or not and whether they are side,rear or front facing.  What is clear is that the police can act when they consider people are being carried in a dangerous manner and then this appears down to the individual officers opinion.

Additional beds for casual visitors is just a red herring.

Still clear as mud


----------



## AndyC (Apr 21, 2012)

shortcircuit said:


> From what I have read seats can be used to carry passengers whether they have seat belts or not and whether they are side,rear or front facing.  What is clear is that the police can act when they consider people are being carried in a dangerous manner and then this appears down to the individual officers opinion.


That is my understanding of the situation. There is no specific legislation to prohibit carrying adult passengers in unbelted seats if all belted seats are occupied, the age of the vehicle doesn't matter.
As shortcircuit says, it seems that the police _could_ bring a prosecution under Road Traffic Act or Construction and Use Regulations. There is also the matter of insurance cover to consider.

AndyC


----------



## Geraldine (Apr 21, 2012)

Thanks Andy C your link was very useful, hadn't seen it when wrote previous reply! Thank you to everyone who have put in useful comments and links. This topic seems to have opened a can of worms!


----------



## n brown (Apr 21, 2012)

well for me insurance is a bit of paper to get my tax and wave at cops,i assumed from the beginning that there were so many laws and clauses i don't know or understand that any claim i made would probably be refused anyway.so i don't stress too much about what i can or can't do


----------



## Viktor (Apr 21, 2012)

The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1993
(Basically states an adult in the rear of a vehicle must wear a seat belt if fitted, so carriage of passengers on side facing seats is not illegal
under this regulation).

EC Directive 2005/39/EC states that travel in sideways facing seats with a seat belt is unsafe and that from October 20th 2007, it will not be possible to travel in them in *new *motorhomes.  This legislation is not retrospective so _vehicles registered before 20th October 2007, do not have to have seat belts fitted in the rear.

_This is the law that introduces passengers must be only be carried in belted seats which face forward or rearward. These seats have to be designated by the manufacturer as travelling seats and are supposed to be signed with a badge stating this. Again not illegal for older motorhomes, but the introduction of the
'unsafe' aspect of this type of travelling is introduced....I would expect this to be tied down firmly as illegal in all cases in the near future.

*The law that will catch you regardless:

*Regulation 100(1) of the Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations 1986 and Section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 state that : "A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits another to use a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer or of its accessories or equipment or b) the purpose for which it is used, *or c) the number of passengers carried by it or the manner in which they are carried or d) the weight, position or distribution of its load or the manner in which it is secures, is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person*."

This was primarily intended for the white van goods vehicle which was carrying several people in the rear where there were no passenger
seats, but is also used by police as an unrestrained passenger becomes an internal missile in the event of an emergency stop or an accident.
This is also the regulation which Insurance companies might use to avoid a claim, and that is something you would need to clarify with your
insurance company if it is your intention to carry unrestrained passengers on side facing seats in an older motorhome.

Of course there are excemptions to this for people with medical conditions and for emergency services etc., but for the majority of us we fall
foul of in one case we can use the side facing seats, and in another we are open to prosecution and possibly left to pay compensation personally.

(I am also certain I read legislation for the UK stating that passengers had to be carried on forward facing seats only...but I haven't been
able to pin point the actual text I read for this post).


----------



## shortcircuit (Apr 21, 2012)

Thanks Viktor.  Well that means that manufacturers that build 5/6 berth MHs without 5/6 seat belts are guilty of an offence as they have provided a vehicle that allows others to carry unsecured passengers.  Interesting?


----------



## runnach (Apr 21, 2012)

I think Viktors last post, accurately sums up the situation,whilst legislation may or may not be retrospective, carrying an unsafe load particularly when that load is people could well result in a visit to the magistrates court, and to my knowledge there is no statutory defence .... I think it would be a difficult case to argue.

In terms of insurance, insurers are duty bound under the road traffic act to deal with third party claims. Naturally a third party claim could be a spouse.
The problem is that they could recover losses under their subrogation rights and sue the insured.

To assume that your insurance is void is obviously not the case.

However, not a situation you would want to find yourself in.

Channa


----------



## shortcircuit (Apr 21, 2012)

Thanks Channa.  Would not like to be in court for this.  I always have thought of a load as inanimate and a passenger being human, but that would be up to the court to decide.


----------



## Viktor (Apr 21, 2012)

Problem is too of course.....mention it to your insurance company and they will likely 

1. Say NO

or

2. Load your insurance heavily if they believe you intend to do something which could result in a claim.


Which is why I walked away from the whole situation and bought a new conversion.


----------



## Viktor (Apr 21, 2012)

shortcircuit said:


> Thanks Viktor.  Well that means that manufacturers that build 5/6 berth MHs without 5/6 seat belts are guilty of an offence as they have provided a vehicle that allows others to carry unsecured passengers.  Interesting?



Wouldn't put it as bluntly as that....it's your responsibility whether to carry passengers or not.


----------



## shortcircuit (Apr 21, 2012)

I expected that reply. I wonder if dealer's are aware and why build for more than you can "legally" belt ?

jt


----------



## runnach (Apr 21, 2012)

shortcircuit:184357 said:
			
		

> I expected that reply. I wonder if dealer's are aware and why build for more than you can "legally" belt ?
> 
> jt


 I think as already mentioned, to accomodate visitors on the premise it is a leisure accomodation vehicle.

The rules of course change when that vehicle is used on a public highway, construction and use  the obvious.

What  is the guiding factor in respect of coachbuilts  is what the manufacturers have offered in respect of obtaining national type approval which all New vehicles for sale in the UK have to undergo.

I would expect dealers to be made aware of this particularly in respect of maximum occupants ....Nta is concerned with compliance with c&u regs on the highway..not suitability for occupation camping.

In respect of a load being inanimate, this is not the case, good example is livestock trailered, horses unsecured in horse boxes etc.
Channa


----------



## snowbirds (Apr 21, 2012)

*Carrying passengers*

Hi Viktor

I think, no likey no lighty,could try flat pack and bungy straps.

Snowbirds.:wacko::wacko:  










Viktor said:


> Wouldn't put it as bluntly as that....it's your responsibility whether to carry passengers or not.


----------



## runnach (Apr 21, 2012)

shortcircuit said:


> Thanks Viktor.  Well that means that manufacturers that build 5/6 berth MHs without 5/6 seat belts are guilty of an offence as they have provided a vehicle that allows others to carry unsecured passengers.  Interesting?



I assume you mean manufacturers and dealers have a duty of care to ensure we don't break the law?

In essence, I partly agree there is a duty of care, but imo thiis is where there is a duty of care to ourselves to ensure we don't fall foul...........where does one plant the flag?

A good example is purchasing a van over 3500kgs,,,,,,,is the onus on a dealer manufacturer to ensure we hold the correct licence?.....

Another example is in respect  of our caravan towing friends.

Three years ago a lot of the German marques  hobby lmc. Burstner where towed illegally on our roads...the width limit was. 2.35 m and a lot of these vans were 2.5 metres...however if the towing vehicle was plated at 3501 mgs it was legal hence you saw A lot pulled by transits etc....irrespective of licence top of the range rover was an illegal combination....the rules were updated 2010...so this was no longer the case

How many people towed blissfully unaware that they were illegal.  Believing relevant weight ratios meant they were ok?..

One thing that didn't change was the trailer length was limited to 7 m excluding gas locker and tow frame doesn't  affect the tuggers but consider this

A gliding trailer is quite light but almost all ex ceed the 7 length therefore illegal.

The result has been the UK gliding body, approaaching the acpo (association of chief police officers) and requesting a blind eye is turned to this  anomaly.

Who's accountable to who?....... A minefield
Channa


----------



## Smaug (Apr 21, 2012)

Hmm, 

"The law is an ass" springs to mind, whatever happened to common sense? 

The majority of accidents happen in towns, close to home when one is usually travelling slowly (often under 30 at junctions, roundabouts etc). Sure there are nutters around at closing time & speeds on M-ways are high, but M-ways are the safest roads we have. So the risk isn't that great. I have had motorhomes (& caravans too) since 1972 & not had an accident in one yet. Had a few in cars tho over the years :lol-053:

I have just fitted 2-point lap belts to my rear facing dinette seats, the forward facing ones had lap/diagonals already. I would have no qualms about carrying passengers in all 4 dinnette seats now. I generally drive slower & more defensively in the van anyway - so many idiots pull out in front of me cos they assume I will only be going slow & will hold them up, so I just slow down & follow them until they turn off.

My insurance asked ME how many passengers & I said seats for 9 including driver (there is another 3-seat dinnette at the rear). This would enable me to carry the max if I needed to, but generally there will not be more than 5 or 6, all belted now.


----------



## Tony Lee (Apr 21, 2012)

Interesting that "The law says" and "The insurance company says" or what they don't say, is being used to justify putting people's lives at additional risk. A couple even mention "Duty of care" to be exercised by coach builders or insurance companies as if somehow that makes it all OK.

Surely the whole debate must boil down to  - does the driver have a duty of care to his passengers?


How can the answer to this simple question be "NO"


----------



## n brown (Apr 21, 2012)

if we're talking about duty of care,how about the passengers duty of care to themselves? i have in the past piled into various vans and cars with drivers in various states of drunk and stoned and stupid.my choice my risk my problem.like so many times in life,you asess the situation and make  a decision,get it wrong,your bad,theres noone to blame or sue but yourself


----------



## scampa (Apr 21, 2012)

n brown said:


> if we're talking about duty of care,*how about the passengers duty of care to themselves?* i have in the past piled into various vans and cars with drivers in various states of drunk and stoned and stupid.my choice my risk my problem.like so many times in life,you asess the situation and make  a decision,get it wrong,your bad,theres noone to blame or sue but yourself




Grrr!!    But surely in the majority of cases the passengers in a motorhome/camper will be the drivers' own family, including children? 

Good idea to pass the buck on to them though!


----------



## Mad Manx (Apr 26, 2012)

Over here it's the drivers responsibility for children to be seat belted and the adult passengers responsibility to be seat belted


----------



## Geraldine (May 2, 2012)

This thread seems to have run its course.Cheers everyone


----------



## tony (May 2, 2012)

i recently checked with my insurance company here in ireland.
they said by law someone can travel in the back on a side facing seat without a seat belt.
but they would not be covered by insurance while doing so.
check it out with your insurance.

tony


----------



## scampa (May 2, 2012)

Funnily enough, there's a question about the legal requirements for rear seat-belts in the June issue of Practical Motorhome (I often suspect they get their ideas from this site!)

Their reply is similar to some members comments on this thread....

Basically, if the vehicle was registered on or after 20th October 2007, it is illegal to retro-fit seatbelts to inward-facing seats. EC directives state that they are unsafe, and all passengers should be in forward-facing or rearward-facing seats with three-point belts and head restraints.

If the vehicle was registered before that date, then there are "few legal implications for carrying passengers in the rear of the 'van. They can travel in motorhomes without rear seatbelts, but if it does have belts of any kind fitted, then they should be worn".

Although it's not a legal requirement in the older vans (registered prior to 20/10/2007), they would still advise that passengers should only be carried in forward-facing, or rearward-facing seats, and the seats should at least have lap-belts, but preferably three-point seatbelts fitted.

(But even in cases where it's not illegal to have rear passengers without seatbelts, there is still the possibility of being charged with carrying an unsafe load, which I guess would be more likely in the event of accident/injury/insurance claims?)


----------



## vwalan (May 2, 2012)

untill the end of 2007 m,homes were exempt seat belts in the back full stop . no need to have had them fitted or the need to use them. 
untill the first of march 2001 it was not a requirement in the front of vehicles over 3,500kg gvw. dont have them in mine .


----------



## vwalan (May 2, 2012)

always was true . you could always have got into trouble if folk were jumping around inside a m,home . but its like the big buses you still have to get up and walk to the toilet. there is so  much scare mongery going on people dont want to hear the truth anymore. frightened to death half the folk in the world .


----------



## DJW1966 (May 3, 2012)

n brown said:


> even if my *unrestrained wife* has to sit in the back,adults make their own decisions]



ha this made me giggle, made me think your wife is a bit excitable.


----------

