Children unsecured in rear of motorhomes

[Robmac]

I have to say that I agree with the OP.

I have never wrapped my kids in cotton wool, but for anybody to take risks on their behalf just seems wrong to me.

Times have changed, back in the day, my dad drove us round in an old Bedford van (I was one of 5), no seat belts, sliding door open, but we knew no better.

My wife has been known to go into the back of the van to get something, or even lie down for a while whilst I am driving, but that is her decision, she is a responsible adult capable of judging the risk and accepting or rejecting it. Kids don't have that choice. I would no sooner carry my grandkids unbelted in the van than smoke with them in a vehicle.

Kids are a precious cargo and should be treated as such.

 

[yorkslass]

I have to say that I agree with the OP.

I have never wrapped my kids in cotton wool, but for anybody to take risks on their behalf just seems wrong to me.

Times have changed, back in the day, my dad drove us round in an old Bedford van (I was one of 5), no seat belts, sliding door open, but we knew no better.

My wife has been known to go into the back of the van to get something, or even lie down for a while whilst I am driving, but that is her decision, she is a responsible adult capable of judging the risk and accepting or rejecting it. Kids don't have that choice. I would no sooner carry my grandkids unbelted in the van than smoke with them in a vehicle.

Kids are a precious cargo and should be treated as such.

Totally agree Rob, however 30+years ago we didn't know any different. I've been driven in the back of my dad's van, we went all over and never gave it a second thought.

 

[Fisherman]

Just a matter of interest.

When I started my job in the 70s many cars had no headrests.
I lost count of the amount of fatalities I witnessed due to the lack of such a simple device.
The casualties would mostly be there, not a mark on them but their necks had been broken.

Thankfully today cars are a lot safer and many accidents that a few decades ago would resulted in fatalities, no longer do so.

But on that note, I have allowed a front seat passenger to sit not wearing a belt, but I would never allow a back seat passenger to do so. They risk not only there own lives, but those sitting in the front also.

Apologies if I seem to be taking this matter to serious, but it’s a fact that life is very fragile, and a child’s even more so. If adults want to play at roulette with their lives then that’s their choice.

 

[walpeter]

What about public transport? Buses (including double-deckers) often travel at speeds of up to
50 mph with children and regularly full of school children - no seat belts!

Is that not dangerous?

 

[Robmac]

What about public transport? Buses (including double-deckers) often travel at speeds of up to
50 mph with children and regularly full of school children - no seat belts!

Is that not dangerous?

Yes.

 

[Fisherman]

What about public transport? Buses (including double-deckers) often travel at speeds of up to
50 mph with children and regularly full of school children - no seat belts!

Is that not dangerous?

Ah well that’s ok then, go play Russian roulette with a child’s life, and when they perish you can console yourself with that valid point.

Most intercity buses do provide seatbelts but wearing them is not mandatory.

You make a valid point, but I would argue that things should change for all modes of transport.

 

[Silver sprinter]

Oh did I say it was a grey area, me and my big gub,

 

[2cv]

When Bailey started making motorhomes they did quite a bit of crash testing and modifying before they went into production.

[video=youtube_share;1iKwg2672UM]https://youtu.be/1iKwg2672UM[/video]

[video=youtube_share;gIHGtA-LO-o]https://youtu.be/gIHGtA-LO-o[/video]

[video=youtube_share;srCE7DhYwu0]https://youtu.be/srCE7DhYwu0[/video]

[video=youtube_share;fcJHM9uacA0]https://youtu.be/fcJHM9uacA0[/video]

[video=youtube_share;DOH_fn-weIM]https://youtu.be/DOH_fn-weIM[/video]

 

[Robmac]

Ah well that’s ok then, go play Russian roulette with a child’s life, and when they perish you can console yourself with that valid point.

Most intercity buses do provide seatbelts but wearing them is not mandatory.

You make a valid point, but I would argue that things should change for all modes of transport.

I'm sure I read somewhere that it is mandatory except for urban buses.

Urban buses are allowed to have standing passengers, so probably more to do with profit than safety!

 

[2cv]

A little light reading about bus requirements.

Seat belts in minibuses, coaches and other buses - GOV.UK

 

[Tezza33]

My van has three belted seats but also has a side bench which pulls out for the single bed, we were going on Holiday with our youngest granddaughter but at the last minute her older sister wanted to come, we said no because travelling would not be safe, as cheerful Charlie said (in a word) we are not safe in certain types of accidents so even with belts on travelling without them doesn't make sense

 

[Fisherman]

My van has three belted seats but also has a side bench which pulls out for the single bed, we were going on Holiday with our youngest granddaughter but at the last minute her older sister wanted to come, we said no because travelling would not be safe, as cheerful Charlie said (in a word) we are not safe in certain types of accidents so even with belts on travelling without them doesn't make sense

Tezza, seatbelts are more effective in head on collisions.
Side impact collisions can be far more dangerous due first to the close proximity of the occupants to the impact zone, lack of substantive structure between impact zone and occupants, and because the energy from a side impact negates to a great extent the effectiveness of seatbelts.

If you are involved in a frontal impact collision a seat belt will hold the occupants in place, preventing them from striking internal elements within vehicle and other occupants in front of the propelled occupants. Without proper restraint offered by a seatbelt occupants will be thrown forward at the impact speed towards the front of the vehicle, greatly increasing their chance of serious injury, and pose a threat to occupants in front of them.

Due to the additional height of a mh passengers within a mh have a better chance of survival than if they were in a car. Also due to the fact that mh are heavier than cars this also increases your chance of survival. Basicly in an accident scenario the lighter vehicle absorbs proportionately more of the energy than the heavier. To give you an example a 3.5 ton mh striking a 1 ton car, the car will absorb approx 85% of the combined energy and the Motorhome only 15%.

 

[Nabsim]

It is a grey area in law but insurance is black and white, mine has 2 side facing bench seats and is a 4birth. Insurance asked how many seats had seatbelt (2j so insured me for carrying a total of 2 people

 

[trevskoda]

This is more vague than ******.

I cannot understand anyone carrying their children unsecured, its beyond unforgivable.

Its only for old cars which never had belts and taxies,there are cut of dates for vans in construction and use rules regarding belted seats,all six of mine are belted to comply with rules for her build /reg date.

 

[trevskoda]

What about public transport? Buses (including double-deckers) often travel at speeds of up to
50 mph with children and regularly full of school children - no seat belts!

Is that not dangerous?

Yes but the law says ok,we have to go by the law but i will and do make folk were them or walk if not willing to go with my rules.

 

[trevskoda]

It is a grey area in law but insurance is black and white, mine has 2 side facing bench seats and is a 4birth. Insurance asked how many seats had seatbelt (2j so insured me for carrying a total of 2 people

No ins co will now cover side facing seats with belts for convayence,vans built after 2012 should have traveling seats forward or rear facing marked as such,<eu rules> but as no groups of makers ever sat down and sorted this it is in fact given a by ball.
Anyway my van failed its mot today so a few jobs on the to do list.

 

[walpeter]

Ah well that’s ok then, go play Russian roulette with a child’s life, and when they perish you can console yourself with that valid point.

Most intercity buses do provide seatbelts but wearing them is not mandatory.

You make a valid point, but I would argue that things should change for all modes of transport.

I was only making a point. I wasn't condoning travelling without seat belts even if it is legal.

 

[Deleted member 12539]

If the van has seat belts then I insist on children being belted, but adults have a brain and must know the dangers of travelling in a car without one on.
Looking at some of the moho accidents on Youtube, it does seem like the vehicle would crumple very easily, so injuries would be, or could be worse, depending on the type of accident if you were fixed to your seat.

 

[Fisherman]

If the van has seat belts then I insist on children being belted, but adults have a brain and must know the dangers of travelling in a car without one on.
Looking at some of the moho accidents on Youtube, it does seem like the vehicle would crumple very easily, so injuries would be, or could be worse, depending on the type of accident if you were fixed to your seat.

Beemer, therefore you would be content if a 12 stone man was propelled towards you or your front seat passenger at 30 to 60mph depending on speed at point of collision, and hitting you with the force of an African elephant. I witnessed drivers with broken necks due to them being struck by unsecured rear adult passengers. If an adult did not wish to belt up in my vehicle he would do so in the front of the vehicle were he or she would pose no risk to others.

Also in ANY vehicle side impact collisions were vehicles have little protection can be fatal.
I have seen cars that are not easy to ID their model due to the extent of the damage.
We had to look around for a part of the vehicle with the name on it, or do a vehicle check from a number plate.
Also what you say is correct. It would be better in a side impact collision if you were thrown away from the point of impact rather than being held in a fixed position by a seatbelt. But only around 20% of rtas are side impact the majority being front or rear impact were seatbelts have saved many lives, Yes seatbelts have been counterproductive in some accidents but they have saved many more lives than been responsible to some extent for accentuating injury, or resulting in death. It’s all about balance of probabilities, pays your money take your chance.

 

[Channa]

Car manufacturers at least spend a fortune and significant expense concentrating on Active and Passive safety, Passive to avoid having an accident eg ABS Active for example pre tensioned 3 point seat belts and airbags.

Fisherman makes a good point modern vehicle design with crumple zones etc is all about decelerating the occupants in an impact reducing the likelihood of serious injury

One way they do it coming back to his analogy is impact forces are vectored through the flooplan, three point belts designed to vector forces towards the pelvic area strongest part of the body and relieve vital organs of impact.

It does seem silly when manufacturers go to this effort to ignore it. The last few years relatively child seats,, booster cushions are designed to compliment existing safety functions

Channa