Is this a new requirement for mot.

wildebus said:
Indeed they did, and there was a very long gap between front and rear seat belts being commonly fitted. I didn't have rear seatbelts in any car I had until I got a new Montego in 1985
Click to expand...
Let alone that on many vehicles the only belts were lap belts lacking the shoulder part ....
And in some accidents actually increased injuries ....

And don't get me started on lap belts on side facing seats in the rears of early Land rovers ...
 
mistericeman said:
Let alone that on many vehicles the only belts were lap belts lacking the shoulder part ....
And in some accidents actually increased injuries ....

And don't get me started on lap belts on side facing seats in the rears of early Land rovers ...
Click to expand...
That didn't change until 2007. My 2006 reg Elddis Autoquest was classed as a 4 berth because it had 2 lap belts fitted in tthe rear sideways bench seats. The 2007 version was classed as a 2 berth (exactly the same layout) and the lap belts were gone because they were now illegal.
 
Fisherman said:
I have seen what you describe Trev. If someone wants to sit in my car without a seatbelt (as happened once ) I will try to explain why they should wear one. But if they insist, I insist they sit on the front passenger seat. I would never allow anyone to sit in my car or Motorhome at the rear without a seatbelt. If people had seen what I have seen, only once, they would always wear a seatbelt.
Click to expand...
I was picking someone up from the station a little while ago and they put the suitcase on the back seat and refused to belt up themselves or the case, I said well you need to do it or ring a taxi as I'm not paying a bloody fine for doing you a favour, they belted up.
 
Pudsey Bear said:
I was picking someone up from the station a little while ago and they put the suitcase on the back seat and refused to belt up themselves or the case, I said well you need to do it or ring a taxi as I'm not paying a bloody fine for doing you a favour, they belted up.
Click to expand...
Your car, your rules (y)

I would have not even mentioned the fine and said no belt, no ride, end of.
 
wildebus said:
Your car, your rules (y)

I would have not even mentioned the fine and said no belt, no ride, end of.
Click to expand...
I thought it only fair to give a reason David seeing as that was part of my refusal, otherwise, I was just being an arse from their point of view, it wasn't a friend of mine I was doing it for a neighbour who's car wouldn't start.
 
mark61 said:
Passengers over 14 are responsible for wearing or not wearing a seat belt.
Click to expand...
I had to look that up, and I was wrong in my thinking at the time.

Seatbelts – The Law
Drivers caught without a seatbelt are normally dealt with by way of a non-endorsable fixed Penalty Notice (This means does not carry points) which has a £100 fine but can carry a maximum fine of £500. Drivers can be prosecuted for allowing a child to travel in the vehicle unrestrained.
 
My first MOT last year on the car had an advisory stating ‘unable to check the rearmost set of seatbelts (7 seater) because of dog’s bed in the way’ . I have never had the rear seats up as it makes it nice large estate car with 5 seats if needed.
 
Pudsey Bear said:
I thought it only fair to give a reason David seeing as that was part of my refusal, otherwise, I was just being an arse from their point of view, it wasn't a friend of mine I was doing it for a neighbour who's car wouldn't start.
Click to expand...
I would have not taken them without a belt regardless of any fine for my own safety.
 
mark61 said:
Passengers over 14 are responsible for wearing or not wearing a seat belt.
Click to expand...
Correct but as they can still be a projectile I always insist that any rear seat passenger either belts up or walk/phone for a cab, just because they are responsible doesn't mean you have to allow them, certainly not in my car.

If you want the MOT tester to respect your car at least present it clean, my car gets the best valet of the year the day before the test, or should I say the only valet of the year 😎
 
maingate said:
That didn't change until 2007. My 2006 reg Elddis Autoquest was classed as a 4 berth because it had 2 lap belts fitted in tthe rear sideways bench seats. The 2007 version was classed as a 2 berth (exactly the same layout) and the lap belts were gone because they were now illegal.
Click to expand...
You can have lap belts in the rear as long as forward facing and they cannot contact any part of the dashboard or other hard objects, my van has full belts fitted on all 6 seats.
 
trevskoda said:
You can have lap belts in the rear as long as forward facing and they cannot contact any part of the dashboard or other hard objects, my van has full belts fitted on all 6 seats.
Click to expand...
rear facing belted seats are ok as well. most 6-berth motorhomes with 6 travel seats will have two of those seats facing rearwards.
 
I like to keep the engine bay clean, 23 years old and 150000 miles.

DDFAF6A1-2AA4-40CA-9A1A-1AE45C80A15C.jpeg
 
wildebus said:
rear facing belted seats are ok as well. most 6-berth motorhomes with 6 travel seats will have two of those seats facing rearwards.
Click to expand...
Sitting facing to the rear is much safer…. period.
When you come to a sudden stop you are initially forced backwards then forward. Hence if you are front facing you could go through the windscreen. If facing to the rear then the opposite happens. You are first thrown towards the rear then into the seat preventing you from becoming a missile if you had no belt on. Hence why it’s always recommended that child seats face rear words. But some people suffer from travel sickness when doing so. The fire service tried out rear facing seats in the crews cab, but they had to abandon this due to issues with some feeling sick when travelling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top