Sad event.

[1807truckman]

Are you in GB? no one needs to get IVAs after doing a Campervan Conversion - unless you are referring to a commercial conversion I guess. I would think the camper in question is a self-conversion.

A lot of MOT places would fail a camper with a rock & roll seat if it didn't have seatbelts fitted (down to rule interpretation) so the popular 'fix' was to simply put the rear seat into bed mode. No seatbelts needed on a bed.
And actually there is nothing wrong with doing that if you didn't have belts as plenty of people fit a R&R sear/bed to provide seating when camping and have no intention or need to have rear travel passengers.

My PVC had to have an IVA due to it being altered to be a wheelchair accessible motorhome so rear passenger seat had to have seat belt,there also had to be a seat belt for the wheelchair user, the wheelchair isn't going to travel in the passenger area of the van but in the rear storage area with my wife in the front passenger seat, the rear passenger seat is removable and unless we're taking one of the grand kids with us it will be stored in the house, the PVC is brand new and not a used van converted to a camper.

 

[guerdeval]

It goes some way to explain why converters like Wildax who use a bloody great steel frame for the seats weigh so much

 

[1 Cup]

 

[QFour]

Only one van i know has a chassis, iveco, all other are monocock.

See you are still using the same old spell checker

 

[trevskoda]

WE have some trackways here going back over 3000 years, took you lot a long time to catch up.

 

[mark61]

See you are still using the same old spell checker

Dodgy spell checker doesn't make it true either.
Don't think any of the light commercials commonly used as a motorhome base, have a monocoque chassis.
Though it's true the Daily does have a old school full body on frame chassis, where as the others don't in panel van form.

 

[QFour]

It goes some way to explain why converters like Wildax who use a bloody great steel frame for the seats weigh so much

Seems like you are better with a MH than a PVC. Our Carthago is the same size as a 6.4m PVC. Far more room inside with better storage. The seat frame extends down to the Alco chassis. Only downside is cost. A new Carthago 138 is over £100k now but I have noticed that PVC are also creeping up in price.

 

[rugbyken]

when i upgraded the weight on my hymer i had to fit bellows for the rear suspension normally they just remove the shock absorbers & fit the bellows in their place, on my b544 this involved me removing a plate about a foot long and 4” wide secured with 6 bolts that was the anchor points for the rear seat belts after adjusting the fit i refitted the frame i could have gained about 3cwt on the load bearing weight if i ditched the second set of seat belts anchor points frames etc

 

[CleverTrevorUK]

All the forward facing seats in my camper have inertia belts! However the two rearward facing seats don't have any belts? Being a six berth camper i suspect they thought i would at times have six bums on seats? The unbelted are behind the driver but have a bulkhead and rear cushion between them and the driver. I suspect acceptable during the date of manufacture and sails through MOT every time.

 

[Drover]

The seatbelt law changed in 2012..as in the allowed travelling seats need to be noted in the vc5. This is the max number of travelling people allowed and must wear seatbelts. (Exemptions allowed)
Before 2008 seatbelts are not required in the rear but if fitted they must be used.
Children under 135cm must use a correctly made seat for their age in any vehicle. There is an age limit but I can't remember it.
This is hard to find in the uk law..it is only on uk reg vehicles .
Between 2008 and 2012 is a grey area.

Sad post by op which to me is sad.

 

[trevskoda]

Dodgy spell checker doesn't make it true either.
Don't think any of the light commercials commonly used as a motorhome base, have a monocoque chassis.
Though it's true the Daily does have a old school full body on frame chassis, where as the others don't in panel van form.

The van type have no chassis, only the big box campers are built on a platform cab chassis.

 

[Pudsey Bear]

If you look under the Fiat van body there is a chassis, it's just not a separate one, but I'd not describe it as monocoque.

 

[mark61]

If you look under the Fiat van body there is a chassis, it's just not a separate one, but I'd not describe it as monocoque.

Exactly. Most panel vans have a unibody chassis, or a hybrid chassis when in cab and chassis form.

 

[wildebus]

Seems like you are better with a MH than a PVC. Our Carthago is the same size as a 6.4m PVC. Far more room inside with better storage. The seat frame extends down to the Alco chassis. Only downside is cost. A new Carthago 138 is over £100k now but I have noticed that PVC are also creeping up in price.

That addresses how well the seat (and belts) may be secured down, which is important but the point Wully makes is equally as important ...

It’s not rocket science if there’s seat belts fitted use them. I’ve never liked the rear passenger seats in any motorhome I have owned or seen always looks a bit bodged even in the more expensive vans especially if you had a side impact nothing there but a thin sheet of aluminium and bolsa wood. Scary. Sad for that family nobody sets out no matter what thinking this could happen.

If you want a bit of a "people carrier", then using a motorhome whose body is not that much different to a caravan is not the way to go. A panel van is a far more secure structure in terms of occupant safety (IMO).


Out of interest, this is what I took OUT of my 'PVC' when I converted it from a ex-mobility van conversion to a camper ...

This was for the moveable seat and the wheelchair harness

Versa_1 by David, on Flickr
All the shiny bits were inside; all the rusty looking bits were underneath. And of course between was the steel floor of the van. Very secure.

And this was underneath also

Versa_2 by David, on Flickr

As was this

Doris_MobilityCarrier by David, on Flickr

I don't think conversion companies skimp on this stuff. Weighed a blooming ton. I removed it all as I had no intention of carrying rear passengers or even have any kind of seating at the back that could be mistaken for travel seats.
(Shame Versa were not as good as cutting out windows as they were at securing seats but another story).

 

[Fisherman]

That addresses how well the seat (and belts) may be secured down, which is important but the point Wully makes is equally as important ...


If you want a bit of a "people carrier", then using a motorhome whose body is not that much different to a caravan is not the way to go. A panel van is a far more secure structure in terms of occupant safety (IMO).


Out of interest, this is what I took OUT of my 'PVC' when I converted it from a ex-mobility van conversion to a camper ...

This was for the moveable seat and the wheelchair harness

Versa_1 by David, on Flickr
All the shiny bits were inside; all the rusty looking bits were underneath. And of course between was the steel floor of the van. Very secure.

And this was underneath also

Versa_2 by David, on Flickr

As was this

Doris_MobilityCarrier by David, on Flickr

I don't think conversion companies skimp on this stuff. Weighed a blooming ton. I removed it all as I had no intention of carrying rear passengers or even have any kind of seating at the back that could be mistaken for travel seats.
(Shame Versa were not as good as cutting out windows as they were at securing seats but another story).

Given the choice of having an accident in a plastic Motorhome or a PVC I know what I would rather take my chances in.

 

[Pudsey Bear]

PVC every time for me too, Coachbuilts are okay until something hits them, then you might as well not even be in a vehicle at all.

 

[mariesnowgoose]

PVC every time for me too, Coachbuilts are okay until something hits them, then you might as well not even be in a vehicle at all.

Hmm. Could be wrong, but maybe an old auto sleeper monocoque could give it a fair go in a contest

But ‘tis best not to get hit

 

[Pudsey Bear]

Hmm. Could be wrong, but maybe an old auto sleeper monocoque could give it a fair go in a contest

But ‘tis best not to get hit

No doubt they are better Marie and why they last so well with no leaks, but a good clout and there would be a lot of GRP on the road instead of polystyrene, ally and ply

 

[Thistle]

Whenever reading articles like that one has to remember they are publishing a précis they haven’t said if the vehicle was overloaded or weight badly distributed or secured, plus where blame can not be attributed via an actual prosecution they can only state what happened without prejudice.

Obviously imho anyone that decides to drive a vehicle with unsecured passengers is taking a big stupid and irresponsible risk, anyone that decides to also drive same vehicle on 22 year old tyres is a …… but the coroner probably can’t say words to that effect

The ancient tyres or at one of them and the drivers loss of control during the resultant blowout seems to be the route cause of the accident.

If the van had been > 3500kg a HGV/PHGV I am pretty sure those tyres would have failed the MOT and the vehicle issued with a prohibition notice immediately preventing it even leaving the MOT centre just the same as happened to me last October on 11 year old tyres!

Sadly this vehicle was allowed to be used on what by any other measure would be deemed unsafe tyres and if the tyre age rules applied across the board then maybe the innocent victims of this accident would be alive today.

The article doesn’t cover the full coroners recommendations I hope it includes the tyres as well as the lack of belts

 

[wildebus]

Whenever reading articles like that one has to remember they are publishing a précis they haven’t said if the vehicle was overloaded or weight badly distributed or secured, plus where blame can not be attributed via an actual prosecution they can only state what happened without prejudice.

Obviously imho anyone that decides to drive a vehicle with unsecured passengers is taking a big stupid and irresponsible risk, anyone that decides to also drive same vehicle on 22 year old tyres is a …… but the coroner probably can’t say words to that effect

The ancient tyres or at one of them and the drivers loss of control during the resultant blowout seems to be the route cause of the accident.

If the van had been > 3500kg a HGV/PHGV I am pretty sure those tyres would have failed the MOT and the vehicle issued with a prohibition notice immediately preventing it even leaving the MOT centre just the same as happened to me last October on 11 year old tyres!

Rightly or wrongly, the age thing with tyres is not applicable to a vehicle subject to a Class 4 MOT (e.g. Motor Caravan) regardless of weight and if it is a PHGV or not.
If you got a prohibition notice on your Class 4 MOT vehicle due to tyre age (as opposed to condition) then the failure was with the MOT Inspector, not the vehicle.

Sadly this vehicle was allowed to be used on what by any other measure would be deemed unsafe tyres and if the tyre age rules applied across the board then maybe the innocent victims of this accident would be alive today.

The article doesn’t cover the full coroners recommendations I hope it includes the tyres as well as the lack of belts