seat belts

Guy

Guest
Does anyone know how the law stands for people travelling in the rear seating of a motorhome with no seat belts.
It is an 8 year old A class and there are none fitted of any kind.
 
Thanks sam.
Its says Any optional rear belts can be three point or lap belts,does this mean that belts in the rear are optional.
 
Guy said:
Thanks sam.
Its says Any optional rear belts can be three point or lap belts,does this mean that belts in the rear are optional.
im not sure but i would think if they were fitted when it was built then you have to wear them,but not 100 %
i wouldnt like to be sitting in the back of mine without seat belts as if there was an accident the body is fibreglass....come to think of it i wouldnt want to be sitting in the back even if i was wearing one he he :D :D
 
Looked at the site posted from sam however it is anew zealand law site
so un sure weather there laws are the same as ours.:eek:

I have been led to believe that rear belts do not have to be worn but people in our van in the rear always where them need I say eny more:D :D
 
just found this info too

There is currently no legal requirement to have seat belts fitted to side-facing seats or seats that make up the accommodation area in motor caravans.
Regulation 46 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986: as amended states motor caravans first used on or after 1st April 1982 but before 1 October 1988 shall be equipped with anchorage points for the driver's seat and specified passenger seat (if any); and for motor caravans first used on or after 1st October 1988 shall be equipped with anchorage points for the driver's seat and any forward-facing front seat.
You can download a copy of the SI at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2001/20011043.htm.
However, this does not preclude manufacturers fitting seat belts to forward facing or rearward facing seats within the accommodation area if they wish to do so.
Where seat belts are fitted they must be worn.

Following our request for clarification on the carrying of passengers in unbelted seats, we received this further reply:

... seats in the rear of a campervan/motorhome do not, at present, require seatbelts (whether forward, rearward or sideways facing) and it is not illegal to carry unrestrained passengers in them while travelling, providing the vehicle is not overloaded. It is not something we would recommend, however.

Although current seat belt wearing regulations do not currently prohibit carrying more passengers in vehicles than there are seat belts available, the police may prosecute drivers for carrying passengers in a manner that may injure someone.
We would advise that no-one should be carried in any unbelted seat in the rear of a motorhome.

A recent Directive (2005/40/EC) on the installation of seat belts requires that from 20 October 2007 new vehicles will have to have seat belts fitted on all seats except those seats intended solely for use when the vehicle is stationary.

Where seat belts are fitted, from May 2009, the seat belt wearing Directive will prevent more passengers being carried than there are seat belts in the rear of vehicles.

The new requirements will mean that from May 2009, in any vehicle of whatever age, where seat belts are fitted in the rear, more passengers may not be carried in the rear than there are seat belts available.

The critical points are that for owners of older motorhomes, it will not become illegal to carry passengers in the rear, provided that no seatbelts are fitted to any seats behind the driver and front passenger seats. Owners of any motorhome that has belts fitted to any seat in the rear will need to be aware that, from May 2009, it will be illegal to carry passengers in any unbelted seats.

The advisability of carrying unrestrained passengers is another matter, to quote the DfT spokesman:

'... the police can already act where people in the rear of any vehicle are considered to be carried in a dangerous manner because they are unrestrained. [Owners] should beware of unbelted passengers. In a crash, they can injure others in the vehicle ...'.
 
cipro said:
Looked at the site posted from sam however it is anew zealand law site
so un sure weather there laws are the same as ours.:eek:

I have been led to believe that rear belts do not have to be worn but people in our van in the rear always where them need I say eny more:D :D
hi i edited it quickly as i posted the wrong link,check again :D :D
 
super quick

sammclouis said:
hi i edited it quickly as i posted the wrong link,check again :D :D


Sam it would have taken me for ever to type that lot!!!!!
other link is good though fabho
 
cipro said:
Sam it would have taken me for ever to type that lot!!!!!
other link is good though fabho
he he he well i know a little trick to save my fingers......i copied it from a website and pasted it onto this one,it takes 2 seconds :D :D :D
 
sam

sammclouis said:
he he he well i know a little trick to save my fingers......i copied it from a website and pasted it onto this one,it takes 2 seconds :D :D :D
vocabulary and that by building a sizable vocabulary quite quickly one can soon be able to function adequately. You may also wish to look at http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/95/feb/meara.html

�@

Introduction
�@

It is obvious that in order to learn a foreign language one needs to learn many many words. But how many? Educated English native speakers have a vocabulary of about 20,000-25,000 word families (A 'word family' refers to a group of words that share the same basic meaning e.g. create, creation, creating, created, creative etc), foreign learners of English need far fewer[1].The speaking vocabulary is usually said to be half of the reading and writing vocabulary. Foreign learners of English only need about 3000-5000 word families to be quite competent in speaking and listening to English. This is great news for learners of English because their task is much easier than that of native speakers!

�@

One of the reasons for this seemingly small number is the nature of words and the frequency with which they appear in a language. Not all words are equal because some words such as time, the, come, make, and so on are very common whereas others such as parasol, bombastic and edifice are relatively rare and not met everyday. It therefore seems clear that these frequent words should be among the first words to learn because they will be met most often and will be needed frequently in speech or writing. Thus the pay off for learning them is higher than for an average rare word. These words are often called a General Service Vocabulary because these words are found in many kinds of situations and domains. This is a vocabulary of about 2000 word families. The best list (although it is a bit dated is Michael West's 1954 list called the General Service Word List.) These General Service words are found a very very wide range of contexts such as in the medical world, in novels, in scientific reports, on web pages, in daily conversation, in politics and so on. Because these words appear in so many contexts they are extremely useful to almost all learners. Thus they are called "General Service" words. It has to be remembered of course that each of these topic areas just mentioned has its own specialist or technical vocabulary, for example the words embolism and gastroenteritis and so on appear in medicine, hydrogen and thermodynamics appear in science and engineering, and interferometer appears in astronomy.


like this Sam dont read it i have no idea what it says just wanted to try it
IT WORKS :D :D :D :D :D
 
Because i dont have rear seatbelts fitted it is not a legal requirement for people to wear them.
Would it be safer for them to travel in the top box.(obviously no more than two people that would be just silly).
 
Guy said:
Because i dont have rear seatbelts fitted it is not a legal requirement for people to wear them.
Would it be safer for them to travel in the top box.(obviously no more than two people that would be just silly).
if its made of fibre glass!!no way,imagine if you had an accident,i just wouldnt mate,i think you are jesting!! are you jesting?? :confused:
 
no i am serious, more than two people in the top box would be quite restrictive on a long journey
 
Guy said:
no i am serious, more than two people in the top box would be quite restrictive on a long journey
do you mean the top overhanging on the cab or a proper top box he he he :D
i thought you meant the over cab area ha ha ha ha oh i am gullible he he he :D :D :D i feel all embarrassed now :eek:
 

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top