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

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
Click to expand...

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

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"
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
grumpy2 said:
My answer is why would you want to risk anyone unrestrained in your van especially your grandchildren, i certanly would not.
Click to expand...

Good point grumpy.

I only allow my mother in law to ride in the back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top