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

Hi Guys, Thank you all for your contributions to this subject. I contacted my Insurance company 2gether insurance and they said No to a passenger been covered in the back of the campervan while travelling .I pushed alittle further and they contacted the underwriters Highway Insurance Co and they also said No. So the situation is the cab can only safely secure 2 grandchildren and one adult in a 4 berth caravanette.Where do I go from here ?
 
I would ask Highway to confirm this in writing with reference to where in the policy. It just does not make sense for MH manufacturers to provide say a six berth vehicle and the insurers, who must no this, to then say, after they have taken your money, that you are not covered?

Certainly is clear as mud.
 
Davidv said:
Where do I go from here ?
Click to expand...

Ask them where it is stated in your policy document, which forms the contract you have with the company, that passengers cannot be carried in the rear. If a statement to that effect is in there then that's that. If it isn't, it is not within the power of the insurance company to impose additional terms once the policy has started and, if they refuse to change their stance, go to the insurance ombudsman.
I think the link supplied by n brown makes it pretty clear that there is no legal barrier to people being carried in the back. The quoted text is from the DoT, issued May 2011:

“There is no current legal requirement to have seatbelts fitted to side facing seats, ...
Although it is not generally illegal to use side facing seats, with or without seatbelts, ..."
 
I hate to say this but I think it should be up to us , if we dont want to wear a seat belt why should we, I have seen many a person killed because they where wearing a seat belt. I used to be a recovery driver and beleave me seat belts don't alway save lives.
But as we are TOLD to do things we have to do as we are told dont we:)


Tony
grumpyengraver
 
''you won't get old if you don't do what you're told''..catchy little slogan don't you think?
 
grumpyengraver said:
I hate to say this but I think it should be up to us , if we dont want to wear a seat belt why should we, I have seen many a person killed because they where wearing a seat belt. I used to be a recovery driver and beleave me seat belts don't alway save lives.
But as we are TOLD to do things we have to do as we are told dont we:)


Tony
grumpyengraver
Click to expand...

Sorry Grumpyengraver, but I really cannot believe or agree with your statement here. Only a very tiny proportion of casualties have suffered worse injuries through wearing a seatbelt.

There will always be those "rebellious" and "non-conformist" types who will find a few odd examples to back up their theories, but there are also several ex fire & rescue members on here who have seen it all at first-hand on numerous occasions and over many years.

I was in the fire brigade for a few years before the wearing of seatbelts became compulsory, and for many years afterwards, so I saw the difference that seatbelts made to the types and extent of injuries sustained by the casualties. I can't remember the number of road accidents that I attended over the years, but I was usually based at stations with specialist rescue vehicles, so it must be in the thousands.

I certainly have no doubts whatsoever about the huge positive difference that seatbelts make when used correctly, and I cannot take seriously anyones' advice about not wearing them!

And with respect, in almost all cases the casualties will have been extracted from their vehicles and be en-route to hospital long before a recovery vehicle will have been allowed anywhere near the scene.
 
There is quite a lot of info on here:

UKMotorhomes.net - Motorhome FAQs

which seems to suggest that it is ok legally to carry passengers in unbelted seats, but a dangerous thing to do in practice.

At the end of the day, I think it is up to the individual as to whether they take the risk, and whether their insurance will cover them if anything happens.
 
scampa said:
Sorry Grumpyengraver, but I really cannot believe or agree with your statement here. Only a very tiny proportion of casualties have suffered worse injuries through wearing a seatbelt.

There will always be those "rebellious" and "non-conformist" types who will find a few odd examples to back up their theories, but there are also several ex fire & rescue members on here who have seen it all at first-hand on numerous occasions and over many years.

I was in the fire brigade for a few years before the wearing of seatbelts became compulsory, and for many years afterwards, so I saw the difference that seatbelts made to the types and extent of injuries sustained by the casualties. I can't remember the number of road accidents that I attended over the years, but I was usually based at stations with specialist rescue vehicles, so it must be in the thousands.

I certainly have no doubts whatsoever about the huge positive difference that seatbelts make when used correctly, and I cannot take seriously anyones' advice about not wearing them!

And with respect, in almost all cases the casualties will have been extracted from their vehicles and be en-route to hospital long before a recovery vehicle will have been allowed anywhere near the scene.
Click to expand...

When I done recovery work 40 odd years ago I was often the first on the sceen, I worked on the M2 and A2 and was sent by the police, fire brigade etc and was often there before the main services got there. I have seen people burn no more than 6ft away from me, peopledrown because we could not get to them before they passed out, all sorts of fatal accidents etc.
I not saying that you should not wear seat belts I'm saying it should be up to you.

grumpyengraver
 
freedom of choice.so many things out there that'might' kill us,isn't it refreshing theres a few left where we can make our own minds up.i never had a nanny but it seems i'm being governed by people who can't imagine life without one. how the human race managed till now is a miracle.
 
grumpyengraver said:
When I done recovery work 40 odd years ago I was often the first on the sceen, I worked on the M2 and A2 and was sent by the police, fire brigade etc and was often there before the main services got there. I have seen people burn no more than 6ft away from me, peopledrown because we could not get to them before they passed out, all sorts of fatal accidents etc.
I not saying that you should not wear seat belts I'm saying it should be up to you. grumpyengraver
Click to expand...

I'm not doubting that these can happen, obviously I've seen a few myself. But without going into any details, my point is that it's genuinely only a very tiny minority of cases where a vehicle catches fire (unlike all the crashes you see on TV) or is submerged, or similar, and the outcome in those cases would usually have been the same whether they were wearing a seat belt or not. (In my own experience I would roughly guess that only around 1% or less of road traffic collisions involved a vehicle fire or submersion)

The problem is that a couple of such cases out of many hundreds of others can feed peoples wariness of wearing seatbelts, when seatbelts will in fact help to reduce injury and save life in the vast majority of survivable accidents.

It was your comment "I have seen many a person killed because they where wearing a seat belt" that I found to be unreasonable.

I'm not getting into a discussion about personal choice or being "nannied", but I will repeat the comment that I made earlier...

"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 don't think anybody's saying don't wear a belt,from my point of view its to do with a general fear of making choices,that may be a bit strong,but please,next time you cross the road,look at the other people,the majority are looking for the green man.they don't look at the traffic! the traffic is the danger and that's what i'm aware of,but when a large gap appears,nobody moves! the green man hasn't given permission.this may sound trivial but i see it as a sign of weediness--blimey don't we even trust ourselves to cross the road?
 
n brown said:
i don't think anybody's saying don't wear a belt,from my point of view its to do with a general fear of making choices,that may be a bit strong,but please,next time you cross the road,look at the other people,the majority are looking for the green man.they don't look at the traffic! the traffic is the danger and that's what i'm aware of,but when a large gap appears,nobody moves! the green man hasn't given permission.this may sound trivial but i see it as a sign of weediness--blimey don't we even trust ourselves to cross the road?
Click to expand...

I hate to admit this, but I completely agree with you!! :)
 
yeah,but have you any idea how dreadful it feels to be so right? i can hardly stand it
 
i know,don't worry i've got no side,but i really am concerned that people are being fooled into thinking that somebody else knows best.trouble with the herd instinct is its easily manipulated,but hey ho life goes on.if you want to know something about suggestibility,tell them the word 'gullible' doesn't appear in any dictionary
 
I'll let someone else check the dictionary for you!

As for the herd instinct, I love it. While everyone else is busy following the crowd, it leaves plenty of areas for me to explore without the crowds getting in the way. I'll bet they'll be staying on campsites next! (hard-hat at the ready)
 
Davidv - there have been many discussions on this forum about this....the law is actually quite straightforward.

The law permitted you to carry passengers in side facing seats without seatbelts for a period up to about 2009 when a further law
superceded this loophole which made it illegal to carry passengers in a vehicle without being in belted forwarded facing seats.

(Buses and trains have an exemption except for children).

Additionally another law is in place in relation to carrying unrestrained loads....so the bottom line is if you do it and if you are caught you
face prosecution. In the event of an accident you may well be left with no insurance cover should your passengers decide to seek damages,
and you will have to find the money for injuries yourself....bye bye life savings, and possibly your house.

You can look up these laws if you search for them....I can't quote the relevant legislation off the top of my head.

Effectively this means older Romahomes, and multi berth motorhomes with side seats are now effectively 2 berth while travelling and only
multi berth when stationary....which is why many are now up for sale....I was nearly caught myself when i was looking at a motorhome some
time ago......additionally many of the older motorhomes are not LEZ (low emmission zone) compliant...so you are screwed taking them into the London LEZ and many other zones which are cropping up frequently across the EEC.
 
Unfortunately Viktor I still find this very confusing. Taking on board what you said I looked at brand new MH for sale. 4/6 berth models did not come with seat belts in all seats and I noted that with one manufacturer the seat belts to rear facing seats was an optional extra. I am not going to take the time to look up the legislation, but as you have, can you please substantiate your statement as I find it difficult to believe that manufacturers are producing vehicles that would make you liable to be illegal
 
A while ago I asked the Department for Transport about seat belt legislation, the essence of what they told me is here: UKMotorhomes.net - Motorhome FAQs together with extracts of the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Act and Construction and Use Regulations.

AndyC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top