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

[AndyC]

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

Manufacturers will say that the motorhome is designed to sleep more people than there are travelling seats, to allow for the accommodation of visitors. In many cases there isn't the payload to carry any more people than there are berths.

AndyC

 

[Geraldine]

Thanks everyone. Viktor's answer clarifies the law for us, so thanks Viktor. Guess we're just stuffed!!! We can look on the positive side, maybe taking just one grandchild at a time might have its benefits!

 

[shortcircuit]

I have to disagree with you David as nothing has been clarified. From what I have read seats can be used to carry passengers whether they have seat belts or not and whether they are side,rear or front facing. What is clear is that the police can act when they consider people are being carried in a dangerous manner and then this appears down to the individual officers opinion.

Additional beds for casual visitors is just a red herring.

Still clear as mud

 

[AndyC]

From what I have read seats can be used to carry passengers whether they have seat belts or not and whether they are side,rear or front facing. What is clear is that the police can act when they consider people are being carried in a dangerous manner and then this appears down to the individual officers opinion.

That is my understanding of the situation. There is no specific legislation to prohibit carrying adult passengers in unbelted seats if all belted seats are occupied, the age of the vehicle doesn't matter.
As shortcircuit says, it seems that the police could bring a prosecution under Road Traffic Act or Construction and Use Regulations. There is also the matter of insurance cover to consider.

AndyC

 

[Geraldine]

Thanks Andy C your link was very useful, hadn't seen it when wrote previous reply! Thank you to everyone who have put in useful comments and links. This topic seems to have opened a can of worms!

 

[n brown]

well for me insurance is a bit of paper to get my tax and wave at cops,i assumed from the beginning that there were so many laws and clauses i don't know or understand that any claim i made would probably be refused anyway.so i don't stress too much about what i can or can't do

 

[Viktor]

The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1993
(Basically states an adult in the rear of a vehicle must wear a seat belt if fitted, so carriage of passengers on side facing seats is not illegal
under this regulation).

EC Directive 2005/39/EC states that travel in sideways facing seats with a seat belt is unsafe and that from October 20th 2007, it will not be possible to travel in them in new motorhomes. This legislation is not retrospective so vehicles registered before 20th October 2007, do not have to have seat belts fitted in the rear.

This is the law that introduces passengers must be only be carried in belted seats which face forward or rearward. These seats have to be designated by the manufacturer as travelling seats and are supposed to be signed with a badge stating this. Again not illegal for older motorhomes, but the introduction of the
'unsafe' aspect of this type of travelling is introduced....I would expect this to be tied down firmly as illegal in all cases in the near future.

The law that will catch you regardless:

Regulation 100(1) of the Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations 1986 and Section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 state that : "A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits another to use a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer or of its accessories or equipment or b) the purpose for which it is used, or c) the number of passengers carried by it or the manner in which they are carried or d) the weight, position or distribution of its load or the manner in which it is secures, is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person."

This was primarily intended for the white van goods vehicle which was carrying several people in the rear where there were no passenger
seats, but is also used by police as an unrestrained passenger becomes an internal missile in the event of an emergency stop or an accident.
This is also the regulation which Insurance companies might use to avoid a claim, and that is something you would need to clarify with your
insurance company if it is your intention to carry unrestrained passengers on side facing seats in an older motorhome.

Of course there are excemptions to this for people with medical conditions and for emergency services etc., but for the majority of us we fall
foul of in one case we can use the side facing seats, and in another we are open to prosecution and possibly left to pay compensation personally.

(I am also certain I read legislation for the UK stating that passengers had to be carried on forward facing seats only...but I haven't been
able to pin point the actual text I read for this post).

 

[shortcircuit]

Thanks Viktor. Well that means that manufacturers that build 5/6 berth MHs without 5/6 seat belts are guilty of an offence as they have provided a vehicle that allows others to carry unsecured passengers. Interesting?

 

[Channa]

I think Viktors last post, accurately sums up the situation,whilst legislation may or may not be retrospective, carrying an unsafe load particularly when that load is people could well result in a visit to the magistrates court, and to my knowledge there is no statutory defence .... I think it would be a difficult case to argue.

In terms of insurance, insurers are duty bound under the road traffic act to deal with third party claims. Naturally a third party claim could be a spouse.
The problem is that they could recover losses under their subrogation rights and sue the insured.

To assume that your insurance is void is obviously not the case.

However, not a situation you would want to find yourself in.

Channa

 

[shortcircuit]

Thanks Channa. Would not like to be in court for this. I always have thought of a load as inanimate and a passenger being human, but that would be up to the court to decide.

 

[Viktor]

Problem is too of course.....mention it to your insurance company and they will likely

1. Say NO

or

2. Load your insurance heavily if they believe you intend to do something which could result in a claim.


Which is why I walked away from the whole situation and bought a new conversion.

 

[Viktor]

Thanks Viktor. Well that means that manufacturers that build 5/6 berth MHs without 5/6 seat belts are guilty of an offence as they have provided a vehicle that allows others to carry unsecured passengers. Interesting?

Wouldn't put it as bluntly as that....it's your responsibility whether to carry passengers or not.

 

[shortcircuit]

I expected that reply. I wonder if dealer's are aware and why build for more than you can "legally" belt ?

jt

 

[Channa]

I expected that reply. I wonder if dealer's are aware and why build for more than you can "legally" belt ?

jt

I think as already mentioned, to accomodate visitors on the premise it is a leisure accomodation vehicle.

The rules of course change when that vehicle is used on a public highway, construction and use the obvious.

What is the guiding factor in respect of coachbuilts is what the manufacturers have offered in respect of obtaining national type approval which all New vehicles for sale in the UK have to undergo.

I would expect dealers to be made aware of this particularly in respect of maximum occupants ....Nta is concerned with compliance with c&u regs on the highway..not suitability for occupation camping.

In respect of a load being inanimate, this is not the case, good example is livestock trailered, horses unsecured in horse boxes etc.
Channa

 

[snowbirds]

Carrying passengers

Hi Viktor

I think, no likey no lighty,could try flat pack and bungy straps.

Snowbirds.:wacko::wacko:

Wouldn't put it as bluntly as that....it's your responsibility whether to carry passengers or not.

 

[Channa]

Thanks Viktor. Well that means that manufacturers that build 5/6 berth MHs without 5/6 seat belts are guilty of an offence as they have provided a vehicle that allows others to carry unsecured passengers. Interesting?

I assume you mean manufacturers and dealers have a duty of care to ensure we don't break the law?

In essence, I partly agree there is a duty of care, but imo thiis is where there is a duty of care to ourselves to ensure we don't fall foul...........where does one plant the flag?

A good example is purchasing a van over 3500kgs,,,,,,,is the onus on a dealer manufacturer to ensure we hold the correct licence?.....

Another example is in respect of our caravan towing friends.

Three years ago a lot of the German marques hobby lmc. Burstner where towed illegally on our roads...the width limit was. 2.35 m and a lot of these vans were 2.5 metres...however if the towing vehicle was plated at 3501 mgs it was legal hence you saw A lot pulled by transits etc....irrespective of licence top of the range rover was an illegal combination....the rules were updated 2010...so this was no longer the case

How many people towed blissfully unaware that they were illegal. Believing relevant weight ratios meant they were ok?..

One thing that didn't change was the trailer length was limited to 7 m excluding gas locker and tow frame doesn't affect the tuggers but consider this

A gliding trailer is quite light but almost all ex ceed the 7 length therefore illegal.

The result has been the UK gliding body, approaaching the acpo (association of chief police officers) and requesting a blind eye is turned to this anomaly.

Who's accountable to who?....... A minefield
Channa

 

[Smaug]

Hmm,

"The law is an ass" springs to mind, whatever happened to common sense?

The majority of accidents happen in towns, close to home when one is usually travelling slowly (often under 30 at junctions, roundabouts etc). Sure there are nutters around at closing time & speeds on M-ways are high, but M-ways are the safest roads we have. So the risk isn't that great. I have had motorhomes (& caravans too) since 1972 & not had an accident in one yet. Had a few in cars tho over the years :lol-053:

I have just fitted 2-point lap belts to my rear facing dinette seats, the forward facing ones had lap/diagonals already. I would have no qualms about carrying passengers in all 4 dinnette seats now. I generally drive slower & more defensively in the van anyway - so many idiots pull out in front of me cos they assume I will only be going slow & will hold them up, so I just slow down & follow them until they turn off.

My insurance asked ME how many passengers & I said seats for 9 including driver (there is another 3-seat dinnette at the rear). This would enable me to carry the max if I needed to, but generally there will not be more than 5 or 6, all belted now.

 

[Deleted member 3011]

Interesting that "The law says" and "The insurance company says" or what they don't say, is being used to justify putting people's lives at additional risk. A couple even mention "Duty of care" to be exercised by coach builders or insurance companies as if somehow that makes it all OK.

Surely the whole debate must boil down to - does the driver have a duty of care to his passengers?


How can the answer to this simple question be "NO"

 

[n brown]

if we're talking about duty of care,how about the passengers duty of care to themselves? i have in the past piled into various vans and cars with drivers in various states of drunk and stoned and stupid.my choice my risk my problem.like so many times in life,you asess the situation and make a decision,get it wrong,your bad,theres noone to blame or sue but yourself

 

[scampa]

if we're talking about duty of care,how about the passengers duty of care to themselves? i have in the past piled into various vans and cars with drivers in various states of drunk and stoned and stupid.my choice my risk my problem.like so many times in life,you asess the situation and make a decision,get it wrong,your bad,theres noone to blame or sue but yourself

Grrr!! But surely in the majority of cases the passengers in a motorhome/camper will be the drivers' own family, including children?

Good idea to pass the buck on to them though!