I'm about to torch it

I wouldn't reccomend torching it,unless you sort out your insurance first .Have you tryed any of the online searches like confused.com

that white smoke you were on about is likely to be unburnt diesel in the exhaust gases, especially when the engine is cold. If there is still white smoke when the engine is hot, then prehaps the injector pump needs timing or reconditioning as well as the injectors.

NFU-Local insurance, for local people.

Milo,
You cannot carry children in the bench seats of your 110 CSW without seatbelts when there are other seats in the vehicle with belts.

In laymans terms ALL children(subject to age/height) have to be restrained and in child seats/booster cushions that are forward facing(the key words)except where in an unforeseen emergency you have to carry children and then only for the shortest possible distance or in a taxi where it would not be reasonable to expect them to have child seats.

I'd love to take you to the various fatal and serious accidents I've attended where children have been launched from vehicles and effectively been pulverised.

Do yourself and more importantly your children a favour and make them wear belts and keep them out of the rear of your vehicle.

Also if you really don't need to have 12 seats at the very least remove the centre front seat and then you can honestly say to insurers it doesn't have 12 seats or better still take the benches away and remove temptation!

I'm trying to be nice here!
Steve

So for arguments sake, if I am carrying say five adults and five kids, you are saying that legally, the kids have to be in the front, and the adults in the back ?

No need to be nice, I just want to know where I stand legally, and WHERE to get the dang thing insured to legally carry 12 people. Answer me one thing please, you seem to be in the know.

If an insurer offers me a quotation based on the registration number of my vehicle without asking how many seats, and as standard the vehicle has 12 seats, am I covered. Thankyou.

I really am sick of the do gooders telling me the pro's and cons of not wearing seatbelts. I am a Traffic Safety Engineer. I just want to be legal.

And someone tell me, why you are happy to let your kids on buses and taxis with no seatbelts and mad ass busdrivers thinking they are on a race track, but throw a hissy fit at the thought of your kids in the back of a steel chassised landrover doing 20 m.p.h max on the way to school ?

Hi Milo, this is what the law states:- The law on wearing seat belts in the UK

I would suggest that the kids are belted in up front and any adults are stuffed in the back.

Give it I say a year, will be compulsory to wear a seatbelt when on the latrine. Too much beans the night before could launch you of the pedestal causing nasty head injuries on the toilet roll holder, never can be too careful can you.

Just read the law to the very bottom and it states that
"Older cars that do not have seatbelts do not need to have them fitted and worn, but cannot be used for carrying children"

Elvis wouldnt have slipped if he had been wearin a belt

stoopid question, can you get seatbelts for side facin bench seats ?

Yes, Lap belts or go whole hog and put full harness in.

Captain Caveman said:

Just read the law to the very bottom and it states that
"Older cars that do not have seatbelts do not need to have them fitted and worn, but cannot be used for carrying children"

Click to expand...

What a complete load of Bull****e.

Read this below. only children below the age of 3 must be carried in an approved child restraint (except in a taxi)

Child from 3rd birthday up to 135cms in height (approx 4'5") (or 12th birthday whichever they reach first) Correct child restraint MUST be used. Must use adult belt if the correct child restraint is not available:
Exceptions
- in a licensed taxi/private hire vehicle; or
- for a short distance for reason of unexpected necessity; or
- two occupied child restraints prevent fitment of a third.

A child 3 and over may travel unrestrained in the rear seat of a vehicle if seat belts are not available.

I have a 3 year old and a 1 year old, i always put the one year old in the proper seat in me 90 in the front, but the nursery i drop them at is 1/4 mile down a tiny really quiet road on my way to work - i understand that i am being legal when i put my 3 year old in the side facing seats with the lap belt on (don't start, this really is a queit road and i wouldn't dream of it where there was fast traffic) but am i actually being legal?

Like i said before, the law seems a bit unclear with the side facing seats, but i understand that technically i can legally put her in the side facing seats with a lap belt on, but it would NOT be legal to put her in facing sideways with a booster seat? (irrespective of what is actually sensible and safe, coz as we know the law is an arse!)

odenne said:

Like i said before, the law seems a bit unclear with the side facing seats, but i understand that technically i can legally put her in the side facing seats with a lap belt on, but it would NOT be legal to put her in facing sideways with a booster seat? (irrespective of what is actually sensible and safe, coz as we know the law is an arse!)

Click to expand...

Actually you can put her in the back unrestrained. But you can't use a lapbelt. Crazy I know but that's the law for yer. Biggest problem is the fact it were written in Brussels for the rest of europe where old landies are virtually unknown. So the problem never cropped up until they tried to enforce it over here. Then they had to do loads of back peddling and twiddling to get it to a workable conclusion.

redhand said:

What a complete load of Bull****e.

Read this below. only children below the age of 3 must be carried in an approved child restraint (except in a taxi)

Child from 3rd birthday up to 135cms in height (approx 4'5") (or 12th birthday whichever they reach first) Correct child restraint MUST be used. Must use adult belt if the correct child restraint is not available:
Exceptions
- in a licensed taxi/private hire vehicle; or
- for a short distance for reason of unexpected necessity; or
- two occupied child restraints prevent fitment of a third.

A child 3 and over may travel unrestrained in the rear seat of a vehicle if seat belts are not available.

Click to expand...

Not bull****e. It's what the law states (read all of the page, it's at the bottom). I can't help it if it contradicts itself.

i know its a mute point - but would you want to - its your kids safety at risk here?

If you've had a 90/110 for years and cannot afford another car, is the EU or British Government going to buy you a different vehicle so that you can then follow the letter of the law that they changed?

redhand said:

Actually you can put her in the back unrestrained. But you can't use a lapbelt. Crazy I know but that's the law for yer. Biggest problem is the fact it were written in Brussels for the rest of europe where old landies are virtually unknown. So the problem never cropped up until they tried to enforce it over here. Then they had to do loads of back peddling and twiddling to get it to a workable conclusion.

Click to expand...

But if i have lap belts fitted would i not have to use em? ...meaning the only legal way to have her in the back is if i actually remove the lap belts?

And i agree completely Daft, it is a moot point, of course her safety comes first but i am finding it hard to get my head round how arse the law really is! I wouldn't dream of letting her sit unrestrained on the bonnet at speeds above 50.

unfortunately it aint yu, OD - yu only need one daft grokkle tanking it around a narrow lane at 60.............

odenne said:

But if i have lap belts fitted would i not have to use em? ...meaning the only legal way to have her in the back is if i actually remove the lap belts?

And i agree completely Daft, it is a moot point, of course her safety comes first but i am finding it hard to get my head round how arse the law really is! I wouldn't dream of letting her sit unrestrained on the bonnet at speeds above 50.

Click to expand...

No this is where the law really does prove what an ass it is. a child may only be carried in an approved child safety restraint unless it isn't possible to fit an approved child restraint. There are no child safety restraints approved for fitment to lap belts so you can't use them. Therefore she has to travel unrestrained.

Captain Caveman said:

Not bull****e. It's what the law states (read all of the page, it's at the bottom). I can't help it if it contradicts itself.

Click to expand...

Captain believe me I have had this argument on loads of landy forums and with loads of people. Even I couldn't believe it when I 1st started researching it. But it's true you are forbidden by law to use lapbelts to carry children in the back of a vehicle. however your not forbidden to carry children unrestrained in the back of a vehicle. Read the last line I posted

A child 3 and over may travel unrestrained in the rear seat of a vehicle if seat belts are not available.

Click to expand...

Because Lapbelt are not legal restraints it is classed as having no belts fitted.