Re: Transporting young people (Scouts)

On or around Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:55:35 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Buckley"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On or around 12 Jul 2004 07:34:09 -0500, "JJ" <[email protected]> enlightened us
>> thusly:
>>
>> >I have a 90 CSW with 4 inward facing seats.
>> >I only seem to find articals relating to mini busses and inward facing
>> >seats.
>> >I have heard people saying that I cant use them for transporting Scouts
>> >under the age of 16, but I cant find anything about my 90.
>> >Could someone point me in the right direction?
>>
>>
>> AFAIK the prohibition is on sideways-facings seats in general, for
>vehicles
>> used to transport children on organised trips. They won't allow 'em for
>> school transport.
>>
>Who is "they"?
>

the govermint. more bloody laws. It was aimed at stopping people using
crewbuses with long, unbelted seats along the sides, but has typically hit
other things too.

I might be able to find which chapter and verse, hang on...


C and U 1986.


48A. Minibuses and coaches to be fitted with additional seat belts when used
in certain circumstances

(1) No person shall use or cause or permit to be used on a road a coach or
minibus wholly or mainly for the purpose of carrying a group of 3 or more
children in the following circumstances unless the appropriate number of
forward-facing passenger seats fitted to the vehicle meet the requirements
of this regulation.

(2) The circumstances are that :-

(a) the group of children are on an organised trip; and

(b) the journey is being made for the purposes of the trip.


elsewhere it says that the regulation covers vechicles which do not look
like minibuses but nevertheless have more than 8 seats. Mind, that doesn't
in fact cover the 7-seater 90 mentioned in the OP. It also says that
rearward-facing seats are OK.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"There are three sorts of people in the world - those who can count,
and those who can't" (Anon)

Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> elsewhere it says that the regulation covers vechicles which do not look
> like minibuses but nevertheless have more than 8 seats. Mind, that
doesn't
> in fact cover the 7-seater 90 mentioned in the OP. It also says that
> rearward-facing seats are OK.
>

Indeed. The regs are intended to catch the people carriers in their net, as
well as the obvious crew-bus / mini-bus situations.

7 seater 90's don't fall into the regs. it seems! Which in turn means that
carrying under 16's in the rear is ok.

Mike.

On or around Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:44:48 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Buckley"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>> elsewhere it says that the regulation covers vechicles which do not look
>> like minibuses but nevertheless have more than 8 seats. Mind, that
>doesn't
>> in fact cover the 7-seater 90 mentioned in the OP. It also says that
>> rearward-facing seats are OK.
>>
>
>Indeed. The regs are intended to catch the people carriers in their net, as
>well as the obvious crew-bus / mini-bus situations.
>
>7 seater 90's don't fall into the regs. it seems! Which in turn means that
>carrying under 16's in the rear is ok.

you might however find that you get hassle if anything goes wrong.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"It is a characteristic of the human mind to hate the man one has injured"
Tacitus (c.55 - c.117) Agricola, 45

On or around Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:44:48 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Buckley"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>> elsewhere it says that the regulation covers vechicles which do not look
>> like minibuses but nevertheless have more than 8 seats. Mind, that
>doesn't
>> in fact cover the 7-seater 90 mentioned in the OP. It also says that
>> rearward-facing seats are OK.
>>
>
>Indeed. The regs are intended to catch the people carriers in their net, as
>well as the obvious crew-bus / mini-bus situations.
>
>7 seater 90's don't fall into the regs. it seems! Which in turn means that
>carrying under 16's in the rear is ok.

neither do discos, with the 2 sideways seats at the back, since they're only
7 seats total as well.

"Minibus" is 9-17 seats including driver, or 8-16 passengers.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"It is a characteristic of the human mind to hate the man one has injured"
Tacitus (c.55 - c.117) Agricola, 45

Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote in message > >
> >Indeed. The regs are intended to catch the people carriers in their net,
as
> >well as the obvious crew-bus / mini-bus situations.
> >
> >7 seater 90's don't fall into the regs. it seems! Which in turn means
that
> >carrying under 16's in the rear is ok.
>
> you might however find that you get hassle if anything goes wrong.
>

Hmm. I'm not sure I'd use a 90 or a Disco's inward facing seats on a
"school-run" contract I have to say. I would be interested to see how there
could be any hassle though, given that the mini-bus/pcv legislation doesn't
cover them. Even within Scouting there is no specific reference to any "ban"
on using inward facing seats, other than in compliance with statute.

Mike.