Re: Transporting young people (Scouts)

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"?

On or around Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:23:05 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Buckley"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>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.

I'm prepared to argue the point about the Disco, should the need ever arise,
since:

a) seats have belts
b) they're single seats, not benches
c) they're immediately behind the tallish back of the middle seats, and in
the event of a front-end impact (the only one in which the sideways nature
of the seats could add more risk than a forward-facing with lap belt, such
as most of the minibuses and coaches have) there's no-where to slide to.
The back of the middle seat is slightly padded, too.

forward-facing seats with lap belts are a nice recipe for a broken neck,
IMHO, if behind another seat and if the inhabitant is tall enough that when
their torso flips forwards their head contacts the back of the seat in
front.

but I don't make the regs., and in this case the regs (amazingly) seem to
recognise the impossibility of upgrading all the seats and belts in all the
buses nationwide to full 3-point "M2" spec.


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Appearances: You don't really need make-up. Celebrate your authentic
face by frightening people in the street.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

Now I recall in my schooldays that the school held all sorts of events to
buy a minibus, and what did they get. A transit with sideward facing seats,
and bloody primitive ones at that which would not have been out of place on
horse bus.

Dunno bout scouts but I recently saw a whole bunch of guides disgorge from a
110.

--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes


"Mike Buckley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
> 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.
>
>

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.

Larry <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Now I recall in my schooldays that the school held all sorts of events to
> buy a minibus, and what did they get. A transit with sideward facing
seats,
> and bloody primitive ones at that which would not have been out of place
on
> horse bus.
>
Yep! It poses an interesting question as to how schools and the like view
their customers when they buy (as they could then of course) the cheapest,
and potentially most lethal, form of multiseat transport then available.

If it wasnt for legislation forcing them/us to have proper seats, belts,
wahtever then it has to be quesitoned as to whether kids would still be
carted around in glorified cattle trucks by organisations seeking to spend
the least posible amount of money on doing so.

> Dunno bout scouts but I recently saw a whole bunch of guides disgorge from
a
> 110.
>
Scouts / Guides / BB / youth clubs - doesnt matter - there are plenty of
well-meaning people who dont know about the problems with carrrying under
16's on inward facing seats in a vehicle which is regarded as a pcv. As soon
as you use the thing to carry other peoples kids on any form of an
"organisaed trip" (and even the school run or a quick trip to camp is such)
then you have to conform to the regs.

A 110 doesnt conform. Period. Its a pcv.

A 90 or a Disco would appear to. As its not a pcv.

So what could possibly go wrong? Have an accident and find your insurer
refusing to cover ANY of the claims - prosecution for driving without
insurance, as you aren't if you use a pcv/minibus insurered on an ordinary
car type policy - probable prosecution for breaching whatever part of the
RTA deals with kids/seat belts / pcv's - etc.

Oh yes, probable prosecution for using a vehicle without an MoT if its more
than 1 year old - minibuses / pcvs need an MoT after 1st year and most 110
drivers dont realise that.

These are, of course, just the conclusions drawn from having researched this
a while back. As with all advice on usenet, draw your own conclusions from
your own research - - - -

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

Larry <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Now I recall in my schooldays that the school held all sorts of events to
> buy a minibus, and what did they get. A transit with sideward facing
seats,
> and bloody primitive ones at that which would not have been out of place
on
> horse bus.
>
Yep! It poses an interesting question as to how schools and the like view
their customers when they buy (as they could then of course) the cheapest,
and potentially most lethal, form of multiseat transport then available.

If it wasnt for legislation forcing them/us to have proper seats, belts,
wahtever then it has to be quesitoned as to whether kids would still be
carted around in glorified cattle trucks by organisations seeking to spend
the least posible amount of money on doing so.

> Dunno bout scouts but I recently saw a whole bunch of guides disgorge from
a
> 110.
>
Scouts / Guides / BB / youth clubs - doesnt matter - there are plenty of
well-meaning people who dont know about the problems with carrrying under
16's on inward facing seats in a vehicle which is regarded as a pcv. As soon
as you use the thing to carry other peoples kids on any form of an
"organisaed trip" (and even the school run or a quick trip to camp is such)
then you have to conform to the regs.

A 110 doesnt conform. Period. Its a pcv.

A 90 or a Disco would appear to. As its not a pcv.

So what could possibly go wrong? Have an accident and find your insurer
refusing to cover ANY of the claims - prosecution for driving without
insurance, as you aren't if you use a pcv/minibus insurered on an ordinary
car type policy - probable prosecution for breaching whatever part of the
RTA deals with kids/seat belts / pcv's - etc.

Oh yes, probable prosecution for using a vehicle without an MoT if its more
than 1 year old - minibuses / pcvs need an MoT after 1st year and most 110
drivers dont realise that.

These are, of course, just the conclusions drawn from having researched this
a while back. As with all advice on usenet, draw your own conclusions from
your own research - - - -

Mike.