Seat Belt Law on Side Facing seats

R

Rob Hunt

Guest

• Jul 13, 2005

• #1

I have a 1984 V8 90 CSW. In the rear side facing seats I have fitted lap
belts for the kids at the request of SWMBO. What is the law regarding
restraints, as sitting them on boosters (they are 3 and 5) lifts them up too
much so they bang their heads on cornering. Do they have to use restraints
or not, I have looked at various websites but they only talk about front
facing seats.

Thanks

Rob

--
http://www.4x4-fun.co.uk - for the Boys
http://www.fairyfriends.co.uk - for the Girls

 

D

Dave Liquorice

Guest

• Jul 13, 2005

• #2

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:23:47 +0100, Rob Hunt wrote:

> I have a 1984 V8 90 CSW. In the rear side facing seats I have fitted
> lap belts for the kids at the request of SWMBO.

Very wise. You don't want a child slamming into the back of your seat
at 30mph, you get squidged between them, your seat and your belt...

Generally you are safer being firmly attached to a car type vehicle
than floating about loose inside.

> What is the law regarding restraints, as sitting them on boosters
> (they are 3 and 5) lifts them up too much ...

Do you need the boosters with just a lap belt? The booster is to raise
the shoulder height so the diagonal comes across the shoulder and not
the neck.

I don't know what the law says, I wouldn't be surprised if it can't
cope with side facing seats.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

 

H

Huw

Guest

• Jul 13, 2005

• #3

"Rob Hunt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I have a 1984 V8 90 CSW. In the rear side facing seats I have fitted lap
> belts for the kids at the request of SWMBO. What is the law regarding
> restraints, as sitting them on boosters (they are 3 and 5) lifts them up
> too
> much so they bang their heads on cornering. Do they have to use restraints
> or not, I have looked at various websites but they only talk about front
> facing seats.
>

In an accident the side facing seats are intrinsically much less safe the
forward facing seats in a modern vehicle that has crumple zones front and
back with airbags sprouting from every hidden orifice.
If you are *really* concerned with their safety and have a choice, while
wishing to stick with Land Rover, choose a more modern design from the
range.

Huw

 

M

Manley

Guest

• Jul 14, 2005

• #4

The law (UK):

If seats were fitted as standard and no seat belts were fitted then you do
not need to fit them. (also the case with the middle seat if you have no lap
belt)

I'd say the safest measure is to either:

1.) put them on a rear facing seat.

2.) (what I have done, though not as good as 1) put the wife in the back and
have both kids in the front.



"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Rob Hunt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I have a 1984 V8 90 CSW. In the rear side facing seats I have fitted lap
>> belts for the kids at the request of SWMBO. What is the law regarding
>> restraints, as sitting them on boosters (they are 3 and 5) lifts them up
>> too
>> much so they bang their heads on cornering. Do they have to use
>> restraints
>> or not, I have looked at various websites but they only talk about front
>> facing seats.
>>
>
> In an accident the side facing seats are intrinsically much less safe the
> forward facing seats in a modern vehicle that has crumple zones front and
> back with airbags sprouting from every hidden orifice.
> If you are *really* concerned with their safety and have a choice, while
> wishing to stick with Land Rover, choose a more modern design from the
> range.
>
> Huw
>

 

D

DavidM

Guest

• Jul 14, 2005

• #5

"Manley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The law (UK):
>
> If seats were fitted as standard and no seat belts were fitted then you do
> not need to fit them. (also the case with the middle seat if you have no
lap
> belt)
>
> I'd say the safest measure is to either:
>
> 1.) put them on a rear facing seat.
>
> 2.) (what I have done, though not as good as 1) put the wife in the back
and
> have both kids in the front.

Rear facing seats would be easy to fit and very safe. Military minibuses use
rear facing seats because they are safer.
Passengers on my side facing seats slide around all over the place, they end
up proped against objects and clinging onto bodywork. A lap belt on a side
facing seat would need to be very tight to stop a person moving in an
accident or even during normal travel. I guess they will prevent a passenger
being thrown out of the vehicle, but not much else.

Rear facing bucket seats will 5point harness should keep the kids under
control.
David

 

M

Manley

Guest

• Jul 14, 2005

• #6

Agreed.

I can't see that you are any better off with a seat belt in a side facing
seat than without.

Put a box in the back and have them facing backwards. If they are small
enough then bolt a childseat to the bulkhead.

Again though, why not just put the wife in the back? Mine rides there and
it means i can still have tools and junk in the back without it being a risk
to the babies. (I have a home made dog guard to stop bits coming over into
the front).

"DavidM" <djm81@(I hate spam)cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Manley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The law (UK):
>>
>> If seats were fitted as standard and no seat belts were fitted then you
>> do
>> not need to fit them. (also the case with the middle seat if you have no
> lap
>> belt)
>>
>> I'd say the safest measure is to either:
>>
>> 1.) put them on a rear facing seat.
>>
>> 2.) (what I have done, though not as good as 1) put the wife in the back
> and
>> have both kids in the front.
>
> Rear facing seats would be easy to fit and very safe. Military minibuses
> use
> rear facing seats because they are safer.
> Passengers on my side facing seats slide around all over the place, they
> end
> up proped against objects and clinging onto bodywork. A lap belt on a side
> facing seat would need to be very tight to stop a person moving in an
> accident or even during normal travel. I guess they will prevent a
> passenger
> being thrown out of the vehicle, but not much else.
>
> Rear facing bucket seats will 5point harness should keep the kids under
> control.
> David
>
>

 

H

Huw

Guest

• Jul 14, 2005

• #7

"Manley" <[email protected]> wrote >
> Again though, why not just put the wife in the back?

We know who is dominant and who is submissive in your family.
Mine would insist on a proper car.........or else.......

Huw

 

A

Alan Morris

Guest

• Jul 15, 2005

• #8

"DavidM" <djm81@(I hate spam)cam.ac.uk> wrote

> Military minibuses use rear facing seats because they are safer.

Who? The RAF use LDV 17 seat minibuses, many with an equipment cage
replacing back seats.

Alan Morris

 

D

DavidM

Guest

• Jul 15, 2005

• #9

"Alan Morris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "DavidM" <djm81@(I hate spam)cam.ac.uk> wrote
>
> > Military minibuses use rear facing seats because they are safer.
>
> Who? The RAF use LDV 17 seat minibuses, many with an equipment cage
> replacing back seats.
>
> Alan Morris

I don't know who. It is pretty old info from people who were in the RAF 10
or 15 years ago. New RAF minibuses probably have normal forward facing seats
because they need seatbelts fitted.

--
-------
# | |
:===[==¬|====;
[/ \|___|_/ \|
\_/ \_/
DavidM djm81NOSPAMatcam.ac.uk

 

M

Manley

Guest

• Jul 18, 2005

• #10

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> muttered something along the lines of:

> We know who is dominant and who is submissive in your family.
> Mine would insist on a proper car.........or else.......

Not at all, SWMBO is in charge, but she puts the children first and can't
drive.