H
Hirsty's
Guest
>
> Until you need to get an MoT on a new 12 seater >
>
Apologies, just read post again; MoT at 12 months old vehicle
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
>
> Until you need to get an MoT on a new 12 seater >
>
Apologies, just read post again; MoT at 12 months old vehicle
G
GbH
Guest
Hirsty's wrote:
>>>> you'll have to reclassify it as a minibus with 9 (or 11) passenger
>>>> seats. Note that this will probably screw your insurance and may
>>>> restrict who can drive it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just looked at his site and to prove it has 12 seats it gives a few
>>> options. One is " Other methods" I wonder if photo evidence or LR
>>> bumpf would suffice so long as it gives the 12 seat info ?
>>>
>>
>> worth a try.
>
>
> I think I'll have another try then. Last time I tried they rejected
> it, but the site was'nt as it is now with the different methods of
> proof.
> To be honest I never go into London but it really p....s me off when
> another road charge is added with no real alternative provided.
>
> Japanese ruled that only even reg could be used on even date days
> etc. So they bought two cars ( odd / even ) and hence increased
> pollution !!
How did that increase pollution? still the same number of cars per day, no?
--
If Your specification is vague or imprecise, you'll likely get what you
asked for not what you wanted!
Do not say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it!
>>>> you'll have to reclassify it as a minibus with 9 (or 11) passenger
>>>> seats. Note that this will probably screw your insurance and may
>>>> restrict who can drive it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just looked at his site and to prove it has 12 seats it gives a few
>>> options. One is " Other methods" I wonder if photo evidence or LR
>>> bumpf would suffice so long as it gives the 12 seat info ?
>>>
>>
>> worth a try.
>
>
> I think I'll have another try then. Last time I tried they rejected
> it, but the site was'nt as it is now with the different methods of
> proof.
> To be honest I never go into London but it really p....s me off when
> another road charge is added with no real alternative provided.
>
> Japanese ruled that only even reg could be used on even date days
> etc. So they bought two cars ( odd / even ) and hence increased
> pollution !!
How did that increase pollution? still the same number of cars per day, no?
--
If Your specification is vague or imprecise, you'll likely get what you
asked for not what you wanted!
Do not say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it!
B
beamendsltd
Guest
In message <[email protected]>
"GbH" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hirsty's wrote:
> >>>> you'll have to reclassify it as a minibus with 9 (or 11) passenger
> >>>> seats. Note that this will probably screw your insurance and may
> >>>> restrict who can drive it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Just looked at his site and to prove it has 12 seats it gives a few
> >>> options. One is " Other methods" I wonder if photo evidence or LR
> >>> bumpf would suffice so long as it gives the 12 seat info ?
> >>>
> >>
> >> worth a try.
> >
> >
> > I think I'll have another try then. Last time I tried they rejected
> > it, but the site was'nt as it is now with the different methods of
> > proof.
> > To be honest I never go into London but it really p....s me off when
> > another road charge is added with no real alternative provided.
> >
> > Japanese ruled that only even reg could be used on even date days
> > etc. So they bought two cars ( odd / even ) and hence increased
> > pollution !!
>
> How did that increase pollution? still the same number of cars per day, no?
>
That was tried on Rome too - everyone bought a second car too -
and used them, hence inceasing pollution *and* congestion outside
the zone since they needed somewhere to park their new second vehicle,
and making one-car familes two-car - hey I've got a car now, I might
as well use it...... As ever, such plans are made by people "working"
in Civil Service offices who have little understanding of real peoples
day-to-day lives and the trials and tribulations they face[1].
Richard
[1] Personaly, I'd stick them in a village in the middle of Cumbria,
on mimimum wage, with no assets (car, house, wealthy parents, etc)
for a year. At the year end I'd listen to what thay have to say.
In fact, that should be a required qualification before anyone could
become a "planner".
Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
"GbH" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hirsty's wrote:
> >>>> you'll have to reclassify it as a minibus with 9 (or 11) passenger
> >>>> seats. Note that this will probably screw your insurance and may
> >>>> restrict who can drive it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Just looked at his site and to prove it has 12 seats it gives a few
> >>> options. One is " Other methods" I wonder if photo evidence or LR
> >>> bumpf would suffice so long as it gives the 12 seat info ?
> >>>
> >>
> >> worth a try.
> >
> >
> > I think I'll have another try then. Last time I tried they rejected
> > it, but the site was'nt as it is now with the different methods of
> > proof.
> > To be honest I never go into London but it really p....s me off when
> > another road charge is added with no real alternative provided.
> >
> > Japanese ruled that only even reg could be used on even date days
> > etc. So they bought two cars ( odd / even ) and hence increased
> > pollution !!
>
> How did that increase pollution? still the same number of cars per day, no?
>
That was tried on Rome too - everyone bought a second car too -
and used them, hence inceasing pollution *and* congestion outside
the zone since they needed somewhere to park their new second vehicle,
and making one-car familes two-car - hey I've got a car now, I might
as well use it...... As ever, such plans are made by people "working"
in Civil Service offices who have little understanding of real peoples
day-to-day lives and the trials and tribulations they face[1].
Richard
[1] Personaly, I'd stick them in a village in the middle of Cumbria,
on mimimum wage, with no assets (car, house, wealthy parents, etc)
for a year. At the year end I'd listen to what thay have to say.
In fact, that should be a required qualification before anyone could
become a "planner".
Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
R
Richard Brookman
Guest
beamendsltd wrote:
|||| Japanese ruled that only even reg could be used on even date days
|||| etc. So they bought two cars ( odd / even ) and hence increased
|||| pollution !!
|||
||| How did that increase pollution? still the same number of cars per
||| day, no?
|||
||
|| That was tried on Rome too - everyone bought a second car too -
|| and used them, hence inceasing pollution *and* congestion outside
|| the zone since they needed somewhere to park their new second
|| vehicle, and making one-car familes two-car - hey I've got a car
|| now, I might as well use it...... As ever, such plans are made by
|| people "working" in Civil Service offices who have little
|| understanding of real peoples day-to-day lives and the trials and
|| tribulations they face[1].
Not forgetting the massive pollution cost of manufacturing all the extra
vehicles. Wasn't it 80% of all pollution caused by a vehicle in its
lifetime comes from manufacture and disposal?
--
Rich
==============================
I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.
|||| Japanese ruled that only even reg could be used on even date days
|||| etc. So they bought two cars ( odd / even ) and hence increased
|||| pollution !!
|||
||| How did that increase pollution? still the same number of cars per
||| day, no?
|||
||
|| That was tried on Rome too - everyone bought a second car too -
|| and used them, hence inceasing pollution *and* congestion outside
|| the zone since they needed somewhere to park their new second
|| vehicle, and making one-car familes two-car - hey I've got a car
|| now, I might as well use it...... As ever, such plans are made by
|| people "working" in Civil Service offices who have little
|| understanding of real peoples day-to-day lives and the trials and
|| tribulations they face[1].
Not forgetting the massive pollution cost of manufacturing all the extra
vehicles. Wasn't it 80% of all pollution caused by a vehicle in its
lifetime comes from manufacture and disposal?
--
Rich
==============================
I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.
I
Ian Rawlings
Guest
On 2006-08-07, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not forgetting the massive pollution cost of manufacturing all the extra
> vehicles. Wasn't it 80% of all pollution caused by a vehicle in its
> lifetime comes from manufacture and disposal?
In 1990 it was 66%, but these days cars have more electronics and
gadgets and do more to the gallon, so it's anyone's guess now. As for
hybrids, with lots of heavy-duty electronics and batteries, talk about
a triumph of marketing. The motor industry must be laughing itself
silly.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
> Not forgetting the massive pollution cost of manufacturing all the extra
> vehicles. Wasn't it 80% of all pollution caused by a vehicle in its
> lifetime comes from manufacture and disposal?
In 1990 it was 66%, but these days cars have more electronics and
gadgets and do more to the gallon, so it's anyone's guess now. As for
hybrids, with lots of heavy-duty electronics and batteries, talk about
a triumph of marketing. The motor industry must be laughing itself
silly.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
A
Austin Shackles
Guest
On or around Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:27:08 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>On 2006-08-07, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Not forgetting the massive pollution cost of manufacturing all the extra
>> vehicles. Wasn't it 80% of all pollution caused by a vehicle in its
>> lifetime comes from manufacture and disposal?
>
>In 1990 it was 66%, but these days cars have more electronics and
>gadgets and do more to the gallon, so it's anyone's guess now. As for
>hybrids, with lots of heavy-duty electronics and batteries, talk about
>a triumph of marketing. The motor industry must be laughing itself
>silly.
I've heard a figure of 50%, but I don't have any idea of the accuracy.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"There is plenty of time to win this game, and to thrash the Spaniards
too" Sir Francis Drake (1540? - 1596) Attr. saying when the Armarda was
sighted, 20th July 1588
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>On 2006-08-07, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Not forgetting the massive pollution cost of manufacturing all the extra
>> vehicles. Wasn't it 80% of all pollution caused by a vehicle in its
>> lifetime comes from manufacture and disposal?
>
>In 1990 it was 66%, but these days cars have more electronics and
>gadgets and do more to the gallon, so it's anyone's guess now. As for
>hybrids, with lots of heavy-duty electronics and batteries, talk about
>a triumph of marketing. The motor industry must be laughing itself
>silly.
I've heard a figure of 50%, but I don't have any idea of the accuracy.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"There is plenty of time to win this game, and to thrash the Spaniards
too" Sir Francis Drake (1540? - 1596) Attr. saying when the Armarda was
sighted, 20th July 1588
R
Richard Brookman
Guest
Ian Rawlings wrote:
|| On 2006-08-07, Richard Brookman
|| <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| Not forgetting the massive pollution cost of manufacturing all the
||| extra vehicles. Wasn't it 80% of all pollution caused by a vehicle
||| in its lifetime comes from manufacture and disposal?
||
|| In 1990 it was 66%
Do you have a source for that statistic? I've looked all over but can't
find one, although I suspect it's true (and the Series owner in me wants it
to be true) or thereabouts. It's a bit like the "90% of all Land Rovers
ever built are still on the road" thing. You know it's got an element of
truth in it, but pinning it down to a authoritative source is nigh
impossible.
--
Rich
==============================
I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.
|| On 2006-08-07, Richard Brookman
|| <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| Not forgetting the massive pollution cost of manufacturing all the
||| extra vehicles. Wasn't it 80% of all pollution caused by a vehicle
||| in its lifetime comes from manufacture and disposal?
||
|| In 1990 it was 66%
Do you have a source for that statistic? I've looked all over but can't
find one, although I suspect it's true (and the Series owner in me wants it
to be true) or thereabouts. It's a bit like the "90% of all Land Rovers
ever built are still on the road" thing. You know it's got an element of
truth in it, but pinning it down to a authoritative source is nigh
impossible.
--
Rich
==============================
I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.
I
Ian Rawlings
Guest
On 2006-08-07, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've heard a figure of 50%, but I don't have any idea of the accuracy.
The original study that I heard of said 66% of the pollution over the
lifetime of a car, but I don't remember what they regarded as the
"lifetime", I assumed the usual 12 years that the industry seems to
regard as their parts supply obligation.
I'll have to hunt a URL down for it sometime, it was some university
either in the UK or US, sometime in 1990 IIRC.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
> I've heard a figure of 50%, but I don't have any idea of the accuracy.
The original study that I heard of said 66% of the pollution over the
lifetime of a car, but I don't remember what they regarded as the
"lifetime", I assumed the usual 12 years that the industry seems to
regard as their parts supply obligation.
I'll have to hunt a URL down for it sometime, it was some university
either in the UK or US, sometime in 1990 IIRC.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
D
Dave Liquorice
Guest
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:34:46 +0100, beamendsltd wrote:
> [1] Personaly, I'd stick them in a village in the middle of Cumbria,
> on mimimum wage, with no assets (car, house, wealthy parents, etc)
> for a year. At the year end I'd listen to what thay have to say.
OI, we don't want them up here thank you very much. We have enough
problems of our own without a load of winging townies complaining that
the sheep make a noise, that the tractors leave the roads muddy or that
muck spreading smells a bit.
> In fact, that should be a required qualification before anyone could
> become a "planner".
Having said we don't want 'em up here. I think it would be an eye opener
to a lot of people to experience what it is like to like in a remote
rural community, preferably in winter. Similary a month on an inner city
council estate.
Says Dave, Alston, North Pennines, Cumbria, Englands Last Wilderness. We
are 20+ miles (40mins+) from any sizeable town (Penrith, Hexham,
Brampton) in the winter all the roads out (5) are normally closed 2 or 3
times due to snow for a few hours, some are blocked for days.
--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
> [1] Personaly, I'd stick them in a village in the middle of Cumbria,
> on mimimum wage, with no assets (car, house, wealthy parents, etc)
> for a year. At the year end I'd listen to what thay have to say.
OI, we don't want them up here thank you very much. We have enough
problems of our own without a load of winging townies complaining that
the sheep make a noise, that the tractors leave the roads muddy or that
muck spreading smells a bit.
> In fact, that should be a required qualification before anyone could
> become a "planner".
Having said we don't want 'em up here. I think it would be an eye opener
to a lot of people to experience what it is like to like in a remote
rural community, preferably in winter. Similary a month on an inner city
council estate.
Says Dave, Alston, North Pennines, Cumbria, Englands Last Wilderness. We
are 20+ miles (40mins+) from any sizeable town (Penrith, Hexham,
Brampton) in the winter all the roads out (5) are normally closed 2 or 3
times due to snow for a few hours, some are blocked for days.
--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
I
Ian Rawlings
Guest
On 2006-08-07, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do you have a source for that statistic?
I'm trying to hunt it down, I first found the link to it on some
bunnyhugger site, www.carbusters.org I think, and am trying to track
it down again. I'll have another crack tomorrow. It was a study done
by some university team or another, while there's obviously bad
science around it's entirely believable when you consider that not
only has ore to be extracted, but it then has to be refined, turned
into ingots, then into sheets, then pressed, then assembled, then
sold, all of these steps likely to involve transportation of the
materials in between, often to other countries, plus of course the
chemicals and energy used to perform the job itself.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
> Do you have a source for that statistic?
I'm trying to hunt it down, I first found the link to it on some
bunnyhugger site, www.carbusters.org I think, and am trying to track
it down again. I'll have another crack tomorrow. It was a study done
by some university team or another, while there's obviously bad
science around it's entirely believable when you consider that not
only has ore to be extracted, but it then has to be refined, turned
into ingots, then into sheets, then pressed, then assembled, then
sold, all of these steps likely to involve transportation of the
materials in between, often to other countries, plus of course the
chemicals and energy used to perform the job itself.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
I
Ian Rawlings
Guest
On 2006-08-07, Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm trying to hunt it down, I first found the link to it on some
> bunnyhugger site, www.carbusters.org I think, and am trying to track
> it down again. I'll have another crack tomorrow.
OK here's two, they're both summaries of reports but have references
to the originals if you want to chase it further;
The first is a summary of the report I was talking about originally,
which isn't in english so I can't have read the original The summary
has what I reckon are a few ambiguities in the figures, for example it
states that waste produced during manufacture is 25,000 kg while
during use it's "1,5000", is that a misplaced comma (meaning 15,000)
or an added zero (meaning 1,500)?
http://afo.sandelman.ca/cc1.html#II
The second is a different one that comes to similar conclusions, but
still puts the majority of damage on the manufacturing stage;
http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html
While driving the car accounts for the majority of fuel use, in terms
of poisons released into the environment both reports put manufacture
as the chief evil.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
> I'm trying to hunt it down, I first found the link to it on some
> bunnyhugger site, www.carbusters.org I think, and am trying to track
> it down again. I'll have another crack tomorrow.
OK here's two, they're both summaries of reports but have references
to the originals if you want to chase it further;
The first is a summary of the report I was talking about originally,
which isn't in english so I can't have read the original The summary
has what I reckon are a few ambiguities in the figures, for example it
states that waste produced during manufacture is 25,000 kg while
during use it's "1,5000", is that a misplaced comma (meaning 15,000)
or an added zero (meaning 1,500)?
http://afo.sandelman.ca/cc1.html#II
The second is a different one that comes to similar conclusions, but
still puts the majority of damage on the manufacturing stage;
http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html
While driving the car accounts for the majority of fuel use, in terms
of poisons released into the environment both reports put manufacture
as the chief evil.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
R
Richard Brookman
Guest
Ian Rawlings wrote:
|| On 2006-08-07, Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| I'm trying to hunt it down, I first found the link to it on some
||| bunnyhugger site, www.carbusters.org I think, and am trying to track
||| it down again. I'll have another crack tomorrow.
||
|| OK here's two, they're both summaries of reports but have references
|| to the originals if you want to chase it further;
||
|| The first is a summary of the report I was talking about originally,
|| which isn't in english so I can't have read the original The summary
|| has what I reckon are a few ambiguities in the figures, for example
|| it states that waste produced during manufacture is 25,000 kg while
|| during use it's "1,5000", is that a misplaced comma (meaning 15,000)
|| or an added zero (meaning 1,500)?
||
|| http://afo.sandelman.ca/cc1.html#II
||
|| The second is a different one that comes to similar conclusions, but
|| still puts the majority of damage on the manufacturing stage;
||
|| http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html
||
|| While driving the car accounts for the majority of fuel use, in terms
|| of poisons released into the environment both reports put manufacture
|| as the chief evil.
||
|| --
|| Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
Interesting reads, both of them. Thanks for looking them up.
--
Rich
==============================
I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.
|| On 2006-08-07, Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| I'm trying to hunt it down, I first found the link to it on some
||| bunnyhugger site, www.carbusters.org I think, and am trying to track
||| it down again. I'll have another crack tomorrow.
||
|| OK here's two, they're both summaries of reports but have references
|| to the originals if you want to chase it further;
||
|| The first is a summary of the report I was talking about originally,
|| which isn't in english so I can't have read the original The summary
|| has what I reckon are a few ambiguities in the figures, for example
|| it states that waste produced during manufacture is 25,000 kg while
|| during use it's "1,5000", is that a misplaced comma (meaning 15,000)
|| or an added zero (meaning 1,500)?
||
|| http://afo.sandelman.ca/cc1.html#II
||
|| The second is a different one that comes to similar conclusions, but
|| still puts the majority of damage on the manufacturing stage;
||
|| http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html
||
|| While driving the car accounts for the majority of fuel use, in terms
|| of poisons released into the environment both reports put manufacture
|| as the chief evil.
||
|| --
|| Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
Interesting reads, both of them. Thanks for looking them up.
--
Rich
==============================
I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.
H
Hirsty's
Guest
when you consider that not
> only has ore to be extracted, but it then has to be refined, turned
> into ingots, then into sheets, then pressed, then assembled, then
> sold, all of these steps likely to involve transportation of the
> materials in between, often to other countries, plus of course the
> chemicals and energy used to perform the job itself.
Entropy - whatever you do increases disorder in the universe. Trying to
reverse disorder requires more disorder than the order you restore - same
reason it is not possible to create perpetual motion.
( Boy that wine was good
)) )
> only has ore to be extracted, but it then has to be refined, turned
> into ingots, then into sheets, then pressed, then assembled, then
> sold, all of these steps likely to involve transportation of the
> materials in between, often to other countries, plus of course the
> chemicals and energy used to perform the job itself.
Entropy - whatever you do increases disorder in the universe. Trying to
reverse disorder requires more disorder than the order you restore - same
reason it is not possible to create perpetual motion.
( Boy that wine was good
)) )
B
beamendsltd
Guest
In message <[email protected]>
"Fuzzy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:afc5a0514e%[email protected]...
> > In message <[email protected]>
> > "wireless" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> any url's available to provide a legal answer to the following?
> >>
> >> I'm getting a 1998 Land Rover 110 which has the bench seats in the rear,
> >> behind the second row of front facing seats.
> >>
> >> The front facing seats all have seatbelts.
> >>
> >> Q: If there are no seat belts fitted for the bench seats is it okay to
> >> carry
> >> children (ages??) on those bench seats?
> >>
> >> My understanding is that if there are no belts fitted at manufacture then
> >> it's okay.
> >>
> >> tia
> >> Peter
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Childern *have* to have seat belts, and booster cushions if under
> > a certain hight (even if they are 12 for example). Stupid new
> > law that has/is about to come into force to raise more revenue.
>
>
> "Think of the Children"
"Think of the revenue" - in this case - plus you try getting a 12
year old to sit on a booster seat! This idea probably came from
the same place as the dog seat belts supported by the RAC (who just
happen to have their own-brand dog seat belts)....
>
> ;-)
>
Richard
>
> --
> Andy
> He who dies with most toys wins !
> www.ashlyn.plus.com
>
>
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
"Fuzzy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:afc5a0514e%[email protected]...
> > In message <[email protected]>
> > "wireless" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> any url's available to provide a legal answer to the following?
> >>
> >> I'm getting a 1998 Land Rover 110 which has the bench seats in the rear,
> >> behind the second row of front facing seats.
> >>
> >> The front facing seats all have seatbelts.
> >>
> >> Q: If there are no seat belts fitted for the bench seats is it okay to
> >> carry
> >> children (ages??) on those bench seats?
> >>
> >> My understanding is that if there are no belts fitted at manufacture then
> >> it's okay.
> >>
> >> tia
> >> Peter
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Childern *have* to have seat belts, and booster cushions if under
> > a certain hight (even if they are 12 for example). Stupid new
> > law that has/is about to come into force to raise more revenue.
>
>
> "Think of the Children"
"Think of the revenue" - in this case - plus you try getting a 12
year old to sit on a booster seat! This idea probably came from
the same place as the dog seat belts supported by the RAC (who just
happen to have their own-brand dog seat belts)....
>
> ;-)
>
Richard
>
> --
> Andy
> He who dies with most toys wins !
> www.ashlyn.plus.com
>
>
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
B
beamendsltd
Guest
In message <[email protected]>
Srtgray <[email protected]> wrote:
> beamendsltd wrote:
>
> >
> > Childern *have* to have seat belts, and booster cushions if under
> > a certain hight (even if they are 12 for example). Stupid new
> > law that has/is about to come into force to raise more revenue.
> >
> > Richard
>
> Richard,
>
> I have lapbelts on one side of my 110 (9 seater, so two person bench
> seat) and I'm looking for the same for the other side. How much are
> they? The "sockets" are mounted on a plate in the middle, and the
> "plug" comes from the outside of the bench seat (does that make sense?)
>
> Ta,
> Stuart
Sounds like you need STC8888 - if you mail me I'll get a price on
Monday.
Cheers
Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
Srtgray <[email protected]> wrote:
> beamendsltd wrote:
>
> >
> > Childern *have* to have seat belts, and booster cushions if under
> > a certain hight (even if they are 12 for example). Stupid new
> > law that has/is about to come into force to raise more revenue.
> >
> > Richard
>
> Richard,
>
> I have lapbelts on one side of my 110 (9 seater, so two person bench
> seat) and I'm looking for the same for the other side. How much are
> they? The "sockets" are mounted on a plate in the middle, and the
> "plug" comes from the outside of the bench seat (does that make sense?)
>
> Ta,
> Stuart
Sounds like you need STC8888 - if you mail me I'll get a price on
Monday.
Cheers
Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
B
beamendsltd
Guest
In message <[email protected]>
Nick Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 14:32:12 +0100, Srtgray wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
> > beamendsltd wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Childern *have* to have seat belts, and booster cushions if under
> >> a certain hight (even if they are 12 for example). Stupid new
> >> law that has/is about to come into force to raise more revenue.
> >>
> >> Richard
> >
> > Richard,
> >
> > I have lapbelts on one side of my 110 (9 seater, so two person bench
> > seat) and I'm looking for the same for the other side. How much are
> > they? The "sockets" are mounted on a plate in the middle, and the
> > "plug" comes from the outside of the bench seat (does that make sense?)
> >
> > Ta,
> > Stuart
>
> Different question, but similar topic:
>
> Is there an inertia reel fitting/conversion for the centre front seat on a
> Defender (1990 90, if it matters)? The manually adjusted belt currently
> fitted is a PIA to adjust.
>
> Nick.
>
Not that I'm aware of.
Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
Nick Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 14:32:12 +0100, Srtgray wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
> > beamendsltd wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Childern *have* to have seat belts, and booster cushions if under
> >> a certain hight (even if they are 12 for example). Stupid new
> >> law that has/is about to come into force to raise more revenue.
> >>
> >> Richard
> >
> > Richard,
> >
> > I have lapbelts on one side of my 110 (9 seater, so two person bench
> > seat) and I'm looking for the same for the other side. How much are
> > they? The "sockets" are mounted on a plate in the middle, and the
> > "plug" comes from the outside of the bench seat (does that make sense?)
> >
> > Ta,
> > Stuart
>
> Different question, but similar topic:
>
> Is there an inertia reel fitting/conversion for the centre front seat on a
> Defender (1990 90, if it matters)? The manually adjusted belt currently
> fitted is a PIA to adjust.
>
> Nick.
>
Not that I'm aware of.
Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
A
Andy.Smalley
Guest
Greg wrote:
> "Andy.Smalley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>> The MOT test is just an MOT test, it's not a definitive statement
>>> that your car is ready and legal to drive on the road. You can for
>>> example have seats in the back that don't have seatbelts
>>
>> and it will fail if first used after 31st March 1987
>
> Not necessarily, I had a 1991 camper with side facing rear seats that
> I added with no belts, this was never even questioned in 8 MOTs.
>
> Greg
If you read the rest of the posts in this thread you will see that I said
side facing and rear facing seat do not need seat belts
seat belts are only needed in forward facing seats according to the MOT
manual (Section 5) and Construction and Use Regs paragraphs 46 and 47
--
Andy
SWB Series 2a ( dressed as a 3) "Bruce"
It's big, it's mean it's really, really green
> "Andy.Smalley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>> The MOT test is just an MOT test, it's not a definitive statement
>>> that your car is ready and legal to drive on the road. You can for
>>> example have seats in the back that don't have seatbelts
>>
>> and it will fail if first used after 31st March 1987
>
> Not necessarily, I had a 1991 camper with side facing rear seats that
> I added with no belts, this was never even questioned in 8 MOTs.
>
> Greg
If you read the rest of the posts in this thread you will see that I said
side facing and rear facing seat do not need seat belts
seat belts are only needed in forward facing seats according to the MOT
manual (Section 5) and Construction and Use Regs paragraphs 46 and 47
--
Andy
SWB Series 2a ( dressed as a 3) "Bruce"
It's big, it's mean it's really, really green
G
Greg
Guest
"Andy.Smalley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > "Andy.Smalley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>> The MOT test is just an MOT test, it's not a definitive statement
> >>> that your car is ready and legal to drive on the road. You can for
> >>> example have seats in the back that don't have seatbelts
> >>
> >> and it will fail if first used after 31st March 1987
> >
> > Not necessarily, I had a 1991 camper with side facing rear seats that
> > I added with no belts, this was never even questioned in 8 MOTs.
> >
> > Greg
>
> If you read the rest of the posts in this thread you will see that I said
> side facing and rear facing seat do not need seat belts
> seat belts are only needed in forward facing seats according to the MOT
> manual (Section 5) and Construction and Use Regs paragraphs 46 and 47
Agreed, but Andy only said "you can have seats in the back", nothing about
their direction, hence your black and white statement that it will fail was
incorrect
Greg
news:[email protected]...
> > "Andy.Smalley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>> The MOT test is just an MOT test, it's not a definitive statement
> >>> that your car is ready and legal to drive on the road. You can for
> >>> example have seats in the back that don't have seatbelts
> >>
> >> and it will fail if first used after 31st March 1987
> >
> > Not necessarily, I had a 1991 camper with side facing rear seats that
> > I added with no belts, this was never even questioned in 8 MOTs.
> >
> > Greg
>
> If you read the rest of the posts in this thread you will see that I said
> side facing and rear facing seat do not need seat belts
> seat belts are only needed in forward facing seats according to the MOT
> manual (Section 5) and Construction and Use Regs paragraphs 46 and 47
Agreed, but Andy only said "you can have seats in the back", nothing about
their direction, hence your black and white statement that it will fail was
incorrect
Greg
A
Austin Shackles
Guest
On or around Sun, 6 Aug 2006 00:47:43 +0100, "Greg"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>"Andy.Smalley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> > The MOT test is just an MOT test, it's not a definitive statement that
>> > your car is ready and legal to drive on the road. You can for example
>> > have seats in the back that don't have seatbelts
>>
>> and it will fail if first used after 31st March 1987
>
>Not necessarily, I had a 1991 camper with side facing rear seats that I
>added with no belts, this was never even questioned in 8 MOTs.
you might have got into trouble for using them on the road though.
There are 2 bits of legislation - the MOT and C&U, and although to an extent
they overlap, they cover different areas. Then there are new bits about
retrofitment of seta belts to buses and so forth, and a 12-seater 110 is
classed as a minibus in terms of the number of passenger seats, and also in
terms of the driving licence - new class B licences issued after 1/1/97
don't have "D1 - category restriction 1" which is passenger vehicles
designed or adapted to carry more than 8 and not more then 16 passengers,
the category restriction is "not for hire or reward". Therefore if you have
a 12 (or 10) seater and leave the seats in it in theory you're not allowed
to drive it.
'ere y'go, some legislation, from C&U 1986 as amended. (below)
aha.
more stuff comes to light. I've just found the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of
Seatbelts) Regulations 1993, and having just updated the thing, it has
amendments contained in [SI 2006 No. 1892 - The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of
Seat Belts) (Amendment) Regulations 2006 - 18/09/2006] which come into
force on 18/9/06. I'll try to distil it, but note that this is NOT the
whole thing and you may well be tripped up by it if you take it as gospel;
if anyone wants the whole thing I'd like to say that for average eejits I
heartily recommend http://www.hughesguides.com for a nifty guide to
legislation. 's not all that expensive to get, enormously cheaper than
actually acquiring the whole of C&U, for example.
OK... seatbelt use:
Basically, the seat belt thing is divided up into adults, large children and
small children, as follows:
Child: under 14 years of age
Large Child: not a small child
Small Child: under 12 years of age and under 150cm tall - that's changing to
135cm on 18/9/06 though.
the salient bit about children is in this para:
-------
(8) For the purposes of these Regulations, a seat belt is appropriate :-
(a) in relation to a child aged under 3 years, if it is of a
description prescribed for a child of his height and weight by regulation 8;
(b) in relation to a child aged 3 years or more, if it is a child
restraint of a description prescribed for a child of his height and weight
by regulation 8 or is an adult belt; or
(c) in relation to a person aged 14 years or more, if it is an adult
belt.
-------
and that is due to be replaced by the following:
-------
[(8) For the purposes of these Regulations, a seat belt is appropriate :-
(a) in relation to a small child, if it is a child restraint of a
description prescribed for a child of his height and weight by regulation 8;
(b) in relation to a large child, if it is a child restraint of a
description prescribed for a child of his height and weight by regulation 8
or an adult belt; or
(c) in relation to a person aged 14 years or more, if it is an adult
belt.]
-------
the above refers to Regulation 8... here it is.
Regulation 8: [the bits enclosed in // are due to be deleted on 18/9/06]
-------
8. Description of seat belts to be worn by children
(1) For a child of any particular height and weight travelling in a
particular vehicle, the description of seat belt prescribed for the purposes
of section 15(3) of the Act to be worn by him is :-
(a) if he is a small child //and the vehicle is a relevant vehicle//,
a child restraint of a description specified in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) of
paragraph (2);
//(b) if he is a small child and the vehicle is not a relevant vehicle,
a child restraint of a description specified in sub-paragraph (a) of
paragraph (2);//
(c) if he is a large child, a child restraint of a description
specified in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (2) or an adult belt.
[SI 2006 No. 1892 - The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment)
Regulations 2006 - 18/09/2006]
(2) The descriptions of seat belt referred to in paragraph (1) are :-
(a) a child restraint with the marking required under regulation 47(7)
of the Construction and Use Regulations if the marking indicates that it is
suitable for his weight and either indicates that it is suitable for his
height or contains no indication as respects height;
(b) a child restraint which would meet the requirements of the law of
another member State corresponding to these Regulations were it to be worn
by that child when travelling in that vehicle in that State.
-------
There are exemptions in Regulation 10; section 15(3) I think refers to
RTA1986 as amended and is the bit about it being an offence to carry a child
in a vehicle without suitable restraint. The most obvious ones are here -
this is the new legislation as from 18/9/06 but the old one allows more
leeway, if anything.
-------
[(1) The prohibitions in section 15(3) and (3A) of the Act do not apply in
relation to :-
(a) a child for whom there is a medical certificate;
(b) a small child aged under 3 years who is riding in a licensed taxi
or licensed hire car, if no appropriate seat belt is available for him in
the front or rear of the vehicle;
(c) a small child aged 3 years or more who is riding in a licensed
taxi, a licensed hire car or a small bus and wearing an adult belt if an
appropriate seat belt is not available for him in the front or rear of the
vehicle;
(d) a small child aged 3 years or more who is wearing an adult belt
and riding in a passenger car or light goods vehicle where the use of child
restraints by the child occupants of two seats in the rear of the vehicle
prevents the use of an appropriate seat belt for that child and no
appropriate seat belt is available for him in the front of the vehicle;
(e) a small child who is riding in a vehicle being used for the
purposes of the police, security or emergency services to enable the proper
performance of their duty;
(f) a small child aged 3 years or more who is wearing an adult belt
and who, because of an unexpected necessity, is travelling a short distance
in a passenger car or light goods vehicle in which no appropriate seat belt
is available for him; or
(g) a disabled child who is wearing a disabled person's belt or whose
disability makes it impracticable to wear a seat belt where a disabled
person's belt is unavailable to him.]
-------
This is from the explanatory notes:
The main changes made by these Regulations and The Road Traffic Act 1988
(Amendment) Regulations 1992 as regards children are as follows.
(a) The previous Regulations applied only to motor cars as defined in
the Road Traffic Act 1988. These Regulations extend to all passenger cars as
well as motor cars.
(b) Previously it was lawful to drive a vehicle with an unrestrained
child in the rear if no suitable restraint was available in the rear even if
one was available in the front. This will generally cease to be lawful in
the case of a small child in a passenger car where an un-occupied seat in
the front is provided with a suitable restraint.
(c) A small child will generally have to wear a suitable child
restraint if one is available. If no such restraint is available, a small
child aged over 3 years must generally wear an adult belt if one is
available.
(d) An adult belt is now treated as suitable for a child aged 3 years
or over even if no booster cushion is used. Previously there was provision
for a child aged 1, 2 or 3 years in the rear to use an adult belt in
conjunction with a booster cushion. There is no equivalent provision in
these Regulations. Accordingly, a child aged under 3 years will not be
required to wear an available adult belt even if a booster cushion is also
available.
And finally, C&U regulation 48A which governs children on organised trips.
------------
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.
(3) In paragraph (1), the reference to the appropriate number is a reference
to the number of children being carried in the vehicle (excluding disabled
children in wheelchairs).
(3A) For the purposes of this regulation a rearward-facing seat shall be
treated as a forward-facing seat which meets the requirements of this
regulation if the coach or minibus concerned was first used on or after 1st
October 2001, and the rearward-facing seat complies with the requirements of
regulations 46 and 47.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (2)(a), a group of
children shall, for the purposes of this regulation, be regarded as being on
an organised trip if they are being carried to or from their school or from
one part of their school premises to another.
(5) Without prejudice to the meaning of paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (1)
shall not apply to a vehicle if it is being used in the provision of a bus
service of a description specified in paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the
Fuel Duty Grant (Eligible Bus Services) Regulations 1985 or if it is
otherwise being used wholly or mainly for the purpose of providing a
transport service for the general public.
(6) For a forward-facing passenger seat to meet the requirements of this
regulation a seat belt must be provided for it, and :-
(a) if paragraph (3) of regulation 47 does not (in whole or part)
apply to the seat belt and the seat belt was first fitted to the vehicle
after 10th February 1997, the seat belt must comply with that paragraph to
the extent (if any) that it would have to so comply were :-
(i) that regulation to apply to all motor vehicles, and
(ii) there substituted for the words âprovidedâ to âor (e)â, in that
paragraph, the words âprovided for any person in a vehicle to which this
regulation appliesâ;
(b) if paragraph (5) of regulation 47 does not apply to the seat belt
and the seat belt is a seat belt for an adult (not being a disabled personâs
belt) that was first fitted to the vehicle after 10th February 1997, the
seat belt must comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (7)
below;
(c) if paragraph (5) of regulation 47 does not apply to the seat belt
and the seat belt is a child restraint that was first fitted to the vehicle
after 10th February 1997, the seat belt must be properly secured to
anchorages provided for it;
(d) if paragraph (5) of regulation 47 does not apply to the seat belt
and the seat belt is a disabled personâs belt that was first fitted to the
vehicle after 10th February 1997, the seat belt must be properly secured to
the vehicle or to the seat;
(e) if regulation 47 does not apply to the vehicle and the seat belt
was first fitted to the vehicle after 10th February 1997, the seat belt must
comply with paragraph (7) of that regulation to the extent (if any) that it
would have to so comply were that regulation to apply to all motor vehicles;
and if regulation 48 does not apply to the seat belt and the seat belt was
first fitted to the vehicle after 10th February 1997, the requirements of
paragraph (4) of that regulation must be met in relation to the anchorages,
fastenings, adjusting device and retracting mechanism (if any) of the seat
belt to the extent (if any) that those requirements would have to be met
were that paragraph to apply to all anchorages, fastenings, adjusting
devices and retracting mechanisms of seat belts fitted to motor vehicles,
and paragraph (2) of regulation 48 shall apply for the purposes of
subparagraph (1) above as it applies for the purposes of that regulation.
(7) The requirements referred to in paragraph (6)(b) are that the seat belt
must be properly secured to the anchorage points provided for it and, in a
case where any of those anchorage points is first fitted to the vehicle
after 10th February 1997 the anchorage points to which it is secured must
comply :-
(a) if the vehicle is a coach, with the requirements specified in
regulation 46(4)(b) or (4A)(b)(ii); or
(b) in any other case, with the requirements specified in regulation
46(4)(b).
(8) Until 10th February 1998, this regulation shall not apply to a coach
first used before 1st October 1988.
(9) In this regulation :-
âschoolâ has the meaning given by section 14(5) of the Further and
Higher Education Act 1992;
âforward-facing passenger seatâ means a forward-facing seat which is
not the driverâs seat; and
âchild restraintâ, âdisabled personâs beltâ, âforward-facing seatâ,
âseatâ, and âseat beltâ have the meanings given in regulation 47.
(10) For the purpose of this regulation, a child is a person who is aged 3
years or more but is under the age of 16 years.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Too Busy: Your mind is like a motorway. Sometimes it can be jammed by
too much traffic. Avoid the jams by never using your mind on a
Bank Holiday weekend.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>"Andy.Smalley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> > The MOT test is just an MOT test, it's not a definitive statement that
>> > your car is ready and legal to drive on the road. You can for example
>> > have seats in the back that don't have seatbelts
>>
>> and it will fail if first used after 31st March 1987
>
>Not necessarily, I had a 1991 camper with side facing rear seats that I
>added with no belts, this was never even questioned in 8 MOTs.
you might have got into trouble for using them on the road though.
There are 2 bits of legislation - the MOT and C&U, and although to an extent
they overlap, they cover different areas. Then there are new bits about
retrofitment of seta belts to buses and so forth, and a 12-seater 110 is
classed as a minibus in terms of the number of passenger seats, and also in
terms of the driving licence - new class B licences issued after 1/1/97
don't have "D1 - category restriction 1" which is passenger vehicles
designed or adapted to carry more than 8 and not more then 16 passengers,
the category restriction is "not for hire or reward". Therefore if you have
a 12 (or 10) seater and leave the seats in it in theory you're not allowed
to drive it.
'ere y'go, some legislation, from C&U 1986 as amended. (below)
aha.
more stuff comes to light. I've just found the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of
Seatbelts) Regulations 1993, and having just updated the thing, it has
amendments contained in [SI 2006 No. 1892 - The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of
Seat Belts) (Amendment) Regulations 2006 - 18/09/2006] which come into
force on 18/9/06. I'll try to distil it, but note that this is NOT the
whole thing and you may well be tripped up by it if you take it as gospel;
if anyone wants the whole thing I'd like to say that for average eejits I
heartily recommend http://www.hughesguides.com for a nifty guide to
legislation. 's not all that expensive to get, enormously cheaper than
actually acquiring the whole of C&U, for example.
OK... seatbelt use:
Basically, the seat belt thing is divided up into adults, large children and
small children, as follows:
Child: under 14 years of age
Large Child: not a small child
Small Child: under 12 years of age and under 150cm tall - that's changing to
135cm on 18/9/06 though.
the salient bit about children is in this para:
-------
(8) For the purposes of these Regulations, a seat belt is appropriate :-
(a) in relation to a child aged under 3 years, if it is of a
description prescribed for a child of his height and weight by regulation 8;
(b) in relation to a child aged 3 years or more, if it is a child
restraint of a description prescribed for a child of his height and weight
by regulation 8 or is an adult belt; or
(c) in relation to a person aged 14 years or more, if it is an adult
belt.
-------
and that is due to be replaced by the following:
-------
[(8) For the purposes of these Regulations, a seat belt is appropriate :-
(a) in relation to a small child, if it is a child restraint of a
description prescribed for a child of his height and weight by regulation 8;
(b) in relation to a large child, if it is a child restraint of a
description prescribed for a child of his height and weight by regulation 8
or an adult belt; or
(c) in relation to a person aged 14 years or more, if it is an adult
belt.]
-------
the above refers to Regulation 8... here it is.
Regulation 8: [the bits enclosed in // are due to be deleted on 18/9/06]
-------
8. Description of seat belts to be worn by children
(1) For a child of any particular height and weight travelling in a
particular vehicle, the description of seat belt prescribed for the purposes
of section 15(3) of the Act to be worn by him is :-
(a) if he is a small child //and the vehicle is a relevant vehicle//,
a child restraint of a description specified in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) of
paragraph (2);
//(b) if he is a small child and the vehicle is not a relevant vehicle,
a child restraint of a description specified in sub-paragraph (a) of
paragraph (2);//
(c) if he is a large child, a child restraint of a description
specified in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (2) or an adult belt.
[SI 2006 No. 1892 - The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment)
Regulations 2006 - 18/09/2006]
(2) The descriptions of seat belt referred to in paragraph (1) are :-
(a) a child restraint with the marking required under regulation 47(7)
of the Construction and Use Regulations if the marking indicates that it is
suitable for his weight and either indicates that it is suitable for his
height or contains no indication as respects height;
(b) a child restraint which would meet the requirements of the law of
another member State corresponding to these Regulations were it to be worn
by that child when travelling in that vehicle in that State.
-------
There are exemptions in Regulation 10; section 15(3) I think refers to
RTA1986 as amended and is the bit about it being an offence to carry a child
in a vehicle without suitable restraint. The most obvious ones are here -
this is the new legislation as from 18/9/06 but the old one allows more
leeway, if anything.
-------
[(1) The prohibitions in section 15(3) and (3A) of the Act do not apply in
relation to :-
(a) a child for whom there is a medical certificate;
(b) a small child aged under 3 years who is riding in a licensed taxi
or licensed hire car, if no appropriate seat belt is available for him in
the front or rear of the vehicle;
(c) a small child aged 3 years or more who is riding in a licensed
taxi, a licensed hire car or a small bus and wearing an adult belt if an
appropriate seat belt is not available for him in the front or rear of the
vehicle;
(d) a small child aged 3 years or more who is wearing an adult belt
and riding in a passenger car or light goods vehicle where the use of child
restraints by the child occupants of two seats in the rear of the vehicle
prevents the use of an appropriate seat belt for that child and no
appropriate seat belt is available for him in the front of the vehicle;
(e) a small child who is riding in a vehicle being used for the
purposes of the police, security or emergency services to enable the proper
performance of their duty;
(f) a small child aged 3 years or more who is wearing an adult belt
and who, because of an unexpected necessity, is travelling a short distance
in a passenger car or light goods vehicle in which no appropriate seat belt
is available for him; or
(g) a disabled child who is wearing a disabled person's belt or whose
disability makes it impracticable to wear a seat belt where a disabled
person's belt is unavailable to him.]
-------
This is from the explanatory notes:
The main changes made by these Regulations and The Road Traffic Act 1988
(Amendment) Regulations 1992 as regards children are as follows.
(a) The previous Regulations applied only to motor cars as defined in
the Road Traffic Act 1988. These Regulations extend to all passenger cars as
well as motor cars.
(b) Previously it was lawful to drive a vehicle with an unrestrained
child in the rear if no suitable restraint was available in the rear even if
one was available in the front. This will generally cease to be lawful in
the case of a small child in a passenger car where an un-occupied seat in
the front is provided with a suitable restraint.
(c) A small child will generally have to wear a suitable child
restraint if one is available. If no such restraint is available, a small
child aged over 3 years must generally wear an adult belt if one is
available.
(d) An adult belt is now treated as suitable for a child aged 3 years
or over even if no booster cushion is used. Previously there was provision
for a child aged 1, 2 or 3 years in the rear to use an adult belt in
conjunction with a booster cushion. There is no equivalent provision in
these Regulations. Accordingly, a child aged under 3 years will not be
required to wear an available adult belt even if a booster cushion is also
available.
And finally, C&U regulation 48A which governs children on organised trips.
------------
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.
(3) In paragraph (1), the reference to the appropriate number is a reference
to the number of children being carried in the vehicle (excluding disabled
children in wheelchairs).
(3A) For the purposes of this regulation a rearward-facing seat shall be
treated as a forward-facing seat which meets the requirements of this
regulation if the coach or minibus concerned was first used on or after 1st
October 2001, and the rearward-facing seat complies with the requirements of
regulations 46 and 47.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (2)(a), a group of
children shall, for the purposes of this regulation, be regarded as being on
an organised trip if they are being carried to or from their school or from
one part of their school premises to another.
(5) Without prejudice to the meaning of paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (1)
shall not apply to a vehicle if it is being used in the provision of a bus
service of a description specified in paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the
Fuel Duty Grant (Eligible Bus Services) Regulations 1985 or if it is
otherwise being used wholly or mainly for the purpose of providing a
transport service for the general public.
(6) For a forward-facing passenger seat to meet the requirements of this
regulation a seat belt must be provided for it, and :-
(a) if paragraph (3) of regulation 47 does not (in whole or part)
apply to the seat belt and the seat belt was first fitted to the vehicle
after 10th February 1997, the seat belt must comply with that paragraph to
the extent (if any) that it would have to so comply were :-
(i) that regulation to apply to all motor vehicles, and
(ii) there substituted for the words âprovidedâ to âor (e)â, in that
paragraph, the words âprovided for any person in a vehicle to which this
regulation appliesâ;
(b) if paragraph (5) of regulation 47 does not apply to the seat belt
and the seat belt is a seat belt for an adult (not being a disabled personâs
belt) that was first fitted to the vehicle after 10th February 1997, the
seat belt must comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (7)
below;
(c) if paragraph (5) of regulation 47 does not apply to the seat belt
and the seat belt is a child restraint that was first fitted to the vehicle
after 10th February 1997, the seat belt must be properly secured to
anchorages provided for it;
(d) if paragraph (5) of regulation 47 does not apply to the seat belt
and the seat belt is a disabled personâs belt that was first fitted to the
vehicle after 10th February 1997, the seat belt must be properly secured to
the vehicle or to the seat;
(e) if regulation 47 does not apply to the vehicle and the seat belt
was first fitted to the vehicle after 10th February 1997, the seat belt must
comply with paragraph (7) of that regulation to the extent (if any) that it
would have to so comply were that regulation to apply to all motor vehicles;
and if regulation 48 does not apply to the seat belt and the seat belt was
first fitted to the vehicle after 10th February 1997, the requirements of
paragraph (4) of that regulation must be met in relation to the anchorages,
fastenings, adjusting device and retracting mechanism (if any) of the seat
belt to the extent (if any) that those requirements would have to be met
were that paragraph to apply to all anchorages, fastenings, adjusting
devices and retracting mechanisms of seat belts fitted to motor vehicles,
and paragraph (2) of regulation 48 shall apply for the purposes of
subparagraph (1) above as it applies for the purposes of that regulation.
(7) The requirements referred to in paragraph (6)(b) are that the seat belt
must be properly secured to the anchorage points provided for it and, in a
case where any of those anchorage points is first fitted to the vehicle
after 10th February 1997 the anchorage points to which it is secured must
comply :-
(a) if the vehicle is a coach, with the requirements specified in
regulation 46(4)(b) or (4A)(b)(ii); or
(b) in any other case, with the requirements specified in regulation
46(4)(b).
(8) Until 10th February 1998, this regulation shall not apply to a coach
first used before 1st October 1988.
(9) In this regulation :-
âschoolâ has the meaning given by section 14(5) of the Further and
Higher Education Act 1992;
âforward-facing passenger seatâ means a forward-facing seat which is
not the driverâs seat; and
âchild restraintâ, âdisabled personâs beltâ, âforward-facing seatâ,
âseatâ, and âseat beltâ have the meanings given in regulation 47.
(10) For the purpose of this regulation, a child is a person who is aged 3
years or more but is under the age of 16 years.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Too Busy: Your mind is like a motorway. Sometimes it can be jammed by
too much traffic. Avoid the jams by never using your mind on a
Bank Holiday weekend.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
A
Andy.Smalley
Guest
Greg wrote:
> "Andy.Smalley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> "Andy.Smalley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> The MOT test is just an MOT test, it's not a definitive statement
>>>>> that your car is ready and legal to drive on the road. You can
>>>>> for example have seats in the back that don't have seatbelts
>>>>
>>>> and it will fail if first used after 31st March 1987
>>>
>>> Not necessarily, I had a 1991 camper with side facing rear seats
>>> that I added with no belts, this was never even questioned in 8
>>> MOTs.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>
>> If you read the rest of the posts in this thread you will see that I
>> said side facing and rear facing seat do not need seat belts
>> seat belts are only needed in forward facing seats according to the
>> MOT manual (Section 5) and Construction and Use Regs paragraphs 46
>> and 47
>
> Agreed, but Andy only said "you can have seats in the back", nothing
> about their direction, hence your black and white statement that it
> will fail was incorrect
>
> Greg
I apologise for the confusion. When Ian said "You can for example have
seats in the back that don't have seat belts as long as you don't use them"
I assumed he meant seat that were supposed to have seat belts IE forward
facing after 31st March 1987 IYSWIM
It seemed a good statement at the time of writing but looking at it again
I could have made it make more sense
--
Andy
SWB Series 2a ( dressed as a 3) "Bruce"
It's big, it's mean it's really, really green
> "Andy.Smalley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> "Andy.Smalley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> The MOT test is just an MOT test, it's not a definitive statement
>>>>> that your car is ready and legal to drive on the road. You can
>>>>> for example have seats in the back that don't have seatbelts
>>>>
>>>> and it will fail if first used after 31st March 1987
>>>
>>> Not necessarily, I had a 1991 camper with side facing rear seats
>>> that I added with no belts, this was never even questioned in 8
>>> MOTs.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>
>> If you read the rest of the posts in this thread you will see that I
>> said side facing and rear facing seat do not need seat belts
>> seat belts are only needed in forward facing seats according to the
>> MOT manual (Section 5) and Construction and Use Regs paragraphs 46
>> and 47
>
> Agreed, but Andy only said "you can have seats in the back", nothing
> about their direction, hence your black and white statement that it
> will fail was incorrect
>
> Greg
I apologise for the confusion. When Ian said "You can for example have
seats in the back that don't have seat belts as long as you don't use them"
I assumed he meant seat that were supposed to have seat belts IE forward
facing after 31st March 1987 IYSWIM
It seemed a good statement at the time of writing but looking at it again
I could have made it make more sense
--
Andy
SWB Series 2a ( dressed as a 3) "Bruce"
It's big, it's mean it's really, really green
