seatbelts

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
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
 
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]...

> > "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 :cool:

Greg


 
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 ‘provided’ to ‘or (e)’, in that
paragraph, the words ‘provided for any person in a vehicle to which this
regulation applies’;

(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 person’s
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 person’s 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 :-

‘school’ has the meaning given by section 14(5) of the Further and
Higher Education Act 1992;

‘forward-facing passenger seat’ means a forward-facing seat which is
not the driver’s seat; and

‘child restraint’, ‘disabled person’s belt’, ‘forward-facing seat’,
‘seat’, and ‘seat belt’ 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.
 
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 :cool:
>
> 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


 
"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> you might have got into trouble for using them on the road though.


Oh yes, I would never have drempt of it and warned the people I sold it to a
few weeks ago of that very point.

> There are 2 bits of legislation


What only two!, our lords and masters must be slipping :cool:

It's ridiculously complicated, one thing in particular that must be a grey
area is a vehicle that was designed to have rear seats as an optional extra
but weren't fitted in the factory. If you then fit the very same ones as
MIGHT have been factory fitted, are they considered factory fitted so must
have a belt to pass the MOT (assuming made after the date etc), or are they
in the same class as my camper seats that don't but can't carry passengers?.
It was clear for me as they were home made but how's an MOT tester to know
if they are identical to factory ones?.

The only thing that seems clear to me is that if you get unbelted seats past
the MOT they must be legal, and if you don't carry anyone in them they stay
legal!.

Greg


 
> It was clear for me as they were home made but how's an MOT tester to know
> if they are identical to factory ones?.


What I'm getting at is can you tell the MOT tester that you fitted these
original seats (without belts) after it was made and don't carry passengers
in them so he will pass them?, I doubt it but where's the distinction with
home made camper seats?.

Greg


 
Greg wrote:
>> It was clear for me as they were home made but how's an MOT tester
>> to know if they are identical to factory ones?.

>
> What I'm getting at is can you tell the MOT tester that you fitted
> these original seats (without belts) after it was made and don't
> carry passengers in them so he will pass them?, I doubt it but
> where's the distinction with home made camper seats?.
>
> Greg


A MOT tester will (should) check to see if the front seats fitted are secure
And that the backrests of all seats can be secured in their normal upright
position

he should then check the seat belts, for a motor caravan these are
Drivers and specified front passengers seat :- 3 point belt for each seat
Centre front seat :-3 point belt,lap belt or a disabled persons belt
Forward facing rear seats :- no requirement

and as we've already said side facing and rear facing don't need them

constuction and use doesn't really mention seats anyway

So as long as the seats you fitted are up to the job the tester can't fail them
as for being original how many series Land Rovers have alternative seats
in the front



--
Andy

SWB Series 2a ( dressed as a 3) "Bruce"
It's big, it's mean it's really, really green


 
On or around Sun, 6 Aug 2006 14:05:16 +0100, "Greg"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>> It was clear for me as they were home made but how's an MOT tester to know
>> if they are identical to factory ones?.

>
>What I'm getting at is can you tell the MOT tester that you fitted these
>original seats (without belts) after it was made and don't carry passengers
>in them so he will pass them?, I doubt it but where's the distinction with
>home made camper seats?.


campers may be a grey area. There are lots of grey areas around campers.

however, on the matter of seating - there's nothing says you can't have
sideways seats and no requirement that I can see that says they have to have
belts - but there are regulations preventing you carrying children in them
under certain conditions. It's probably legal to carry your own children in
them if there are no belted seats available, even.

carrying children on organised trips is a definite no-no. It's probably
also illegal to carry children on organised trips in the single side-facing
seats in the back of a disco I, which have belts and are immediately behind
the (padded) back of the middle row seats - frankly, I can't see that
travelling those seats *using the belts* is any more dangerous than any
other seat with a lap belt - for example, the middle seat in a disco is
nicely placed for a moderate-sized person to whip forward and crack they
head against the cubby box in between the front seats...



--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\
>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.

a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!
 


> 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.
>


But why then wont Ken let me have a waiver for the Conjestion Charge ?.
His office states that as my V5 does'nt give the seat number I cant have one
??


 
On or around Sun, 06 Aug 2006 13:39:55 GMT, "Hirsty's"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>
>> 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.
>>

>
>But why then wont Ken let me have a waiver for the Conjestion Charge ?.
>His office states that as my V5 does'nt give the seat number I cant have one


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.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent.
I shall attack. - Marshal Foch (1851 - 1929)
 


> 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 ?


 
On or around Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:45:29 GMT, "Hirsty's"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>
>> 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.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Soon shall thy arm, unconquered steam! afar Drag the slow barge, or
drive the rapid car; Or on wide-waving wings expanded bear the
flying chariot through the field of air.- Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802)
 

> >> 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 !!


 
On 2006-08-06, Hirsty's <[email protected]> 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 !!


Yeah those crafty japanese and their driving-two-cars-at-once tricks! ;-)

I've never seen any reliable sources for that story, anyone got any?
I've heard it a few times but never seen it actually mentioned
properly, just passing references in other stories.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
Its all a loada bollox so far as I am concerned, I had 12 seats only two of
them belted now I have 8 seats one of them rearward facing and I reckon I
can do as I like and that is the whole of the law so long as it is old
enough.

Frankly it is so confusing as I doubt if anyone can make much sence of it,
it will only become relevant in the case of an insurance claim or inquest.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes




"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Sun, 6 Aug 2006 00:47:43 +0100, "Greg"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>
> 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 'provided' to 'or (e)', in that
> paragraph, the words 'provided for any person in a vehicle to which this
> regulation applies';
>
> (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 person

's
> 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 person's 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 :-
>
> 'school' has the meaning given by section 14(5) of the Further and
> Higher Education Act 1992;
>
> 'forward-facing passenger seat' means a forward-facing seat which is
> not the driver's seat; and
>
> 'child restraint', 'disabled person's belt', 'forward-facing seat',
> 'seat', and 'seat belt' 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.



 
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:39:45 +0100, Ian Rawlings <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On 2006-08-06, Hirsty's <[email protected]> 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 !!

>
> Yeah those crafty japanese and their driving-two-cars-at-once tricks! ;-)


yesh - struck me too.

I'm currently playing with my pet troll over in <whisper> another group
</whisper> who is playing out enough rope to shoot himself in the foot[1]
just now on that very line of thought (and others).


[1] metafors want to be mixed - it's their contribution to biodiversity.
--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8
 
On or around Sun, 6 Aug 2006 22:39:45 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2006-08-06, Hirsty's <[email protected]> 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 !!

>
>Yeah those crafty japanese and their driving-two-cars-at-once tricks! ;-)
>
>I've never seen any reliable sources for that story, anyone got any?
>I've heard it a few times but never seen it actually mentioned
>properly, just passing references in other stories.


they have odd and even parking in some places in France.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Nessun maggior dolore che ricordarsi del tempo felice nella miseria"
- Dante Alighieri (1265 - 1321) from Divina Commedia 'Inferno'
 


> Yeah those crafty japanese and their driving-two-cars-at-once tricks! ;-)
>
> I've never seen any reliable sources for that story, anyone got any?
> I've heard it a few times but never seen it actually mentioned
> properly, just passing references in other stories.



True, was a story by word of mouth. Does raise a smile in an ironic sense
though.


 

> Its all a loada bollox so far as I am concerned, I had 12 seats only two

of
> them belted now I have 8 seats one of them rearward facing and I reckon I
> can do as I like and that is the whole of the law so long as it is old
> enough.
>
> Frankly it is so confusing as I doubt if anyone can make much sence of it,
> it will only become relevant in the case of an insurance claim or inquest.
>
>


Until you need to get an MoT on a new 12 seater and the dealer does'nt tell
you at purchase time. Then you drive gaily along for 6 months with no MoT
until the tax reminder arrives saying you need an MoT as well payment and
insurance. them ring DVLA and numerous test stations who have'nt a clue as
to whether you need one or not.

Along those lines; why is it no one at LR knows what tyre pressure 235's on
a Defender should be ?


 
Back
Top