seatbelts

"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"

;-)


--
Andy
He who dies with most toys wins !
www.ashlyn.plus.com

On 2006-08-05, Andy.Smalley <[email protected]> wrote:

> Side facing and rear facing seats are not required to be fitted with seatbelts
> see http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_510.htm

Phone the DVLA and tell them that then, for a seat to be legally
useable there are further restrictions, and seatbelts do need to be
present in vehicles built after a given date, something like 1989 or
1986.

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 as long as you don't
use them, so you'd get through an MOT but you'd get your collar felt
if you got pulled with a load of passengers in the back.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

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.

On or around Sat, 5 Aug 2006 19:47:42 +0100, Nick Williams
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>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.

you can get inertia reel lap belts. dunno if it's feasible to fit 'em to a
90 - you may not have room for the reel.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; and
therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee"
John Donne (1571? - 1631) Devotions, XVII

Ian Rawlings wrote:
> On 2006-08-05, Andy.Smalley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Side facing and rear facing seats are not required to be fitted with
>> seatbelts see http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_510.htm
>
> Phone the DVLA and tell them that then, for a seat to be legally
> useable there are further restrictions, and seatbelts do need to be
> present in vehicles built after a given date, something like 1989 or
> 1986.

31st March 1987 And it only applys to forward facing rear seats

> 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

> as long as you don't use them, so you'd get through an MOT but you'd get your collar felt
> if you got pulled with a load of passengers in the back.

--
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

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

> 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 ?

>
> Until you need to get an MoT on a new 12 seater >
>

Apologies, just read post again; MoT at 12 months old vehicle

> 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.

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'

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!