Stupid seat belt laws!!!!! grrrrr!!!

On or around Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:57:02 +0100, "Lee_D"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Hopefully Landrover will come up with a cunning three point centre seat belt
>system for those without.... but I shan't hold my breath.

check out this lot:

http://www.auto-safe.co.uk/main.htm

I've just bought 10 of their height adjuster gadgets, will report on how
effective they are.

there's a get-out in the legislation for not requiring 3 child seats in the
back if there's not enough room to fit 'em.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10

On 2006-09-19, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> there's a get-out in the legislation for not requiring 3 child seats in the
> back if there's not enough room to fit 'em.

As an aside, the daft new laws have hit the classic car community as
well, at least those who own what used to be known as "2+2" seaters,
two adult seats and two smaller seats. These seats also need to have
booster cushions despite the addition of such a thing making the seat
too dangerous as the child is then too high up in the car. Various
car groups are making noises about it but there are "no exceptions"
even when the law makes the safety situation more dangerous.

It's a pain in the arse as it is with the nanny state, but when the
nanny wears hobnail boots and is blind as a bat it does get a little
hard to take.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Lee_D wrote:
> <http://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q379.htm>

That's very interesting, assuming these are indeed the gudelines that
the police are going to follow they leave it up to the officer to
decide what is a "correct child restraint" which is surely going to
cause a heck of a lot of arguments. For example if the car has a
seatbelt that can be adjusted sufficiently to rest on the child's
shoulder without the use of a booster is it going to be accepted?.
Greg

In message <[email protected]>
"Greg" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Lee_D wrote:
> > <http://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q379.htm>
>
> That's very interesting, assuming these are indeed the gudelines that
> the police are going to follow they leave it up to the officer to
> decide what is a "correct child restraint" which is surely going to
> cause a heck of a lot of arguments. For example if the car has a
> seatbelt that can be adjusted sufficiently to rest on the child's
> shoulder without the use of a booster is it going to be accepted?.
> Greg
>

That's deliberate - don't forget Smiling Tony's missus is a
lawyer, and doubltless reminds him to keep the legislation nice
and wooly so he can keep her mates in jobs.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

On 2006-09-19, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's deliberate - don't forget Smiling Tony's missus is a
> lawyer, and doubltless reminds him to keep the legislation nice
> and wooly so he can keep her mates in jobs.

It's the way law in this country has always been, the law is made
wooly and is solidified by individual precedents in law caused when a
prosecution is made. This is because otherwise the law lords would
sit there forever trying to take every situation into account, which
isn't practical. If this wasn't done, laws would take decades from
being proposed to being implemented. It's the practical method, "suck
it and see" if you like.

The real issue is not the way laws are made, it's the number of them
being made and the illiberal, prescriptive, finger-wagging nature of
the laws that are being made under our current bunch of muppets.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

beamendsltd wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> "Greg" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Lee_D wrote:
>>> <http://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q379.htm>
>>
>> That's very interesting, assuming these are indeed the gudelines that
>> the police are going to follow they leave it up to the officer to
>> decide what is a "correct child restraint" which is surely going to
>> cause a heck of a lot of arguments. For example if the car has a
>> seatbelt that can be adjusted sufficiently to rest on the child's
>> shoulder without the use of a booster is it going to be accepted?.
>> Greg
>>
>
> That's deliberate - don't forget Smiling Tony's missus is a
> lawyer, and doubltless reminds him to keep the legislation nice
> and wooly so he can keep her mates in jobs.
>
> Richard

Isn't Tone too?

--
Don't say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it!

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!

GbH wrote:
> Dougal wrote:
>> GbH wrote:
>>
>>> Questions?
>>> 1. How do you deactivate a rear facing child seat?
>>
>> What is an activated (or de-activated for that matter) seat?
>
> Hence my question.
>
> NB the origination page seems to have changed, now omitting the bit
> about airbags and childseats.
>
> The original said something like: child seat must be deactivated.

Sorry my fault, the offending text is still there but I thought it looked
different.
The line is (now): Rear facing baby seats MUST not be used in a seat where there
is a frontal air bag UNLESS it has been deactivated

the term deactivated can apply equally to the airbag or the seat!

I would suggest : Rear facing baby seats MUST not be used in a seat where there is
a active frontal air bag. Is better terminology.

NB cannot use 'activated' as the opposite of 'deactivated' because that means the
bag has been fired.
Which incidentally is the ONLY verifiable state for an airbag!! bit like matches,
how can you guarantee a live? match will ignite. You can however be pretty darn
sure a spent one won't.


--
Don't say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it!

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:36:16 +0100, GbH <[email protected]>
wrote:

> beamendsltd wrote:
>> ...
>> don't forget Smiling Tony's missus is a
>> lawyer, and doubltless reminds him to keep the legislation nice
>> and wooly so he can keep her mates in jobs.
>
> Isn't Tone too?

yes - but he hasn't got any mates left.

--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8

William Tasso wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:36:16 +0100, GbH <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> beamendsltd wrote:
>>> ...
>>> don't forget Smiling Tony's missus is a
>>> lawyer, and doubltless reminds him to keep the legislation nice
>>> and wooly so he can keep her mates in jobs.
>>
>> Isn't Tone too?
>
> yes - but he hasn't got any mates left.

Figgers

--
Don't say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it!

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!

GbH wrote:
> beamendsltd wrote:
>
>>In message <[email protected]>
>> "Greg" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lee_D wrote:
>>>
>>>><http://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q379.htm>
>>>
>>>That's very interesting, assuming these are indeed the gudelines that
>>>the police are going to follow they leave it up to the officer to
>>>decide what is a "correct child restraint" which is surely going to
>>>cause a heck of a lot of arguments. For example if the car has a
>>>seatbelt that can be adjusted sufficiently to rest on the child's
>>>shoulder without the use of a booster is it going to be accepted?.
>>>Greg
>>>
>>
>>That's deliberate - don't forget Smiling Tony's missus is a
>>lawyer, and doubltless reminds him to keep the legislation nice
>>and wooly so he can keep her mates in jobs.
>>
>>Richard
>
>
> Isn't Tone too?

It's true for practically the whole dishonest lot of them.

On or around Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:22:43 +0100, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>The above doesn't seem to mention the booster seats for short
>children inder 12 explicitly - that's the bit that's causing
>the problems, as booster seats have not been mentioned in the
>law before - rightly of wrongly everyone just used a seat belt
>"when the kids are big enough", but now they *must* have seat
>rather than use the belt - that's a radical change even if the
>wording above doesn't make the point clear.

AAAaaaaarrgh!!!


the law does NOT say booster seats. NOT NOT NOT!

The media has latched onto booster seats, and, typically, not having checked
its facts, is going "Booster seat booster seat booster seat".



(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, a child restraint of a description
specified in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) of paragraph (2);

(b) [no longer applies]

(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.


(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.
--
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.