SWB Seating? how many passengers?

Hi all, I have a 1974 SWB series 3 with side bench seats in the rear, just wondering does anyone know if I am legally allowed to carry any passengers in the rear?

Regards,

Den

Worra stupid question Please await stupid answers they'll be along in a minute.

You can get a couple of pigs in the back no problem. Probably three if they're well-greased

they say 7 but dont know how ya get em in

can put a couple on the roof as well

My record is 17 and 5 dogs.
Bit that were in/on a 109 soft top.

Put the fooker in a ditch sideways as well!

The 88 with full complement of seats i.e 3 in front and either two benchs or four individual ala station wagon in back is considered to be a 7 seater
Having said that operating with three in front is very intimate.
and four in back is pretty snug as well .
You will have to tell your ins co of number of seats as well . HTSH

Thanks for the reply tacr2man,iainotts, the reason why I asked the question is that there is no seat belts in the rear and I don't want to get pulled by the coppers and told off if I do squeeze the full compliment of 4 people in the back, so was wondering about the legality of it.
As for gareth coe's response I haven't had any pigs in the back, but had a small dorset ewe once!
Hughesy- grow up. No stupid questions just in your case stupid replies if you havent got anything good to say then dont bother. Ta!

There is no requirement at law to have seatbelts fitted to sideways facing seats . Having said that if there is a belted seat then a child should use it HTSH

bigdenbailey said:

Hughesy- grow up. No stupid questions just in your case stupid replies if you havent got anything good to say then dont bother. Ta!

Click to expand...

Surely you are not trying to deny that this was a stupid question Have a look in the back of your Land Rover. How many seats are there? Would a vehicle have seats in that it is illegal to use? I think you'll find you can expect to get the **** taken on forums such as this one. It's just the way it is. If you'd had a look round you this would have been apparent.

once got 12 and 6 dogs in and on my 90 on a shoot day we were all ****ed though

all?


dogs anorl?

The Mad Hat Man said:

all?


dogs anorl?

Click to expand...

glad you asked this question...as I was about to, too

Thanks for the clarification all.

tacr2man said:

There is no requirement at law to have seatbelts fitted to sideways facing seats . Having said that if there is a belted seat then a child should use it HTSH

Click to expand...

Not if it's a sidefacing seat as it is illegal for a child to use a restraint that doesn't meet the new regs. and there are no restraints to fit sidefacing seats that meet the regs. so children may be carried unrestrained but may not use the belts on the seat.

I should have been a bit clearer , I meant if there was a front seat with a belt then the child should have preference for that and the adults use the side facing rear. I can see that was not apparent from my previous wording

redhand said:

Not if it's a sidefacing seat as it is illegal for a child to use a restraint that doesn't meet the new regs. and there are no restraints to fit sidefacing seats that meet the regs. so children may be carried unrestrained but may not use the belts on the seat.

Click to expand...

Is anyone thinkin wot i'm thinkin? Christ, these new seat belt regulations are so confused and frankly a load of fckin bollx, FFS the motor was made in 1974 when it wasn't even necessary to wear a seat belt.