Classic campervan seatbelts and passengers
Discussion
Question for those in the know about traffic laws please.
I've restored a 1985 mk2 Ford Transit Auto-Sleeper (pop-top 4 berth). It has 2 single front seats both with seat belts and 2 side facing bench seats in the back which can both take 2 adults, so total space is for 6 people. These side facing bench seats have no seat belts.
I understand a child needs to be in a properly fitted child seat which demands that my son sits in the front passenger seat in his child seat.
Is my wife allowed to sit in the rear with no seat belt? I imagine even having belts fitted would not work properly as they'd be side on.
Thanks.
I've restored a 1985 mk2 Ford Transit Auto-Sleeper (pop-top 4 berth). It has 2 single front seats both with seat belts and 2 side facing bench seats in the back which can both take 2 adults, so total space is for 6 people. These side facing bench seats have no seat belts.
I understand a child needs to be in a properly fitted child seat which demands that my son sits in the front passenger seat in his child seat.
Is my wife allowed to sit in the rear with no seat belt? I imagine even having belts fitted would not work properly as they'd be side on.
Thanks.
Unless there are exemptions for campervans , or vehicles with side facing seats , I would think your vehicle is too new to take advantage of the exemptions for classic cars which do not require to have seatbelts .
From memory , the cutoff date before which seatbelts are not required , and where even young children may be carried unrestrained , is somewhere around 1964 . My 1957 and 1963 cars have no seatbelts , although I have yet to take my 4 yo son out in either of them , however my grown up daughter used to travel in the older one when she was young just as I travelled in my dad's cars without seatbelts when I was young so I don't feel swept away by hysteria on the subject .
We also used to have a series 1 Landrover with side facing rear benches and no belts anywhere .
I suppose you could put lap belts into your rear benches , not ideal but a nod towards legality if needs be .
From memory , the cutoff date before which seatbelts are not required , and where even young children may be carried unrestrained , is somewhere around 1964 . My 1957 and 1963 cars have no seatbelts , although I have yet to take my 4 yo son out in either of them , however my grown up daughter used to travel in the older one when she was young just as I travelled in my dad's cars without seatbelts when I was young so I don't feel swept away by hysteria on the subject .
We also used to have a series 1 Landrover with side facing rear benches and no belts anywhere .
I suppose you could put lap belts into your rear benches , not ideal but a nod towards legality if needs be .
Pontoneer appears a little confused by two different pieces of legislation. Cars were not required by law to have front seatbelts until April 1965 - any car first registered after this date has to have them, any car first registered before then does not have to have them by law (although of course many had been so fitted by that time). The last time I owned a pre-1965 car (early 1990s) I found out that there was an interesting quirk in the MOT regulations, in that if you had a car first registered before April 1965 that was fitted with seat belts, the car could not be failed at MOT if they didn't work (you'd probably get an advisory from the tester if he found it, but he couldn't fail the car on it because it was optional equipment at the time.) I presume that this is still the case.
The legislation for rear seat belts came in later - IIRC (can't be arsed to research it
) sometime in the 1980s. But the same situation would apply as to front seat belts - if they weren't a legal requirement at the time the car was first registered then they are not compulsory.
If your vehicle doesn't have any fitted, then my guess would be that they are not required - after all, it would have had a few MOTs over the years, and if they needed to have been fitted then somebody would have put them in at some time.
The legislation for rear seat belts came in later - IIRC (can't be arsed to research it
) sometime in the 1980s. But the same situation would apply as to front seat belts - if they weren't a legal requirement at the time the car was first registered then they are not compulsory.If your vehicle doesn't have any fitted, then my guess would be that they are not required - after all, it would have had a few MOTs over the years, and if they needed to have been fitted then somebody would have put them in at some time.
As a former motorhome owner this is a subject I looked into, but ultimately decided that I would buy a van which had seatbelt for all passengengers. However here is some advice from a campervan site.
[i]Do passengers in the back have to wear seat belts?
The short answer is:
No, you do not need to fit seat belts for passengers in the back.
However, if you are carrying passengers in the back you must discuss and declare this to your insurance copany. It is very likely that your insurance company will not let you travel with passengers in the back unless they are in forward facing seats and have a 3-point seat belt.
If there are seat belts they must be worn.
It is not advised to travel seated sideways in the back.
I contact the Department of Transport in the UK and they gave me these guidelines:
"Our advice is that passengers are safest in a forward or rearward facing seat equipped with a three-point seat belt. Seat belt anchorage points should be designed so that they will be capable of withstanding the high forces of an impact and seat belts must comply with the latest British or European standards and be marked accordingly with either the 'e', 'E' or BS 'Kitemark'. We strongly recommend that they are professionally installed by qualified persons (such as a commercial garage or seatbelt specialist).
Although side facing seats, with or without seat belts, are not illegal, we would not advise that they are used. This is because seat belts are not designed to be used with such seats. In the event of an accident, seat belts on these side facing seats may help to prevent the wearer being thrown around the vehicle or from being ejected, but in a frontal crash they can increase injury risk by subjecting vulnerable parts of the body to higher loads than seat belts used on forward facing seats.
If you intend to carry children aged 12 years or under, the seat belt wearing regulations require them to use a suitable child restraint. You should bear in mind that child restraints cannot be fitted to side facing seats. In order to fit the required child restraints, you would need to have forward or rearward facing seats with full three-point seat belts. "
They also advises me that:
The Department [of Transport] cannot give an authoritative interpretation of the law; that is a matter for the courts.[/i]
So common sense would dictate that you should not carry unrestrained passengers, but if you intend to you should advise your insurer.
[i]Do passengers in the back have to wear seat belts?
The short answer is:
No, you do not need to fit seat belts for passengers in the back.
However, if you are carrying passengers in the back you must discuss and declare this to your insurance copany. It is very likely that your insurance company will not let you travel with passengers in the back unless they are in forward facing seats and have a 3-point seat belt.
If there are seat belts they must be worn.
It is not advised to travel seated sideways in the back.
I contact the Department of Transport in the UK and they gave me these guidelines:
"Our advice is that passengers are safest in a forward or rearward facing seat equipped with a three-point seat belt. Seat belt anchorage points should be designed so that they will be capable of withstanding the high forces of an impact and seat belts must comply with the latest British or European standards and be marked accordingly with either the 'e', 'E' or BS 'Kitemark'. We strongly recommend that they are professionally installed by qualified persons (such as a commercial garage or seatbelt specialist).
Although side facing seats, with or without seat belts, are not illegal, we would not advise that they are used. This is because seat belts are not designed to be used with such seats. In the event of an accident, seat belts on these side facing seats may help to prevent the wearer being thrown around the vehicle or from being ejected, but in a frontal crash they can increase injury risk by subjecting vulnerable parts of the body to higher loads than seat belts used on forward facing seats.
If you intend to carry children aged 12 years or under, the seat belt wearing regulations require them to use a suitable child restraint. You should bear in mind that child restraints cannot be fitted to side facing seats. In order to fit the required child restraints, you would need to have forward or rearward facing seats with full three-point seat belts. "
They also advises me that:
The Department [of Transport] cannot give an authoritative interpretation of the law; that is a matter for the courts.[/i]
So common sense would dictate that you should not carry unrestrained passengers, but if you intend to you should advise your insurer.
'
From your post it sounds like we could use the side facing seat to transport a passenger.
At the moment we have my wifes parents to stay. We have two young kids and want to travel in the same vehicle for days out etc. I thought ( incorrectly it seems) that we could not all fit in the T25. But I can put the mother in law in the small side seat without any hassles.
Mike
Corpulent Tosser said:
Lots of sensible informative stuff.....
Thanks for that. Really useful - we have a 1982 T25 camper. It has two front seats, one rear facing seat with three point seat belt, two forward facing rear seats with lap belts, plus a small side facing seat without any belts at all.From your post it sounds like we could use the side facing seat to transport a passenger.
At the moment we have my wifes parents to stay. We have two young kids and want to travel in the same vehicle for days out etc. I thought ( incorrectly it seems) that we could not all fit in the T25. But I can put the mother in law in the small side seat without any hassles.
Mike
rs1952 said:
I found out that there was an interesting quirk in the MOT regulations, in that if you had a car first registered before April 1965 that was fitted with seat belts, the car could not be failed at MOT if they didn't work
As far as I was aware if equipment that is not legally required is in fact fitted to a vehicle, then it is part of the MOT test. Hence if seat belts in a pre 65 car aren't up to test standard, they have to be removed to pass.
Similarly if say a passenger seat belt is faulty on a modern car, the test can be passed by removing the seat, as the seat is not a legal requirement.
rs1952 said:
Pontoneer appears a little confused by two different pieces of legislation. Cars were not required by law to have front seatbelts until April 1965 - any car first registered after this date has to have them, any car first registered before then does not have to have them by law (although of course many had been so fitted by that time). The last time I owned a pre-1965 car (early 1990s) I found out that there was an interesting quirk in the MOT regulations, in that if you had a car first registered before April 1965 that was fitted with seat belts, the car could not be failed at MOT if they didn't work (you'd probably get an advisory from the tester if he found it, but he couldn't fail the car on it because it was optional equipment at the time.) I presume that this is still the case.
The legislation for rear seat belts came in later - IIRC (can't be arsed to research it ) sometime in the 1980s. But the same situation would apply as to front seat belts - if they weren't a legal requirement at the time the car was first registered then they are not compulsory.
If your vehicle doesn't have any fitted, then my guess would be that they are not required - after all, it would have had a few MOTs over the years, and if they needed to have been fitted then somebody would have put them in at some time.
I am aware of the different legislations re fitment of front and rear seats and approximately when they came in .The legislation for rear seat belts came in later - IIRC (can't be arsed to research it
) sometime in the 1980s. But the same situation would apply as to front seat belts - if they weren't a legal requirement at the time the car was first registered then they are not compulsory.If your vehicle doesn't have any fitted, then my guess would be that they are not required - after all, it would have had a few MOTs over the years, and if they needed to have been fitted then somebody would have put them in at some time.
Incidentally , the legislations regarding fitment of belts and use of them being compulsory was not the same ( although the requirement to actually wear belts came in around the same time as the requirement for new vehicles to have rear belts fitted ) .
One anomaly that existed when compulsory wearing came in was that if you had an older ( pre 65 ) car which did not require to have belts fitted , but had them anyway , there was no requirement to wear them - this was subsequently changed to ' must be worn if fitted ' .
I think I am correct in saying that the exemption which allows children to travel unrestrained in pre 65 cars with no belts fitted does not apply to later cars with no rear belts , but I would need to check to be certain .
The MOT regs do quite clearly state that side facing seats do not need belts ; there was also something about seats not intended for use while travelling ; but the rules regarding wearing of belts are vague in this area .
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff