New seat belt requirements for children
New seat belt requirements for children
Author
Discussion

Dwight VanDriver

Original Poster:

6,583 posts

274 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
Those of you that carry tots about in vehicles may not know that new laws are promised w.e.f September this year:

http://tinyurl.com/q35lp

enjoy.

dvd

autismuk

1,529 posts

270 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
See the Stormtroopers are making advice mandatory again, backed up with the usual fines.

Why can't this (bleeping) bunch of (bleeps) just (bleep) off and stop interfering ? It's not like any of their grand schemes actually *work* or anything !

speedchick

5,288 posts

252 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
So now, for my two children (age 8 and 10), who can sit quite safely in the rear of the car with normal seatbelts working fine, I have to go out and buy two boosters for them!

Great, more bloomin expense

toolsnstuff-couk

9,396 posts

288 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
Why dont they go and deal with all the idiots who have 5 kids in the car no seat belts on and babies sat on their knees rather than make it tougher for law abiding folk

ripton

429 posts

262 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
Anyone know waht the difference between a booster seat and a booster cushion is?

Chris

speedchick

5,288 posts

252 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
ripton said:
Anyone know waht the difference between a booster seat and a booster cushion is?

Chris


Probably about £15 now we all have to go out and buy them!

Seriously.... haven't a clue

trevorh

1,359 posts

314 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
Note to self - don't comment without reading about the facts!

>> Edited by trevorh on Thursday 2nd March 10:50

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

274 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
FAQ said:
in vehicles where seat belts are fitted, children 3 years to 135 cm in height (approx 4ft 5ins) MUST use the appropriate child restraint.

What a fantastic example of mixing units;
q: How old is your child?
a: Three feet six.

or

You know I could have sworn your John was 3 months taller than that.

minicity

1,009 posts

261 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
Can anyone please confirm the (current) legality of three people sitting in the back of a car that only has two rear seatbelts?

dogwatch

6,383 posts

252 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
minicity said:
Can anyone please confirm the (current) legality of three people sitting in the back of a car that only has two rear seatbelts?



Probably an insurance claim declined as car is only seated for 4 people, never mind the damage caused by unrestrained body flying about.

I note he exceptions allow an exemption for journeys over short distances (school run?). Could lead to some interesting arguments over the definition of short.

ripton

429 posts

262 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
facist numpties said:
from May 2009, in vehicles fitted with seat belts, the number of passengers carried must not exceed the number of seat belts or child restraints.

minicity

1,009 posts

261 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
dogwatch said:
minicity said:
Can anyone please confirm the (current) legality of three people sitting in the back of a car that only has two rear seatbelts?



Probably an insurance claim declined as car is only seated for 4 people, never mind the damage caused by unrestrained body flying about.

I note he exceptions allow an exemption for journeys over short distances (school run?). Could lead to some interesting arguments over the definition of short.


Thanks - though we'd be in the same position in an old car with no rear belts at all.

The "short journey" thing is a massive loop-hole. Very suprised it's in there.

TheDarkSide

640 posts

254 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
interfering muppets said:
from May 2009, in vehicles fitted with seat belts, the number of passengers carried must not exceed the number of seat belts or child restraints.


So what about cars built before the advent of rear seatbelts? Does that mean my '78 Viva now has to be a two seater? 'Cos I'm sure as fk not going to fit rear belts to it... it's managed for 28 years without them FFS!

havoc

33,456 posts

265 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
minicity said:
Thanks - though we'd be in the same position in an old car with no rear belts at all.

Now THAT is an interesting thought. What about all the classic car owners? Are they going to have to get belts retro-fitted? Are the oldest going to be banned from the road if they have no belts at all?

Anyone know for sure?

simonrockman

7,128 posts

285 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
Normally I'm the first to be up in arms about any new anti-car legislation, but I have to say I approve of this one. Booster seats are not that expensive - certainly less than a tankful of petrol - and they make a huge difference to child safety. If you are too short the belt will strangle you in an accident. The belt must go across the chest, not the neck. I insist on one for my eight year old.

A child in a proper seat (Recaro have some great ones) is many times safer than the driver.
www.thinkbaby.co.uk/review/brandpage/mps/ubn/5090/brandname/Recaro


Simon

purpleheadedcerb

1,143 posts

252 months

Thursday 2nd March 2006
quotequote all
"15. Do the rules apply in cars not fitted with seatbelts?

Children under 3 must use the appropriate child restraint in all cases - there is no exemption for them in vehicles with no seatbelts in the rear, such as classic cars. However, children 3 years to 135 cm height may be carried in the rear of such vehicles without restraints but they can only go in the front if they use the correct child seat or booster."

I read that as classic cars not requiring them. We have a Triumph Stag that doesn't have seatbelts and we can comfortably fit four kids between the age of 3 and 8 in quite nicely. Who needs a people carrier!

Chris D

122 posts

247 months

Sunday 5th March 2006
quotequote all
lambo cop said:
Curiosity question for fellow Bib,

When dealing with children in the back of cars, that are not sitting down and are either standing between front seats or standing / kneeling on the rear seat facing backwards, do you ticket for Child no seat belt FPN(N) or Dangerous Load FPN(E) ?




I generally go down the route of Dangerous condition (123) - by virtue of 'the manner in which passengers are carried'. There really is no excuse for putting children in danger in this way.

Chris D

122 posts

247 months

Sunday 5th March 2006
quotequote all
dogwatch said:
I note he exceptions allow an exemption for journeys over short distances (school run?). Could lead to some interesting arguments over the definition of short.


I have never yet heard of a 'short journey' loophole. If seat belts are fitted - they have to be worn. The only short-journey exemptions for seat belts are for those making house-to-house type deliveries.

groomi

9,331 posts

273 months

Sunday 5th March 2006
quotequote all
purpleheadedcerb said:
We have a Triumph Stag that doesn't have seatbelts and we can comfortably fit four kids between the age of 3 and 8 in quite nicely. Who needs a people carrier!



:devilsadvocatemodeon:
Bearing in mind that even the safest drivers can have serious accidents caused by other drivers/factors, does carrying four children unrestrained in the back of a 30 year old car seem like a safe/sensible/responsible thing to do?

:devilsadvocatemodeoff:

wolf1

3,100 posts

280 months

Sunday 5th March 2006
quotequote all
Wolfcub1 Rides in an earlier encarnation of the Recaro start (no speakers) I was lucky enough to pick it up from Halfrauds at a massive discount (I was only trying to shelter from the rain honest!) Excellent seat with the ability to adjust to a growing child.
I will admit to allowing him to ride up front in the race van without a booster from time to time but will have to remember to switch his seat over from the car in future.