Conference terri::cars_uk

    Wearing rear seat belts will be mandatory as of Dec 1st over here in
    France. That applies to cars fitted with rear seat belts. New cars MUST
    have rear seat belts starting Dec 1st.

I thought it has been compulsory for new cars in UK to have rear seat belts
fitted for a couple of years now?

Scott

    
    Yes, new cars have had to have seat belts in the rear for about two
    years. I don't know why they didn't include the compulsory wearing of
    back seatbelts at the same time they made front ones law. As a front
    seat driver/passenger I don't see why I should be 'safely' strapped in,
    only to be killed by the back seat passengers head trying to occupy the
    same space as mine! 
    
    (For the same reason all dogs etc in the back should be restrained -
    several pounds of flying poodle isn't going to do anyone any good)

    Re: .0  About time too!

    I strongly agree with the previous replies. The test mentionned in
    another note (crash test at 56kph) shows accelerations in the
    80-200g's. A 10kg dog would become a 2ton projectile ...

    Existing law requires that under-14 year olds wear seats belts in
    the rear of cars that have them fitted.  The number of unrestrained
    children that I see in new car is horrific.  
     
    Why do parents do this?

	If there's a seatbelt wherever I'm sat, I put it on.  You are also
	quite correct about children under 14 having to wear seatbelts in the
	back (why 14?).  Mind you, the number of kids without seatbelts in
	cars under 2 years old is quite remarkable - what are these people
	think they're doing?  I can't think why the mandatory wearing of
	seat belts has not been introduced long ago!

	Dave

I saw a saloon with a kid of about 3 lying across the parcel shelf a few years
ago. Make you wonder eh!

Simon

    > A 10kg dog would become a 2ton projectile ...
    
    My 30kg Saluki cross doesn't need to be in a car to do this :-)
    
    Jeff (who stands very still when being buzzed at 30mph)

    
    How many of you put your briefcase on the back seat????
    
    I think I mentioned it before in here somewhere, but my brother is a
    few inches shorter because of a briefcase ....

    But the back seat is well below the top of the front seats.  Perhaps
    one might get a bruised back through the seat?
    
    Rob.

    
    In my brothers crash, the briefcase hit him through the back seat and
    broke his back in 5 places .....                 

    
    
    A few years ago I had a headon in a BX. I am a FSE so carry a lot of
    kit in the boot. I was carted off to Basingstoke District hospital and
    my boss came to pick up my tools, scope, manuals etc. There was nothing
    in the boot! The whole lot was in the car having pushed the rear seat
    back forward. Yes, for safety sake poeple, dogs, tools needs to be
    restained.
    
    Ian.

  At least people won't look at me with that expression that says "Omigosh,
  he can't drive" anymore :-)

  But seriously - it's *always* been a rule for my back seat drivers - it stops
  them reaching over for the steering wheel :-)

  Andy

    Thought you might like to see the full text of an EC directive and look
    at the implications:
    
    Quote
    Amendment to the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation
    of the laws of the Member States relating to the compulsory use of
    safety belts in vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes.....
    
    ...The Commisions proposal of 26 October 1988...is herby modified as
    follows:....
    
    1.....shall require that the driver and front seat passengers of
    vehicles...first registered on or after 1 March 1979 wear approved
    safety belts or are restained by an approved restraint system. 
    Children of 12 years of age or older may wear the approved adult safety
    belt.  younger children may occupy the front passenger seat provided
    they are restrained by a system, separate from or additional to the
    adult type safety belt, and suitable for the child's age and weight.
    
    2..... no later than 1 January 1993 passengers aged 12 years or older
    occupying the forward-facing rear seats of vehicles...first registered
    on or after 1 January 1990 wearapproved safety belts or are restrained
    by an approved restraint system.
    
    3..... no later than 1 June 1991 all children up to 12 years of age
    ..occupying the rear forward facing seats..irrespective of date of
    registration wear a restraint where one is available......
    
    ...... no later than 1 January 1993 the driver and front seat
    passengers of vehicles...first registered on ar after 1 October 1991
    wear approved safety belts or ....restraint system.
    
    Children of 12 years of age or older may wear the adult type safety
    belt.  younger children may occupy the front passenger seat provided
    they are restrained by a system separate from or additional to the
    adult safety belt and suitable for the child's age and weight......
    
    Endquote
    
    Interesting stuff about children, especially as my 11 year old daughter
    is already as tall as her mother and costs as much to feed.  When is a
    young adult not a young adult ??
    
    Doug

    Re:.15

    Does this mean that a child under 12 can sit in the front passenger
    seat as long as they are in a baby/child seat or if older a "booster"
    cushion, but in the rear seat they "wear a restraint where one is
    available". 

    Is this saying that the law only requires that a child under 12 can be 
    strapped in the rear seats without a booster seat ?

    I read this as minimum standards for member states to enact. It is thus
    open to member states to enact stricter standards, or enact sooner, or
    a combination. Thus if the UK insists on all passengers beeing trussed
    like turkeys by the end of next week, that is OK.
    
    Steve

    Re: .16
    
    The first part of your statement is correct. I checked this out when I
    bought a vehicle where a child-seat would not physically fit on the
    back seat, so the front was the only alternative.
    
    Dunno about the second part though.
    
    JK

    
    VTX has a report to the effect that this will be introduced by July,
    confirming the original note.
    
    I don't much like wearing seat belts in the back, but I'll do so if
    it becomes law, I guess like for a lot of older front seat passengers
    it's just a case of what you've become used to.
    
    Mark

    I read in, I think, a copy of What Car? a report of an accident that
    gave me the shivers.
    
    A family was driving along a straight main road at legal speed, minding
    their own business on the correct side of the road, when somebody
    travelling the othewr way decided to overtake. A head-on collision
    occurred. Thw wife was driving, and survived the impact. The baby was
    in a correctly fitted rear facing baby seat fitted in the front, and
    survived the inpact. The toddler was in a forward facing child seat in
    the back, and survived the impact. The husband, seated in the back
    unbelted, travelled out of the front windscreen. Wife and baby were
    killed by the flailing body of the exiting husband. Only the toddler
    survived the whole incident.
    
    I think I like wearing belts in the back, however comfortable or
    otherwise.
    
    Steve

    Compulsary or not, my car has got rear seat belts and people wear them.
    (The alterantive is WALKING)
    
    Flying Dutchman
    

In the case where the front seat occupant is wearing a belt and the rear
seat occupant is not, the risk of death is greater for the front seat
occupant then for the rear seat occupant.

This is because the rear seat occupant (if they do not fly some other 
place) will crash into the back of the front seat, compressing the body of 
the front seat occupant against the seat belt.  This often results in 
massive internal injuries which are rapidly fatal (ruptured aorta or 
heart).

If you don't insist your rear seat passengers wear belts (which are fitted
in all newer cars) you could be signing your own death warrant.

jb

    
    
    When will busses be fitted with seat belts?
    When will coaches be fitted with seat belts?

    Do MPVs (Espaces etc) have seat belts for rear passengers?

    
    

    
    What happens if you have a car with 2 rear seat belts? Will it be
    illegal to carry a  3rd rear passenger?
    
    Mark

    re .24
    
    It probably is already illegal to carry 5 people in a car constructed
    to carry only 4.
    
    Andrew

    �2 rear seat belts? Will it be illegal to carry a  3rd rear passenger?
    
    I understand that the ruling exists only for where seat belts are
    fitted. So if you have a 5 seater car and only 2 belts in the back I
    can't see how it would be illegal to carry a 3rd person in the back.
    
    - Roy

�    fitted. So if you have a 5 seater car and only 2 belts in the back I
    
    Although I would expect that if a car is designated as a '5 seater',
    it probably has to be fitted with 3 rear belts (of which the centre
    belt is usually 'static').
    
    J.R.

    You can only carry three in the back if your car is designated a 4/5
    seater (assuming you have two seats in the front of course!).
    
    If you carry any more, either in the back or the front, I believe it
    invalidates your insurance and probably breaks some other law as well!
    
    JK (who hase been known tobe wrong!)

    
    Re .28
    
    Who designates it as such?
    
    Mark

>    Who designates it as such?
 
	I know insurance companies do.........I don't know if it's a pure 
	insurance issue, or if it invalidates it because its against the law.

	When I tried to get insurance for the Landrover, they asked me what 
	"seater" it was.

	Being honest, I said it had a bench seat across the front, and one along
	each side at the back.

	They said that it was a seven seater, and that standard insurances 
	couldn't be used. When I said that there would normally only be 1 or 2
	people, and definately never seven, thay only gave me the insurance
	if I signed to say their would never be more than 5 people in it.

	I asked them, at the time, what if I had 6 people in the Montego, and 
	they said that my insurance would be invalid if I had more than 5.

	Royal Insurance through Swinton Insurance broker

	Heather

Re: .29

The seating capacity of a vehicle is determined by the manufacturer.

jb

    
    re .31
    
    How do you find out what they call the car in terms of a 'n-seater'?
    
    Mark

    
>    How do you find out what they call the car in terms of a 'n-seater'?
    
By the number of seatbelts they have fitted ?

;^)

    Surely most cars are 5 seaters these days. Even my Fiesta has 3 seat
    belts in the back.
    
    - Roy

    There were no setbelts fitted as standard in the landy - R reg.

    There have been two fitted to the front seats since.

    there are two bench-seat things along the side in the back...........the 
    insurers couldn't tell me the official "seatage", so how can you find out?

    Heather

    
    Similar situation to .35.
    
    I've go an old mini, with no rear seat belts.  Will I
    only be able to carry 1 passenger without breaking the law,
    or will I have to fit rear seat belts ?
    
    Help !
    
    

    
    If your car didn't have them fitted when new, you don't have to have
    seat belts (assuming of course it was legal when new). You may wish
    to fit them, but there is no legal compulsion to do so.
    
    Mark

Land Rover will tell you the design seating capacity for every model and variant
they've ever made if you give them a call.

Brian

    
    Well it's law now and I've been keeping an occasional eye out for 
    back seat passengers.
    
    First I saw a 6 (or so) year old child's legs sticking up in the back 
    window! Obviously she wasn't wearing a seatbelt and on closer
    examination I discovered neither of the front seat occupants were
    either! Some people.
    
    I also spotted a bloke who looked about 6'6" in the back of a Fiesta
    not wearing a belt, but I doubt it would have been much use as it would 
    have crossed his upper arm and abdomen rather than shoulder and chest.
    
    Mark
    

    
>    First I saw a 6 (or so) year old child's legs sticking up in the back 
    
    	I think that the law only applies to persons over 14 years,
    children below 14 only require seatbelts if proper child seatbelts are
    fitted (the law from a couple of years ago).
    
    
    mb

    > I think that the law only applies to persons over 14 years,
    
    Haven't we been here before ?
    
    The way I understand it is that if seat belts are fitted front or back
    they should be worn. If the person is under 14 it is the drivers
    responsibility to ensure they are used. The rear belt law applies to
    everyone no matter what age.
    
    With regard to front seat passengers. Children under 12 must use
    additional restraint/seat designed for the purpose.
    
    - Roy (It makes me sick to see children "floating" around in cars, law
    or no law. It shows the parents/driver has no concern for safety.)

    > If the person is under 14 it is the drivers
    > responsibility to ensure they are used. 
    
    Delete "If the person is under 14".
    
    Jeff.

    
>    Delete "If the person is under 14".
    
 
	I thought that it was the passengers responsibility if they were 
	over 14.

	It's definately the passenger that gets fined.

	Heather

re .42 and .43

I checked this once.  For child passengers, the driver is legally responsible.
For adult passengers, the passenger is legally responsible.

So if a passenger gets in my car, and I drive away with them not wearing a seat
belt, and Mr Plod stops us for this, the passenger gets fined, not me.

Scott

but I think you can be done for aiding and abetting.

Simon (who wishes DECwindow notes had a spelling checker)

    I read somewhere that if required, children must use a booster cushion 
    as well as a seat belt..
    
    ..Craig 

    Scott, how long ago was "once"?  When I read about the new law, I'm
    sure it said that the driver was responsible for ensuring that rear
    seat passengers used their seat belts.
    
    In any case, the driver has a simple solution if anyone refuses.  I for
    one don't want to be killed by 12 stone of flying flesh and bones
    hitting me from the rear.
    
    Jeff.

Re .47

I made my enquiries when front seat belts became compulsory, or 4 years ago
when I passed my test, whichever is the most recent, I can't remember...

Re .45

Maybe the law's changed, but I was told that it is solely the (adult) 
passenger's responsibility.  I made a specific point of ensuring that the driver
was not in any way liable, as my brother refuses to wear a seat belt and I
didn't want to get nicked through his stupidity if he was a passenger in my
car...

Obviously the situation with child passengers is differnt.

re .47 again

Do you leave *anything* eg briefcase unsecured on the backseat.  I've heard 
stories (in here?) of life-long paralysis due to broken backs caused by this...

Scott

    
    The only thing I want in the back of a car I drive, is the engine.
    
    Bill.

                
    I've not heard about child booster seats being compulsory - advised,
    yes, but not law. Children may occaisionally be given lifts by people
    who don't have seats - you can't expect people to have them 'just in
    case'

	The Mail on Sunday said it was soley the adult passengers 
	responsibility, and it is that adult that would be fined.

	The driver has no responsability whatsoever for ensuring adult 
	passengers wore seatbelts in the back.


	Is the Mail wrong?


	Heather

    .51�	Is the Mail wrong?
    
    I don't think so.  That was how I understood the new laws.
    
    
    Ian.

Ahhh Gi'day...�

    That's great.   The  law  in  Oz  states  now  is  that  the  driver is
    responsible  for  EVERYBODY  in  the  car,  and  loses 2 points off the
    licence for each person unbuckled. Children MUST have a child harness.

    Well I stand corrected.  But I still think the driver should be made
    responsible - after all, he is the captain of the ship.  Maybe you
    could charge your brother (a few back) with mutiny :-)
    
    Jeff.

Hi Jeff,

>> maybe you should charge your brother for mutiny

Actually, I charge him for the petrol, a far more profitable arrangement!

:-)

Scott

>Actually, I charge him for the petrol, a far more profitable arrangement!

Does your insurance company know that you are running a profit making concern
from your car ! :^)

	Alex

    ditto HM Inspector of Taxes? :-)
    

Ha ha ha.

But on a serious note, what are the insurance (ie if I'm insured for
"personal" use only) and tax implications for accepting "petrol money" for
transporting people/goods as a "favour", rather than as a "business"?

Scott

>But on a serious note, what are the insurance (ie if I'm insured for
>"personal" use only) and tax implications for accepting "petrol money" for
>transporting people/goods as a "favour", rather than as a "business"?

should say on your policy - on mine I can accept money as long as its
not for personal gain - don't know how they enforce that though!?



...art

    It's perfectly acceptable to accept reimbursement for petrol on a
    pro-rata basis (though this only dates from several years ago -
    previous to that, it was not).
    
    You only have a problem if you get into a "hire and reward" situation.
    
    Jeff.

    re - few
    
    All this would be very difficult to prove anyway!

How does the new law work if you have 4 people in the back and only 3
seat belts?


Greg

It all depends if your car is designed for 4 in the back. I believe most cars
are only meant to have three in the back, any more may be overloading.

I stand to be corrected

Simon

re .62 and .63

Also, your insurance will be invalid if you have more people in the back than
the car was designed to carry.

Scott

I thought that the wording of the law was something in the order of :-

you have to wear a belt whilst riding in the rear seat of a vehicle, if one
is available....

i.e. 2 seatbelts and 3 people, only 2 wear the belts...given that the vehicle 
was designed to carry 5 people, of course...

    ...but how many people is a child ? On the buses a child is .66 of an
    adult, i.e. 3children to a seat.
    
    	Tony.

    Didn't see Kenneth Baker wearing one the other day. Honestly! (hmph)
    

    Letter in today's "Telegraph":
    
    SIR -
    
    I am sincerely sorry that the Queen's lady-in-waiting, the Duchess of
    Grafton, was thrown to the floor of the royal car in a near accident
    (report, Oct 31).
    
    But, presuming she is subject to the same law as myself, would this
    have happened if she had been wearing a seatbelt?
    
    Name and Address Deleted.
    

    
    Maybe the Royal Car is older than the N years that cars must have rear
    seatbelts?
    
    Mark

re.69:

Yea and they're really strapped for cash!

Dave :-)