Seat belts and motorhomes / camper vans

[Jet]

Can anyone point me in the direction of the law on seat belts in camper vans?

Is it illegal for a 11 year old child to be carried in the back of a camper van in a seat with no seat belt if all the other seat belts have been taken by other passengers?

thanks.

[MX5huggy]

It's complicated

http://www.ukmotorhomes.net/faqs.shtml#seatbelts

I would want the youngest person to have the belts.

[Jet]

I'd found that information and can't work it out. :confused:

The motorhome in question is a W reg, so registered around the year 2000.

I think I'm right in assuming that if there isn't a seat belt available, he doesn't have to wear one?

Does it not make a difference if the passenger is a child?

My ex has been carrying our son around unrestrained again after me asking him twice not to. His girlfriend gets a seat belt but not our son.

[mikey72]

When you say he's 11, it's depends on when he's 12, as the existing rules change dependent on age.
There is also another change in the actual rules in May.
Look at
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/aboutria/ria/amendmenttotheseatbeltwearin5501?page=1
para 14
"- that, from May 2009 (and not earlier), in vehicles where seat belts are provided, the number of passengers carried may not exceed the number of seat belts or child restraints provided."

It's retrospective, so while it's ok, (but stupid) at the moment, from May it won't be.
However as he's 11 he should wear a seatbelt where available, so she should be in the back until he's 12 anyway.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/child/aryseatbeltwearingrequir4636.pdf

There is an interpretation from May that if no belts are fitted in just the rear, none need to be, but if any are fitted, all passengers need them. Other interpretations include the cab seats though.
For my own part, I have fitted lap belts in the rear of my van years ago, one kid travels in the cab, two in the back with belts, and my wife who hasn't a belt.
From May I need to fit one for her, even though she's in a rear facing seat.

[MX5huggy]

Thats ambigious, does that mean that I cant ride in back of a car with no seat belts in theback? so my 4 seater classic become only a 2 seater. but my 4 seater vintage with no seat belts at all I can continue to carry 4 people?

[mikey72]

Thats ambigious, does that mean that I cant ride in back of a car with no seat belts in theback? so my 4 seater classic become only a 2 seater. but my 4 seater vintage with no seat belts at all I can continue to carry 4 people?
Yes
"23. More significantly, however, those who currently need to carry more adults and children than there are seat belts (such as large families) will be required from 2009 to use a larger or second vehicle. We cannot reliably estimate how many people or vehicles this will affect but it could have significant financial implications if a standard saloon car had to be changed for a "people carrier". However, these vehicles have been available for several years now and are available second-hand."

Not been well publicised has it?
I only know as I've a motorhome affected, and it's been a favourite topic on there.
If you have an older car without a lap belt in the middle, it's a four seater soon.

[Jet]

My son is 12 next March. So at the moment, until May, he should be sitting in the front seat with a seat belt and any adults should be sitting in an unrestrained seat and that will be legal? Obviously there is a concern about an adult sitting unrestrained behind a child in the front with a seat belt on.

And from May onwards it will be illegal for him to transport more people than there are seat belts? Regardless of age.

[mikey72]

Yes to the first bit.
Maybe to the second. It's open to interpretation.
If you include the belted seats in the cab, yes, but if you only count the conversion seat belts, if there are none fitted, then he is ok to travel unless some seats in the back have them, then they all should if they carry people in them. Common sense would say the cab should be included, but it's down to the actual wording.
I have fitted some to two of the rear seats so I fall foul either way.

[Jet]

Yes to the first bit.
Maybe to the second. It's open to interpretation.
If you include the belted seats in the cab, yes, but if you only count the conversion seat belts, if there are none fitted, then he is ok to travel unless some seats in the back have them, then they all should if they carry people in them. Common sense would say the cab should be included, but it's down to the actual wording.
I have fitted some to two of the rear seats so I fall foul either way.

I'm confused. The motorhome has 2 seat belts for driver and front passenger and 2 seat belts in the back for 2 front facing seats. There are 2 rear facing seats and several other seats at the back (rear and side facing) all with no seat belts.

[MX5huggy]

Jet is the child in question still under 135cm tall?

[mikey72]

So there are 4 seat belts in all, and three people in the van.
Do you mean he just doesn't wear a selt belt?
Not that there aren't any fitted for him.

[Jet]

Jet is the child in question still under 135cm tall?

No, he's around 145cm.

There are 4 seat belts and on this occassion, there were 5 passengers, 2 adults and 3 children. My son was the child without the seat belt.

[mikey72]

Clear cut answer.
One of the adults should have been un-restrained.
All the children should have been in belts, using the cab seat.
From May the van can only carry 4 people, to carry 5 an extra belt must be fitted.
Sideways facing seats cannot have belts, so cannot be used for carrying passengers from May

[Jet]

Thank you everyone for your help.

I've asked my ex several times for this not to happen for safety reasons if not legal reasons. Now I feel a letter coming on as he doesn't listen when I talk to him. Don't know why I have to point this out to him. :confused:

[mikey72]

I suggest you leave it a couple of weeks until May, then it's less confusing with the new act in force.
No arguements on age, size etc, just number of passengers = number of belts.

[Jet]

I suggest you leave it a couple of weeks until May, then it's less confusing with the new act in force.
No arguements on age, size etc, just number of passengers = number of belts.

Unfortunately, he will be seeing son before May and I couldn't live with myself if something happened, so I'm going to have to say something before then.

So, just for argument, what would happen if there were 4 kids and two adults (including one driver)? Assuming this happened before May.

[mikey72]

The pecking order says wear belts "where available", so one kid and one adult could be un-restrained before May, assuming you have the seats.