Older cars and seat belts

[Graeme]

All this talk of older vehicles brings to mind another question. My MM Traveller has front belts only. Completely ignoring the safety or moral aspect for a moment, does anyone know the legal position regarding carrying two passengers, one adult, one seven year old child? I know the laws have changed recently - with front belts only, should the child sit in the front, protected by the (adult) belt, with the adult in the rear, without belts?

Just in case anyone wonders, the journey involved is a few hundred yards around our village, in a parade, travelling at 5 to perhaps 10 m.p.h., so not exactly the M1.

[Adrian]

Graeme gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Perfectly legal. If the car's old enough not to need rear belts, it's perfectly OK for rear passengers (including kids) to be unbelted - unless they've been fitted, in which case they must be worn.

If the kid ain't big enough for adult belts, then that would be illegal, AIUI.

[dennis]

I would check that.. AIUI if there are seat belts e.g. in the front the child must use them with a suitable restraint. You can not just put the child in the rear seat and say there are no seat belts.

There are some obvious exceptions like if you already have a child in the available seat belts.

There are no exceptions for children under three AIUI, they must be is a restraint or you can't use the car.

As would putting them in the rear without a belt AIUI.

I recall a TV interview with a senior PO.. an idiot mom wanted to know if they could have their kid unbelted in her new sports car as she couldn't get a suitable restraint.. the PO told her she had to get a suitable restraint or a new car, the choice was hers.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The seat belt laws ain't retrospective. If the car wasn't fitted with belts - even front ones - from new you don't need them. That obviously only applies to cars made before fitting was required by law.

[Adrian]

"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

I don't think so. Discouraged, yes. Illegal, no.

Yes, I know this isn't actually the legal wording itself, but...

really don't see this sentence :- "The law will be changing in May 2009 to prevent the carrage of more passengers than there are seat belts, and the exact details of this law will be announced by the Department for Transport closer to the time." as applying to cars old enough to not require belts, as that would be tantamount to retrospective legislation on vehicle structures.

Which is a very different scenario, as the car is new enough to require seatbelts fitted to all seats.

[Lobster]

So isn't the solution be to put the kid in front with a booster seat or whatever which would make the adult belt appropriate?

David

[dennis]

Try here

[Graeme]

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

Yes indeed. I was not entirely sure of the position now that front belts have been fitted. Thanks to all the replies, and links, it seems that, in my situation, the child should sit in the rear, where seat belts are not available, even though a belt is available in the front seat. However, I think the best idea is to purchase a booster seat, and use it in the front seat, where a belt is available. Difficult. Front seat with a belt, or potentially safer rear seat, without a belt.

Air bags are not a problem, front or rear :-)

[Dave Liquorice]

That would be my choice.

But in your OP you said there was also an adult passenger who would now be on the back seat, unrestrained, just waiting to crush the person in front of them between seat and belt...

[Owain]

Any possibility of using a roof-rack to solve the problem ;-)

Owain

[Graeme]

Whoops. Yes, I'd forgotten that. Rear seat it is, for the child.