passengers in the back of a van?

[ColJack]

watching police stop again ( gotta stop watching that, gets me riled up... ), and they stopped a small van ( vw caddy i think.. ) and 4 women got out of the back..
they were getting a lift home after a night out..
the police said it was illegal since they didn't have seatbelts on..

so 2 questions sprang to mind from this...

1. How is it illegal when the buses still don't have seatbelts?
2. Aren't the police guilty of the same thing when they put someone in the back of a police van in the crim-cage? they don't make them wear seatblets then..

now typing this a follow on question from number 2 comes to mind..
if it's ok in a police van because there is a cage to stop the crim going through the windshield etc, then does that make it ok for a regular van that has a bulkhead fitted ( solid or mesh.. )?

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

I'm guessing if it had been a van with illegals in, they would have been told to drive on

 

[empip]

Gleaned from:-
http://www.ukmotorhomes.net/motorhome-faqs.shtml#seatbelts

...The advisability of carrying unrestrained passengers is another matter, to quote the DfT spokesman:

'... the police can already act where people in the rear of any vehicle are considered to be carried in a dangerous manner because they are unrestrained. [Owners] should beware of unbelted passengers. In a crash, they can injure others in the vehicle ...'.

In addition to considering the legal and safety issues involved, owners who intend to carry passengers in unbelted seats must check with their insurers to confirm that this is acceptable to them...

I should imagine the absence of seating would add grist to the mill here !

-o-

 

[Steve]

watching police stop again ( gotta stop watching that, gets me riled up... ), and they stopped a small van ( vw caddy i think.. ) and 4 women got out of the back..
they were getting a lift home after a night out..
the police said it was illegal since they didn't have seatbelts on..

so 2 questions sprang to mind from this...

1. How is it illegal when the buses still don't have seatbelts?

Perhaps the presence of grab bars on each seat and between seats and ceiling might excuse this (indeed coaches dont have grab bars, and have to have seatbelts). Or the fact that (theoretically) a bus will never decellerate as fast as a car. (I was on a bus once, and not a new one, the driver had to brake suddenly and it was as though the bus had hit a brick wall). Passengers are also allowed to stand on a bus, due to the presence of grab bars. I expect the fact that the driver is advance trained will be a contributory factor too.

2. Aren't the police guilty of the same thing when they put someone in the back of a police van in the crim-cage? they don't make them wear seatblets then..

now typing this a follow on question from number 2 comes to mind..
if it's ok in a police van because there is a cage to stop the crim going through the windshield etc, then does that make it ok for a regular van that has a bulkhead fitted ( solid or mesh.. )?

They usually deserve everything thats coming to them in the riot vans. In these vans, IIRC, every wall of the cage is made of polycarbonate, which is flexible but will not smash. This means crims cannot do much harm to themselves in there, it also means in the unlikely event of a crash, they wont come to much harm.

 

[Bodgeit and scarper ltd]

Its nothing to do with seat belts its the amount of seats, the police person used the wrong reason

 

[noseall]

Passengers are also allowed to stand on a bus, due to the presence of grab bars. I expect the fact that the driver is advance trained will be a contributory factor too.

I don't think the presence of grab rails alleviates the need for seat belts, or that because busses have grab rails then they don't have seat belts. For example, if a bus crashed at say 40mph and you were standing with your arm crooked around a grab rail, it would rip your arm off.

The lack of restraining belts on busses is probably a practical/usage issue.

 

[big-all]

the law simpley says you must wear a seat belt if provided
busses and coaches also trains have no requirement to fit them

you are not allowed to carry more people than the vehicle has seats for

sideways facing seats on "any " vehicle do not require seatbelts hence the un restrained prisoners

 

[ColJack]

so if i've boarded out the back of my van, can i claim the wheel arch boarding as a couple of sideways facing seats then?

 

[big-all]

as long as they are propper fitted seats and not a loose structure
it can be a plywood/wood structure with rigid foam cusions in a tray as long as they wont move when someone sits on them

 

[Bodgeit and scarper ltd]

so if i've boarded out the back of my van, can i claim the wheel arch boarding as a couple of sideways facing seats then?

and change seating on log book, also fit a bed sink cooker and wardrobe and change it to a camper van and you can do what you like in the back

 

[Thermo]

as long as it complies with the construction and use regulations youll be fine. And if you want to wade through that lot of legislation youre welcome to it!

 

[WDIK]

crown immunity

 

[big-all]

crown immunity

no seat belts required for side facing seats on any vehicle

 

[Thermo]

crown immunity

no vehicle has been correctly and safely adapted in line with the regulations, a couple of milk crates in teh back doesnt count!

 

[Whitespirit66]

I'm OK. My Transit has a double mattress in the back. Also, the van is never moving when its in use!