Seatbelt argument

[leefaz1797]

Calling all traffic officers or insurance agents!!!

A new years eve druken argument has erupted over the legal stance regarding the number of passengers travelling in a car and the number of seats and seatbelts available. Basically one party has argued that if a 'seat' is available (basically an undefined amount space but enough to sit on) then you can carry a passenger even if a seatbelt is not available e.g a standard 5 seat saloon car, driver and front seat passenger, then 4 passengers, 3 wearing seatbelts, in the rear would be deemed as legal, even if the car was insured as a vehicle with 5 seats.

Any comments greatly appreciated!!!

 

[Parksy]

Generally speaking where seat belts are fitted they must be worn.

To find out more Click Here

 

[Sproket]

Lee

If you take a look at this More Passengers than Seat Belts it is near the bottom of the page,

I personally would not carry more passengers than seat belts

Sproket.

 

[forestgump]

dose the log book say amount off seats and seat belts should t.ell the amount of passengers

 

[NickinFrance]

I guess it's a sign of the times & the 'ealth & safety propaganda but as a kid I travelled thousands of miles in my parents Morris Minor without seat belts & my 4 kids have travelled tens of thousands of miles all over Europe in my (company) cars without rear seat belts.

It was a case of get in the back, sit down, shut up & let's go on holiday.

 

[cara89]

In other words you taxi-ed people over New Year!!!!Filled your car! ha ha ha.Better that than there were more drivers on the road I would say

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Nick,

Likewise when I was younger my siblings and I were piled into the back seats of the car and were driven thousands of miles, fortunately without incident, but times have changed;

It is not really valid to compare driving conditions then and now.

Car manufacturers were not so specific about the numbers of seats a car had, often bench seats were still common. In those days seat belts were quite rare, so the opportunity to wear them was simply not there.

The choice of cars were more limited, there were no people carriers, so larger families did perhaps load more people into cars than were really safe to do so.

General road conditions have changed, whilst we have more roads, we have disproportionately more cars, so we are far more crowded now than then. I am also convinced that driving standards have deteriorated, and there is far more aggression on the roads now which is making the risks much greater.

There is plenty of evidence that sows that the use of seat belts reduces the severity of injury and loss of life.

These days cars are given a seat number, and of course seat belts are supplied accordingly. In my view you should not carry more people than the seat belts allow.

It is of course easy with the benefit of hindsight to see that the common practice of yesteryear was in fact rather unsafe. We should think our selves lucky that we not either injured or killed back then.

 

[NickinFrance]

John,

Yes, driving conditions have changed over the decades, cars have got safer, air bags & other safety devices have been introduced, roads have got safer, more motorways & dual carriageways have been introduced.

Of course seat belts do help in the vast majority of accidents but let's not get too carried away with the idea that they will save you no matter how you drive, driving standards need to improve above all else.

I feel that the greatest safety device that could be fitted to a car would be a big sharp spike in the middle of the steering wheel.

 

[Surfer]

Why are you exempt from wearing a seat belt in a taxi which stands a higher chance of a low impact collision than most cars.

 

[SteveW77]

Unless they have changed the law since I was a taxi driver, only the driver is exempt not the passengers.

Steve W

 

[Steve_374341117]

Yes, only the taxi driver - must wear seat belt when not transporting passengers.