Thanks for that,I'm off to do some research,me thinks it could be a workplace rule only. PatQuote:
Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh
Thanks for that,I'm off to do some research,me thinks it could be a workplace rule only. PatQuote:
Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh
If were me I wouldn't debate about the need for engineering of the seats or seatbelt mounts, or if inward facing seats were legal or not.
I'd want the passengers riding in my car to be as safe as practical. A 110 is no a particularly safe car by modern standards.
The LR dealer offered the the inward facing seats when we got our car, I told him "no thanks you can have em". Too dangerous in a collision in my view.
We went to Vquipe, they did a professional engineered, approved and comfortable forward facing folding seat. My children sat in those seats for years and travelled all over, in relative safety.
IMV to, have everything engineered & approved is the way to go, you can sleep at night.:)
cheers simmo
Quote:
Originally Posted by simmo
I agree if I were regularly using it as a people mover, but I'm only using the car to shuttle people around on deserted roads when kayaking or camping in the mountains, perhaps a couple of times a year, and I currently already chuck people in the boot on occasion without the belts. It's purely a legality matter for me, because if there's passengers in the back I'll be driving like a nun (more than I already do) regardless.
Honestly, the ideal solution for me would be to have it certified that the wheel arches are satisfactory and count as seats. Saves the hassle of either losing space to seats, putting the seats in every time I need them, or spending money on seats.
Really just looking for the cheapest way to legally put four people in the boot.
If we are going to talk safety, it's been done.;)
Defender in the uk is still 2nd safest behind a range rover from past reports, it may have been level,with the ovlov xc90! This is from real world accidents data, not theory malaka.:D
Now in the uk most 110's could option up 3 per side in the boot along with any 90 with more than 2 bodies had 4 inward facing seats until 2007 puma. Why is this relevant? It means more potential passengers and more potential injury, but less in reality.
In saying that, we use my wife's car for Sydney trips, multi van 7 seats full, but mine for others. By the same token to move around a large family a 110 with 9-11 seats is a cheap option.
P.s what plutei wants, WAS legal until about 7-10 years ago. A P-plater had 7 in a golf/ corrolla , 2 in the boot/ hatch area, lost control and slammed into a pole backwards killing the 2 in the back. We actually got away with a similar scenario, 8 in a old Mazda wagon as a p plater a long time ago. The cops pulled me over for a rbt, I was designated driver���� the officer said as long as all seats are full others can sit in load area of a wagon.
That's what I do, not what I want, subtle but significant difference :pQuote:
Originally Posted by frantic
What I want is the cheapest legal way to stick 4 in the boot. Although you are right that legalising unbelted passengers would be the ideal, ignoring the enormous safety issues. I am surprised that it was legal that recently...
2004, it was a big case as two top private schools in sydney. Big money big lawyers and a bigger headline.
One wet night in April - National - www.smh.com.au
Quote:
In the aftermath, the Road Transport Act was amended in an effort to prevent a similar tragedy. It became an offence for any driver to carry passengers in a car boot, and an offence for drivers with L and P plates to carry more passengers than the available seatbelts.
That's heavy.
It states that "an offence for drivers with L and P plates to carry more passengers than the available seatbelts"
Does this mean that with a full licence you can have more people than seat belts? That would surprise me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plutei
I think it would be referring to older cars built pre seat belts and still not fitted with them.
Nathan.