LWB bench seats and the law

[fonfe]

Back home in the uk there are still loads of ex MOD LWB series 3s knocking about and a fair few civilian ones too for that matter and they had the ole sort of bench seats in the back running down both sides. Really it was just a cushion so wasn't terrible comfy but great if you needed to load people up for a short trip! Now back home as the car was designed that way and those seats had no seatbelts from factory none had to be fitted legality wise nowadays.
My question is does the same apply over here? If it was fitted with bench seats with no seatbelts from factory can you still continue with it like that or do you have to fit seatbelts and get it engineered if you wish to legally have people in the back?
Also what is the case if you remove the roof, door tops, rear side pannels so the car is a ragtop?

Been debating selling my LSE for another series but if I can't legaly have people on the bench seats think ill stick with my comfy EAS instead!

[debruiser]

my understanding is that if it was manufactured that way you can still do it. I'm not Qld Transport though....

[chazza]

To do what you propose is limited by the following;
1. The car can only carry the number of people listed on the compliance plate, irrespective of the number seats, or seat-belts.
2. State licencing laws, can and do vary, from the Federal ones, so you need to check with them to see if what you propose is legal. For example in WA riding in the back of a ute is illegal; so if the car was registered as a utility and licenced to seat 3, using the rear seats on the road is not allowed.
3. If the machine, for example, was allowed to carry 11 people, make sure that their mass + the mass of any luggage + the mass of any vehicle accessories, does not exceed the Gross Vehicle Mass. Surprisingly few passengers, can exceed the GVM on a Land Loser!

If your car pre-dates compliance-plates and therefore ADR's it would not be so restricted e.g. it would not need seat-belts and it would not have the number of passengers specified on it. However; there may still be restrictions on its use under State law, so the vehicle registration papers and the State traffic Code and Regulations would need to be studied intensely,

Cheers Charlie

[dandlandyman]

If I recall correctly, the only new restriction on seatbelt-less vehicles is that you can't carry anyone under the age of 16 without belts, especially in sideways facing seats. Correct me if I'm wrong.....

Dan.
69 2A 88" pet4 (still in disguise), 68 2B FC pet6 (still resting quietly), plus 14 other parts/project cars (1xS2, 6xS2As 7xS3s).

[Killer]

If I recall correctly, the only new restriction on seatbelt-less vehicles is that you can't carry anyone under the age of 16 without belts, especially in sideways facing seats. Correct me if I'm wrong.....

Dan.
69 2A 88" pet4 (still in disguise), 68 2B FC pet6 (still resting quietly), plus 14 other parts/project cars (1xS2, 6xS2As 7xS3s).

That is the law in Queensland, it came in two or three years ago. Not sure about the other states though, I didn't think they had the same restriction.

Cheers, Mick.

[fonfe]

Hmmmm food for thought then.
Thanks very much guys :)

[Mick_Marsh]

ADR's 4 and 5 are the ones you should read.

I should add I have seen on many occasions a "Conservation Volunteers" Toyota troop carrier (a fairly modern one) with many volunteers loaded in the back on sideways mounted bench seats.

[chazza]

...
I should add I have seen on many occasions a "Conservation Volunteers" Toyota troop carrier (a fairly modern one) with many volunteers loaded in the back on sideways mounted bench seats.

I have seen the same thing with SES personnel carriers and they were all exceeding the GVM! In WA the controlling authority has now limited the 11-seat Land Losers to carrying 5 or 6 people only, including the driver. I imagine Land Rovers are also overloaded frequently,

Cheers Charlie