Child seats and The Law

[B.P.Bird]

This topic is really for those who are having problems sleeping. Moreover I am sitting in The Study watching the snow flakes floating down past the window - so no chance of driving an A.C. and every excuse needed for avoiding an Arctic workshop, so it's The Forum instead:
   Over the last couple of years The Grandchildren have become a significant factor in A.C. motoring. No doubt the same desire for a ride with Grandpa in The A.C. is to be found all over The World. I hope so.
   However we live in societies beset by petty fogging officialdom and crass do-gooders. So the question is can children be legally carried in two seater A.C.s ?
   First off let us forget the law, any law in any jurisdiction and just consider the common sense situation. Old cars are not designed to protect in a crash, as modern cars are designed to do and thereby there is a hazard to your child  co-driver. On the other hand old cars, unlike modern cars, are far less likely to have an accident. So you make a judgement and may or may not permit a child in your old two seater. If you say 'no' then you will need to consider at what age you will say 'yes' - yet another question. I have chosen to allow the children into the cockpit.
   
   However The Law in both Scotland and England and The U.K. has become too complicated for me and I hope there are some lawyers out there who can give us chapter and verse. Perhaps we might ask for the same guidance in other jurisdictions - A.C.s do tend to be International creatures after all.
   If you start with our Highway Code and the various interpretations of it by everyone from 'The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents' through to 'Mumsnet' you will soon find that the advice does not cover the issue. See https://www.gov.uk/rules-drivers-motorcyclists-89-to-102/seat-belts-and-child-restraints-99-to-102.
   At this stage you will also see that there are two paths through the legal jungle a) A car with seat belts and b) A car without seat belts. You will also find that there are three kinds of children: Small children - less than 12 years old and also less than 4' 5"  (135cms.) Then there are Large children - these are less than 14 years, but not Small children i.e. they are over 12 or taller than 4' 5". Finally there are children of less than 3 years.
   Where there are seat belts the situation is reasonably clear. A Small child must use an appropriate 'booster' with the seat belt and a Large child must use the seat belt. It does not however seem clear to me if Mother can carry a babe in arms, as she can on a Public Transport aircraft.
   Without seat belts the situation is complicated. When referring to seat belts some provisions include the phrase 'where fitted' and others do not.
   However the situation was covered by the 1993 Act which incorporated an Exemption for cars first used prior to 1st January 1965. Thus you could carry your child co-driver in accordance with: The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts by Children in Front Seats)Regulations 1993. All happy then ? Well no because in 2006 a Brussels directive had to be complied with and this gave rise to: The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts by Children in Front Seats) (Amendment) Regulations 2006. In this Act the exemption was removed. I doubt that a Brussels bureaucrat can spell A.C. let alone know what one is.
   Thus I find myself totally defeated by the details of these provisions. I am told that some local councils have taken it upon themselves, at taxpayers expense, to employ inspectors to roam the streets looking for infringements of these complicated provisions. I have some confidence in saying that these numpties will have little idea of the legal provisions affecting a child in a 1958 A.C. Ace and absolute confidence in expecting them to report the driver for a prosecution. It may be that after some trouble and expense you will be found Not Guilty, but a better course of action would be to know the answer first. As it stands I fear that next Summer our youngsters will be banned from the A.C.s unless we can get a lawyer, or maybe the FBHVC, to explain how we stay within the law. What a shame.

[Superarnie Mk2]

Hi.
   
   Does this go some way to answer your query?
   http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/15

[B.P.Bird]

Gary, Thank you. Sadly I think the 1988 Statute you refer to was replaced in 1993 and that was amended in 2006 and I quote from the explanatory notes: "Also removed are exemptions for children under 1 year travelling in a carry cot and for children riding unrestrained in the front seat of a motor car first used before 1st January 1965, where that car has no rear seat and no seat belt is provided which is appropriate for the child."
   I hope my reading of the 2006 amendment is wrong, but members might wish to bear in mind that the penalty guidance for this offence is 'Level Four' (isn't this reminiscent of Dante's 'Inferno'?) Level Four, amongst other provisions, includes a fine of up to £2,500. Try explaining that to your Motor Insurer....
   I do hope someone out there can put us straight on this one and maybe some information from Europe and N. America would be helpful?

[B.P.Bird]

As one might expect this topic has proved to be a little underwhelming. I have found no information from N. America or Europe, but for the U.K. the position has been clarified by the FBHVC and, with  permission, I reproduce their advice here:
   
   
   
   'Seat Belts
   Requirement for seat belts to be fitted
   Cars and light vans constructed after the end of 1964 but prior to 31 March 1987 must be fitted with seat belts for the driver's seat and outer passenger seat (if fitted.) No belt is required for a central front passenger seat.
   Cars and light vans constructed after 1 April 1987 must be fitted with belts for each seat. Central seats may be lap belts only, others must be lap and diagonal.
   
   Requirement for seat belts to be used
   The law requires drivers and passengers in cars and other light vehicles to wear seat belts "if available". There are stricter requirements for children (see below.) The general position in Scotland, England and Wales is contained in Statutory Instrument 1993/176 The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1993, as subsequently amended by S.I. 2006/1982 The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment) Regulations 2006. Similar rules apply in N. Ireland.
   
   Ignoring the special provisions for the disabled, those with medical certificates, those using delivery vehicles or travelling in taxis, the regulations can be summarised as: if the seat has a belt, anyone using the seat must also use that belt. This applies whether or not the motor vehicle concerned is required by Construction and Use regulations to have belts fitted – in other words, if you have belts in your pre-1965 car, you must use them even though there is no requirement to have them there in the first place.
   
   Requirements for children
   Children under three years must use a child restraint (ie child seat or booster) appropriate for their weight in any vehicle (including vans and other goods vehicles) – so they may not be carried in any vehicle unless it is fitted with the appropriate restraint.
   In vehicles where seat belts are fitted, children three years and over up to 135 cm in height (approx 4ft 5ins) must use an appropriate child restraint for their size rather than the adult belt. If no belts are fitted, they must travel in the rear seat. If there is no rear seat, they may not travel.'
   
   You can find the full version on http://fbhvc.co.uk/seat-belts/ however the concern I raised is covered in the last two sentences of the above paragraph. In short, in an old two seater car, first used prior to 1965 and not fitted with seat belts, you are forbidden to give a ride to any child below the age of 14.
   Please do not forget that this applies in areas other than the highway as the Road Traffic Acts now extend to cover other areas, here is a brief extract to give you an idea how widely Traffic Law can be applied:
   'Most of the provisions apply on all roads throughout Great Britain, although there are some exceptions. The definition of a road in England and Wales is 'any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes' (RTA 1988 sect 192(1)). In Scotland, there is a similar definition which is extended to include any way over which the public have a right of passage (R(S)A 1984 sect 151(1)).
   
   It is important to note that references to 'road' therefore generally include footpaths, bridleways and cycle tracks, and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks.) In most cases, the law will apply to them and there may be additional rules for particular paths or ways. Some serious driving offences, including drink-driving offences, also apply to all public places, for example public car parks.'
   You can now see the full problem: If you give a ride to a youngster at, say the A.C.O.C. National Day, and the field you are in has a footpath across it you may be committing a criminal offence.
   I hope this madness is restricted to the U.K., but as it results from a Brussels directive withdrawing the U.K. Exemption,as previously noted, I expect that all E.U. States will be in a similar position.
   I suspect that it would be impracticable for a driver at a Club event to determine the legal status of the venue with regard to the Road Traffic Acts so that the only safe course is to deny any child, under 14, access to old vehicles.

[Clive]

Very interesting Barry, especially the part relating to private roads. Does this mean that if you drive a utility vehicle that is not taxed or complient with current regulations (ie no lights, seatbelts etc)on a private access road, you are breaking the law? Also some TV programmes use large private estates to film cars being used which are unregistered or taxed. Are they breaking the law too?

[shep]

Oh Barrie, you and your can opener! This tin is full of worms. Clive, I assume the "private roads" are those with public access, as in gated communities, and access roads to airports and other public places where roads are outside the local authority control. I too am guilty as charged, having collected my eldest son Ted and his mum in 1989 from the maternity unit in Guildford. Ted was carefully wedged in his Moses basket behind the seats of our 428 Frua. The matron went a bit apoplectic, so I avoided using kick-down until safely on the A3. Both sons Ted and Murray travelled thousands of miles all over Europe in a variety of ACs, and the only time we ever had a problem, was with a motorcycle copper in ..... Dover. On the way back from Switzerland I think. The boys were under 10, and wearing lap belts in the back of my Ace Bristol. Lawrence Kett had made a super modification where he fabricated a small bench seat by pinching a foot or so of boot space. When not in use, a panel was replaced making the mod all but invisible! After holding us up for 10 minutes the police officer let us go on our way with the caution to be careful. I didn't allow myself any comment about driving carefully because I wanted to preserve not only my children, but also my car! Not wishing to dob anyone in, but I also remember a young Mark and EJ being regular passengers in a Blue Ace Bristol, driven by a past Chairman! It seems the Nanny State has subsequently strengthened its grip, and we all need to be aware of our liabilities. Thank you Barrie for airing the subject. As a postscript, I regularly see youngsters doing stupid and dangerous things, and when questioned, they reply belligerently that there was no notice warning them not to. I always encouraged my boys to climb trees, ride bikes down banks, balance on tops of walls, and drive cars round fields when they could just reach the pedals. I believe that what they learned from their mistakes, has made them 10 times more capable and safe than those who were wrapped in cotton wool. Perhaps a few of us should become qualified to run an alternative children's nursery? Hell's Little Angels? (Joke)

[B.P.Bird]

Clive I am as much in the dark as you. I was hoping one of our several lawyer members could reassure us. The wide application of The Road Traffic Acts throws up all kinds of anomalies. The only get out seems to be a procedure involving one of 11 Government sanctioned Authorising bodies who can designate an area as being Road Traffic Acts 'free' however to do this you will have to comply with their rules instead. The list starts off with The Motor Sports Association and is obviously not intended for ordinary people. The examples you quote are possibly authorised by one of these bodies or are in some way not accessible to the public (unlikely.) Here is a link which gives more information about the authorising process:
   http://www.iopd.org.uk/?q=effects-rta
   Here is a comment from a Museum Curator who runs transport events on their own site and who now has to use the authorising procedure: ".......but we still worry as promoting risk is still 'risky'! We are protected on many fronts by various steps taken but cars, motorcycles etc can throw up incidents that cannot be anticipated. All we can do is our best to comply with legislation as we understand it and mitigate risk that we are aware of. We are lucky to have track record and 30 years experience backed by a major insurance co. on our side. New clubs etc have really no chance as risk management is constantly ratcheted up. Thats why many new events are completely static.
   It was at least 10 years ago that a traffic cop told us....'I could stop all this and nick all those drivers' as he viewed one of our events!....."
   The activities described were all on private land. Would a policeman or traffic warden or local authority inspector bother with your 'off highway' utility vehicle driving ? Who knows. One would hope not, but my experience would lead me not to take that for granted and I am sure that if something went wrong - from a winging, indignant eco warrior up to an A&E injury - you would find plenty of petty jobsworths looking for ways to get you in front of The Beak.
   The whole thing is so ludicrous that I am longing for someone to tell me it is a bad dream and that I have got it all wrong.

[B.P.Bird]

Andy I love it - when collecting our eldest, in similar Moses basket, in the 1961 Greyhound (no belts) one just had to include hitting three figures. He never looked back and was climbing 50 foot trees before age 10. By the bye both your crimes were then, in fact, legal. Whatever your officious Dover policeman said: However since  2006 the law would have been broken in both cases.