| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Ian Bowers
United Kingdom
948 Posts |
 Posted - 23/07/2012 : 13:36:05
|
Without asking anyone to give legally liable comment (avoiding using the risky word 'advice'), can anyone give their views on whether there is any restriction on carrying passengers on the highway (again, as broad as I can make it) in the space behind the seats in a 2 seat MMM, not fitted with seat belts. Taking this slightly further, is there any age restriction on these passengers? I have looked at the Insurance documents, and can't see a catch-all to limit this activity.
Ian Bowers
OD 6791
J3 3772 |
|
|
MaGic_GV
United Kingdom
868 Posts |
Posted - 23/07/2012 : 13:55:03
|
Purely anecdotal evidence - I found the P (2 seat) wouldn't stop very well with four adults on board... all a long time ago, until I was pinched for carrying someone on the luggage rack - I cannot believe how reckless we were!
Later I carried my daughter around without problems, until she was about ten, by which time she began to complain...
I would think small children would be ok for short distances, if suitably padded, but what will the insurance company say?
Graham
"I'd rather be happy than right anyday" Slartybartfast, Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy |
 |
|
|
TomDrewett
United Kingdom
277 Posts |
Posted - 23/07/2012 : 15:06:51
|
| Ian, if you type in Laws for Juniors in the archive section the subject was discussed at reasonable length, which you may find useful. |
|
|
|
Ian Bowers
United Kingdom
948 Posts |
Posted - 23/07/2012 : 15:33:12
|
Well, I have read and re-read these and it still is unclear whether a small child can, within the law as it currently stands, be carried unrestrained in the back of a pre 1965 2 seat open car. I understand completely about under-sized and under-age children not being in the front passenger seat without properly fitted restraints.
On this basis I can only assume that there is no formal guidance on this specific situation. It is common sense alone which predicates that an under-age and/or undersize child should not ride in the back section unless the situation is such that the risk of an 'de-fenestrating' accident of any sort is considered by a responsible/reasonable adult to be insignificant.
Ian Bowers
OD 6791
J3 3772 |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6177 Posts |
Posted - 23/07/2012 : 16:11:29
|
I'm pretty sure you would run foul of the law if you carried children in the back of a two seater. The DirectGov web site says the following:
"You can't carry any children under three years old in vehicles without seatbelts, like classic cars. If you're travelling with children over three years old, they must only sit in the back seats."
I think it is reasonable to assume that a two seater car would not be considered to have back seats, even if you provided some basic upholstery by way of seating. And similarly your insurance company would almost certainly renege on any claim as the car is declared to be a two seater on the V5 form. |
|
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
913 Posts |
Posted - 23/07/2012 : 17:40:28
|
So, going by that DirectGov advice; these two youngsters (aged 6 & 4) might be OK? I would argue (from personal experience/evidence)that they are better restrained here than "bouncing" around in the back of something like a Bentley! If you are very small, in the front passenger seat you will hit your forehead on the bottom edge of a J2 dashboard (been there & got the tee-shirt), so perhaps a P Type would be marginaly safer, but you're better restrained in the back of a MMM than the front for sure.
It certainly never put me off! Although, Simon's point regarding the V5 is very valid. Whilst I'm fairly sure you could talk your way round a curious "plod", unless he was having a very bad day, in the event of an accident, it could get tricky regarding insurance.....
As they often say rules are made for the guidance of the wise, I like to think that Motorways would be a bit stupid, but "round the village" would be OK, even though going by statistics; Motorways are our safest roads!
JH |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6177 Posts |
Posted - 23/07/2012 : 18:24:04
|
| No, Jeremy, I reckon that the Direct Gov instruction (it's not really advice) would absolutely preclude children of any age in the back of a two seater. We may think it unreasonable (and I'm gutted that I can't take my daughter's two sons out in their great grandfather's J2) but I simply don't see any way round it in this day and age. I can remember carrying five passengers in my TD when I was at school (two lads in the back and three girls squeezed in beside me!) but those days are long gone (in every sense of the words!). |
|
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
913 Posts |
Posted - 23/07/2012 : 18:39:57
|
| Why on earth were you giving the two lads a lift? If you'd left them behind you could have squeezed another 2 (maybe even 3) girls in the back! |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6177 Posts |
Posted - 23/07/2012 : 19:00:03
|
| I know, I know.......youthful foolishness is my only excuse! |
|
|
|
David R
United Kingdom
289 Posts |
Posted - 23/07/2012 : 19:05:45
|
I have seen various articles and had discussions about this. The best summary is possibly on the FBHVC website under "Other Topics - Seat Belts".
As I understand the position no child under 3 can travel in a vehicle without seat belts,and between 3 and 12 can only travel in the rear seat of such a vehicle. If there is no rear seat then they cannot travel in the vehicle.
I certainly would not like to argue that the space behind the seats in a 2-seater is the "rear seat" so the result is that my 5 year old grandson can travel happily in my Austin 7 saloon but not in the J2.
I had a similar experience to Simon when at University in Newcastle about 1963.About 2am I was giving a lift back to 4 others in my TA when I was stopped by a wandering Plod who commented that I appeared to have rather too many passengers.He enquired where I was going. "Whitley Bay" I said (which is about 10 miles from Newcastle for those south of the Tyne)."That's OK then" he replied and waved me on my way.I often wondered if a shorter or different journey would have received such approval.
David R
J 3355 |
|
|
|
Cathelijne
Netherlands
744 Posts |
Posted - 23/07/2012 : 19:28:07
|
I grew up in the back of a TD where I felt very snug together with my elder sister and our black lab. Proof of just hów snug we handed our parents when on a trip in a Triumph 2500 ("For the children" ... Awkward episode, I'd say  ), they looked back and couldn't spot us; We'd gone down a step so we could sit just as snug as we were used to, straight behind the front seats, on the floor ... 
Anyway, Dutch law says children can only be carried in a car if seat belts are properly installed, no matter how proper the seating is. I should think the same goes for English laws?!
Having said that, I'd go with common sense, just shove 'm in the back and stay a bit local!
Regards,
Cat |
|
|
|
rodb
New Zealand
260 Posts |
Posted - 23/07/2012 : 22:05:45
|
I have read statistics that show an infant becomes a missile if unrestrained in a moving motor vehicle that suddenly stops.
I would rather put up with a crying child that cannot go with me in an MG than have to suffer the consequences of a maimed or dead child that was the result of an accident.
We all carried children many years ago but now the opposing traffic is faster, some types of vehicles are heavier (SUV) and there is more of it.
We now take a modern vehicle as well with restrained approved safety child seats for the children.
RB NZ
|
|
|
|
spitfire
United Kingdom
371 Posts |
Posted - 24/07/2012 : 12:48:18
|
This opened as carrying PASSENGERS IN THE BACK.
The subject of unrestrained children would be complicated.
My V5, for the J2, on The Number of Seats Including Driver
(S.1) line, is BLANK.
The V5 for my BGTs, S.1, also blank.
As this is The Legal Registration Document, this would be where any judgement would have to hinge upon.
My BGTs both have rear proper designed and leather upholstered "seat" squabs. Why not go for cheaper carpet?
Obviously this area WAS considered/upholstered AS OCCASIONAL SEATING. Couch like, as no leg room!
This is early 1960s but MGs maintained the same balance of form right from CK's designs.
Perhaps David/Mike Allison could highlight how the factory "Saw" this space even then?
Why not extend the BGT luggage area to the front seat backs?
I would argue it offered a sideways seating place, unique to the sportsmans car.
The seat belt issue is another one.
On a matter of care and conscience. A car made out of "sticks" screwed together does not offer much in the way of defence for any other motorised collision. A low speed environment is better.
This unfortunately relates to the crumple zoned state of play in motoring today.
|
Edited by - spitfire on 25/07/2012 12:22:50 |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6177 Posts |
Posted - 24/07/2012 : 15:12:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by JMH
Why on earth were you giving the two lads a lift? If you'd left them behind you could have squeezed another 2 (maybe even 3) girls in the back!
Now that I think about it, I think that Mrs. J (before she was Mrs. J of course) was one of the girls and I suspect that might have had something to do with it!  And when I look at the date on your photo (which is fabulous by the way) I see that the events I am thinking of took place the year before! Oh dear, how time flies. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
