Carrying People In The Back

[Woodie106]

It is a bit odd Woodie, like buying a 4 seated car and only having 2 seatbelts 'because some owners never use the back seats'.

Another thing I've noticed - going off topic if I may for this one post - is that many small cars are now only have the 2 rear seat belts, where as a few years ago they would have fitted the three as standard. Now I think this is a good thing as I think that drivers with less than a couple of years experience who often drive smaller cars should only be allowed to carry 2 passengers at most in the back as they often just don't realise how having that extra weight can totally alter a cars handling characteristics.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Woodie106

[caravanrevisited]

There are relatively few sideways seats on buses these days and they tend to travel at relatively low speed anyway and don't have to have safety belts either.

I don;t often travel on buses, but was on a buses in Edinburgh. Definitely saw sideways seats - and modern buses. They travel at 50mph+. Also tube trains and airline transit buses.

[samnjan]

And military trucks with squaddies on board?

I think that MOD vehicles may be exempt.

Fire service /emergency response vehicles are exempt from paying the road fund licence but seat belts must be worn where fitted

Edited July 21, 2014 by samnjan

[sampvt]

Thanks for all your help but the official version and the law is as follows, (came from the DVLA) If seat belts are fitted then passengers are expected to use them however if the vehicle is an older one (in my case 1986 with no belts fitted) the law, or should I say guidelines, are that if there are passengers in the back, they should be seated and transported in a responsible manner.

 

Carrying passengers in excess of the alloted berth of the vehicle will not only invalidate the insurance liability issues but would also be deemed irresponsible due to weight distribution and gross train weight issues if they are exceeded but it is down to whoever pulls the vehicle up at the time, ie pc plod.

[bob1982]

Hmmmm. ... odd. Lots of older seven seater cars have rear facing seats. Not sure about newer cars but when I was a kid only a few years back we had a seven seat austin maestro with rear facing seats. Not sure its quite right persoanlly.

 

easiest answer is to ring the local plod and ask rather than on a forum where some may be partly guessing.

[Steamdrivenandy]

Hmmmm. ... odd. Lots of older seven seater cars have rear facing seats. Not sure about newer cars but when I was a kid only a few years back we had a seven seat austin maestro with rear facing seats. Not sure its quite right persoanlly.

 

easiest answer is to ring the local plod and ask rather than on a forum where some may be partly guessing.

 

I don't think anyone has said anything about rearward facing seats it's the side ones that are most dangerous in a sudden deceleration and didn't Volvo have rearward seats on 850s and earlier V70s?

 

I recall that back in the 60's/'70s RAF troop planes like the Britannia, Hermes etc had rear facing seats, whereas civilian airliner seats faced forward. I can't remember if I ever knew why. I believe they all face forward now.

[bob1982]

Ahhhh. ... fair enough. May have miss read.

Edited July 22, 2014 by bob1982

[DeeTee]

 

I don't think anyone has said anything about rearward facing seats it's the side ones that are most dangerous in a sudden deceleration and didn't Volvo have rearward seats on 850s and earlier V70s?

 

I recall that back in the 60's/'70s RAF troop planes like the Britannia, Hermes etc had rear facing seats, whereas civilian airliner seats faced forward. I can't remember if I ever knew why. I believe they all face forward now.

The Royal Air Force (RAF) adopted rearward facing seats as early as 1945, as this seating arrangement was recognised as allowing higher (survivable) impacts in the event of an accident.

The above quote was taken from an Australian government publication "Rearward facing seats in flight: an aviation review"

Most civilian airliners have rearward facing seats for the cabin crew.

 

In 1961 I flew back from RAF El Adem in Libya in an RAF Transport Command Brittania. The aircraft was staging and also dropping off cargo at El Adem on a flight from Singapore to RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire. At El Adem the interior was re-configured for rearward passengers in the front with two Minis, which were being repatriated from Singapore to UK, in the rear. We spent the whole of the flight looking at the Minis and wondering if in the event of a crash we would survive only to suffer terrible injuries from the Minis becoming detached from their restraints travelling towards the survivors at a great rate of knots.

 

The reason for our concerns were that we had flown out to Libya, via Malta, in an RAF Transport Command Hastings and shortly after landing we became aware that a similar aircraft, carrying a contingent of Maltese Royal Engineer reservist who we had passed in the transit building, had crashed and caught fire on take off. Several lives were lost including the Air Quartermaster who, on surviving the crash had returned to the burning aircraft in an ill-fated rescue attempt. At the time it was believed to be the first time that any Transport Command passengers had lost their lives. When we were offered a return flight to the UK in a Hastings we were unenthusiastic and we politely declined the offer.

 

When travelling by rail I prefer to travel in a rearward facing seat.

[Steamdrivenandy]

Maybe later research suggested that forward facing was better, given that the body tends to be better articulated in a forward, rather than backward direction.

[DeeTee]

It may also be that having survived a crash as a rearward facing passenger further injuries are caused from forward flying debris.

 

It also seems that passenger resistance to using rearward facing seats is a major factor. Regardless of which way anyone is facing any rapid deceleration is likely have a devastating effect on the human body's internal organs.

[AlfaEuropa]

Another thing I've noticed - going off topic if I may for this one post - is that many small cars are now only have the 2 rear seat belts, where as a few years ago they would have fitted the three as standard. Now I think this is a good thing as I think that drivers with less than a couple of years experience who often drive smaller cars should only be allowed to carry 2 passengers at most in the back as they often just don't realise how having that extra weight can totally alter a cars handling characteristics.

 

Those cars (such as the Citroen C2) are only designed to seat four (you are not allowed to carry five). I don't think it had anything to do with the weight as the same floor plan was used for the Citroen C3 and various Peugeots. We had a C2 and the result was that each passenger got a proper chair and lots of space. There may not have been enough width to seat three in the back given the size of the car and the thickness of the body shell (which was considerably greater than a lot of far eastern cars of similar size).

 

Hmmmm. ... odd. Lots of older seven seater cars have rear facing seats. Not sure about newer cars but when I was a kid only a few years back we had a seven seat austin maestro with rear facing seats. Not sure its quite right persoanlly.

 

 

Bob, that would have been the Montego, which went out of production about 20 years ago after a run of ten years. ..time flies and all that!

[Lost in France]

I think that MOD vehicles may be exempt.

Fire service /emergency response vehicles are exempt from paying the road fund licence but seat belts must be worn where fitted

Many years ago I had to read the Construction & Use regs to work out what lights needed to be fitted to a trailer the company I worked for built for the MoD.

After a weeks reading, about the 2nd to last section said 'Fighting vehicles or vehicles of war need not comply with any of the forgoing regulations' a quick phone call got the trailer classed a 'vehicle of war'.

There were large sections regarding Emergency Vehicles, all of which were in addition to the normal C&U regs. Although I did discover that a large part of Sussex Constabularies fleet of cars were illegal :-)

[Gellyneck]

My understanding from a relation who was aircrew in RAF Transport Command is that (certainly at the time but things may have moved on) rearward facing seats were safer in the event of a crash. Reason being the weight of the seat occupant was "driven" into the seat and as the frame was rigid the body was kept in the proper upright seated position whereas in forward facing seats the body bent double. Whiplash was avoided by the high head restraints fitted.

 

If this has changed it may be due to more advanced technology or cost cutting as the cost of a "standard" passenger aircraft would, probably, be cheaper?

Edited July 22, 2014 by Gellyneck

[Steamdrivenandy]

Maybe they can fit the seats in back'ards if they wanted these days, given that the RAF tend to buy utility versions of airliners so they can do more than one job.

[DeeTee]

Maybe they can fit the seats in back'ards if they wanted these days, given that the RAF tend to buy utility versions of airliners so they can do more than one job.

Aircraft seats can be configured in different ways as there are normally seat fixing rails fixed to the cabin floor to which the seats are attached. It is even possible for the seats to be re-configured on a turnaround - though this is rarely done on a budget airline.

[caravanrevisited]

What is the actual problem with rear facing seats? Is it just an issue when restrained? I remember buses use to have rearwards seats, and passengers claiming they felt sick with their back to the engine (spawning a kids carton with a native american baby in a papoose (?) complaining he hated travelling with his "back to the injun"

 

Anyway, the reason I ask is hat trains still have seats in both directons

[DeeTee]

When the old fashioned trams arrived at a destination without a turn round loop, the conductor would rotate the power pick-up arm through 180 degrees, the driver would go to the opposite end of the tram to control it from the new front and the conductor would move all of the seat backs so that they were facing forward.

[bob1982]

 

Those cars (such as the Citroen C2) are only designed to seat four (you are not allowed to carry five). I don't think it had anything to do with the weight as the same floor plan was used for the Citroen C3 and various Peugeots. We had a C2 and the result was that each passenger got a proper chair and lots of space. There may not have been enough width to seat three in the back given the size of the car and the thickness of the body shell (which was considerably greater than a lot of far eastern cars of similar size).

 

 

Bob, that would have been the Montego, which went out of production about 20 years ago after a run of ten years. ..time flies and all that!

That makes me feel old. ... not much though coz the car was probably 10 or 15 years old when we had it. Phew :-)

[KNARF]

What is the actual problem with rear facing seats? Is it just an issue when restrained? I remember buses use to have rearwards seats, and passengers claiming they felt sick with their back to the engine (spawning a kids carton with a native american baby in a papoose (?) complaining he hated travelling with his "back to the injun"

 

Anyway, the reason I ask is hat trains still have seats in both directons

here s no problem with rearward facing sets it's the sideways facing seats that are the problem.

knarf