t5topcat Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 OH posed a question. Is it legal/illegal for front seat passenger to travel with seat swivelled to face the rear? I would think it is as safe if not safer but what is "right"? TC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muswell Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 I don't think your seat belts would work and so it would be dangerous if you were hit from behind and also from the recoil if you were hit from the front. Since the seat belts would be ineffective it would also be illegal IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 IMV if a seat is fitted with a seatbelt it must be used and the assumption therefore has to be that it is used AS INTENDED, so having the seat swivelled would mean the belt would not be used as intended and be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggyd Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 If you read your manual on swiveling your seat ! it does say somewhere that the seat must be returned to the front position when moving. I have read it in a previous Van, I havent read the new instructions for the present one but Im sure it will be there. On saying that I have on occasions swiveled mine to the center position just to rest my legs!!! :-D they only just touch the ground facing the front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 There is another issue with travelling with passenger seat swivelled, it obstructs the driver's view of the nearside mirror. Don't do it, trvel with passenger seat facing forwards and seat belt used as designed, it really is that simple. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t5topcat Posted March 17, 2013 Author Share Posted March 17, 2013 Well there's the thing. The seatbelt use is unaffected as the belt is fixed to the seat so you can swivel without taking your belt off. The seat locks in the 180 position and does not obstruct my mirror. If you were hit up the backside whilst stationary and facing forward, the effects would be similiar to being in a frontal impact whilst facing rearwards ie you would be thrown back into the seat. The only reference in all my manuals only refer to the drivers seat, which obviously would make life quite difficult were you to try driving whilst facing rearwards!! What is interesting is there is no mention of the front passenger seat so whether I wanted to do it or not is not the question. Is it legal? Open to the house!! TC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 t5topcat - 2013-03-17 6:53 PM The seatbelt use is unaffected as the belt is fixed to the seat so you can swivel without taking your belt off. BUT would it OPERATE correctly if there was an accident? On ours the top of the seatbelt is attached to the 'B' pillar, and the part that you clip the seat belt into on the side is attached to the seat so if the seat was swivelled it wouldn't be usable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Read Colin's post again Mel he says his belt is fixed to the seat, quite common in A class vans, there is no fixing in the bodywork just the seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 lennyhb - 2013-03-17 8:18 PM Read Colin's post again Mel he says his belt is fixed to the seat, quite common in A class vans, there is no fixing in the bodywork just the seat. Lenny - I did read his post, but I've also seen some where the belt 'runs through' a part secured to the seat but still has a securing point on the 'B' pillar - as he hasn't said what his vehicle is I therefore chose NOT to make that assumption, hence my comment. ;-) It would help if he actually stated what he's got if he wants a specific answer. :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muswell Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Well if the belts are only fixed to the seat I should think it is legal, and probably safer...asuming you can see your mirror and your passenger doesn't distract you by pulling faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keithl Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Mel B - 2013-03-17 8:38 PM Lenny - I did read his post, but I've also seen some where the belt 'runs through' a part secured to the seat but still has a securing point on the 'B' pillar - as he hasn't said what his vehicle is I therefore chose NOT to make that assumption, hence my comment. ;-) Mel, If you read Colin's post again you will see that he quite clearly quotes his MH as a "Rapido 987f" in his signature. And I've just Googled Rapido 987f and found a photo showing the upper mounting on the seat so agree with Lenny. Keith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 I don't know what the law is on swivel seats but common sense tells me the following: 1. Providing the seat is securely locked then the passenger sitting in it is in the same position as any passenger sitting behind the driver in one of our two rear-facing belted fixed seats. 2. Any passenger sitting facing backwards in the passenger seat in my van would be partially blocking my all-round view - including my view of the rear-view mirror. Clearly it all depends on the precise layout of your van but in mine I would not be happy to let someone travel backwards in the passenger seat in spite of point 1 above but because of point 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Just remembered a few years ago I had a Mk 1 Sedona the middle seats swivelled and when facing the rear they had a lap belt built into the seat, must have been legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t5topcat Posted March 18, 2013 Author Share Posted March 18, 2013 Mel B - 2013-03-17 8:38 PM lennyhb - 2013-03-17 8:18 PM Read Colin's post again Mel he says his belt is fixed to the seat, quite common in A class vans, there is no fixing in the bodywork just the seat. Lenny - I did read his post, but I've also seen some where the belt 'runs through' a part secured to the seat but still has a securing point on the 'B' pillar - as he hasn't said what his vehicle is I therefore chose NOT to make that assumption, hence my comment. ;-) It would help if he actually stated what he's got if he wants a specific answer. :-D As mentioned I have a Rapido 987f and I was questioning the legality of the situation, nothing else. As I stated the seat belt use is not affected as they are only fixed to the seat. Mirrors are not obstructed. Passengers can legally travel in rear facing seats in the back of motorhomes (older models without seat belts) and also on buses, trains and coaches. I'm not sure it would "feel right" but is it legal? My first thought is Yes, as long as other criteria are met but does anyone know for sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Keithl - 2013-03-17 8:52 PM Mel B - 2013-03-17 8:38 PM Lenny - I did read his post, but I've also seen some where the belt 'runs through' a part secured to the seat but still has a securing point on the 'B' pillar - as he hasn't said what his vehicle is I therefore chose NOT to make that assumption, hence my comment. ;-) Mel, If you read Colin's post again you will see that he quite clearly quotes his MH as a "Rapido 987f" in his signature... Keith. The potential problem with using a 'signature' to contain useful information (like which motorhome a person owns) is that the forum's Control Panel has a "View other people's signatures?" YES/NO toggle that allows a forum member to 'invisibleise' other posters' signatures. I have this toggle set to "NO" and I suspect Mel does too. As the forum's design lacks a dedicated capability to provide such information, you, Mel and I use the Control Panel's Location field (that can't be made invisible) to carry basic motorhome details. This is not an ideal ploy, but it's by far the best approach. It makes replying usefully to a posting much simpler when it's helpful (and sometimes essential) that details of the motorhome involved are known. If I feel minded to respond to a posting and believe it would benefit from me knowing which motorhome is involved (but there's nothing in the posting or location-data to identify it), I'll reset the 'view signatures' option temporarily to "YES" via my Control Panel and, if that produces no details, search back through the poster's previous contributions (assuming there are any, of course) in the hope I'll be able to establish what vehicle the poster owns. This all wastes time and, as it should be reasonably clear how plenty of forum members are using the Location field to provide their motorhome details, I'd prefer people to standardise on that method. If a motorhome has a swivelling cab-seat, the seat has a fully-integrated safet-belt system, and someone wants to travel belted into the seat but facing rearwards, then it's likely that doing this is not illegal. Vehicles (including motorhomes) can have rearwards-facing seats with belts on them and I don't believe there's any question of them being illegal. I'm doubtful about the safety issue though, as - even if the cab-seat can be securely locked in the reversed position - I can envisage a heavy 'diagonal' frontal accident causing the occupant to come out of the seat. Inertia-reel belt systems are designed to restrain a person being thrown forwards and accidents where the vehicle is decelerated are probably the most common. A 'fixed' belt system (like a multi-point racing-car harness) should be safer if you want to travel 'backwards', but motorhomes don't have these. I think what t5topcat is proposing is not illegal (at least in the UK). There may be something about this on-line, or VOSA may know, or the Police may know, or insurance providers may know, but I don't know for sure. It's an unusual thing to choose to do and there may be no satisfactory answer regarding its legality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyishuk Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 In some ways it make sense to travel backwards; If you have a frontal collision, the load spread over the seat back is distributed over the passenger's back, whilst facing forwards the belts are a much smaller area to distribute the load and could cause injury. How safe any restraint is in an accident is open to question, depending on the severity and direction of impact. With all accidents there is an element of cause and effect, that has to be considered. I suppose the question that could be asked is, "Did the manufacturer undertake tests with the passenger seat turned and loaded whilst undergoing tests for the certificate of conformity (or whatever would be needed for use in the EU" Rgds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 A Rapido 987F is built on a Ducato 'chassis-cowl' chassis. While Fiat will have crash-tested the Ducato base, and the cab-seats Rapido has chosen to fit will undoubtedly be suitably certificated safety-wise (as will the seat-swivels), it's highly unlikely that Rapido will have crash-tested a Fiat-derived 9-Series to see what the effect of the chassis/cab-seat/swivel combination is for a passenger. It's unrealistic to believe there's any possibility of anyone (never mind Rapido) crash-testing a motorhome with a reversed cab-seat. While it's easy enough to imagine scenarios in which a motorhome passenger might want to travel in this manner, it's not normal practice and no vehicle/motorhome manufacturer will consider it so. t5topcat's question is theoretical and his only interest is the legality of doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t5topcat Posted March 18, 2013 Author Share Posted March 18, 2013 My sentiments exactly Derek. Although as I said earlier the effects of a frontal impact whilst forward facing and a rear shunt whilst rear facing would be similiar it still doesn't seem "right" . The trouble is when my good lady asks a question I am supposed to have an answer!! Thanks to everyone for their comments. I will make some enquiries to see if I can get a definitive answer. Regards TC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverback Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 hi, try an email to rapido, see what they have to say, also people travel backwards in trains, trams stc so it may not be a daft question on legality its just how you can find out..is there owt on the vosa website or cantact them jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Derek Uzzell - 2013-03-18 10:16 AM Keithl - 2013-03-17 8:52 PM Mel B - 2013-03-17 8:38 PM Lenny - I did read his post, but I've also seen some where the belt 'runs through' a part secured to the seat but still has a securing point on the 'B' pillar - as he hasn't said what his vehicle is I therefore chose NOT to make that assumption, hence my comment. ;-) Mel, If you read Colin's post again you will see that he quite clearly quotes his MH as a "Rapido 987f" in his signature... Keith. The potential problem with using a 'signature' to contain useful information (like which motorhome a person owns) is that the forum's Control Panel has a "View other people's signatures?" YES/NO toggle that allows a forum member to 'invisibleise' other posters' signatures. I have this toggle set to "NO" and I suspect Mel does too. Yes Derek, you are correct, I don't have the signatures on as they just 'clog' the forum up when I'm trying to read it. If someone wants 'full' answers to questions they they should be prepared to give 'full' information in the first place, not expect those answering to have to look for it in 'signatures' or have to Google it. :-| One thing that hasn't been considered, however, is the passenger air bag ... what would happen if that went off in a front collision? Would its hitting the chair back cause an unexpected injury to the rear-facing passenger because of this? I don't know, but it is something else to think about. :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJay Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Mel B - 2013-03-18 11:42 PM Derek Uzzell - 2013-03-18 10:16 AM Keithl - 2013-03-17 8:52 PM Mel B - 2013-03-17 8:38 PM Lenny - I did read his post, but I've also seen some where the belt 'runs through' a part secured to the seat but still has a securing point on the 'B' pillar - as he hasn't said what his vehicle is I therefore chose NOT to make that assumption, hence my comment. ;-) Mel, If you read Colin's post again you will see that he quite clearly quotes his MH as a "Rapido 987f" in his signature... Keith. One thing that hasn't been considered, however, is the passenger air bag ... what would happen if that went off in a front collision? Would its hitting the chair back cause an unexpected injury to the rear-facing passenger because of this? I don't know, but it is something else to think about. :-S My thoughts exactly Mel On my car I have a sticker on the passenger front sun visor, (So it's in your face!!) saying that you must not put rear facing childs seats on the front passenger seat,. The air bag should it go off, would /could be dangerous. Any way, why would you want to travel facing backwards?? PJay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t5topcat Posted March 19, 2013 Author Share Posted March 19, 2013 On the subject of signatures and information given, I will accept the slap on the wrist, but please note that we are not all as computer literate as some and we learn as we go. I still dont know if its legal to travel facing backwards but I now know how to turn the signatures off!! Perhaps next I will learn to use the "quote" facility. As to why my wife even considered the possibility, it was to be able to converse with grandchildren sitting in the back. ( In designated travelling seats with three point belts and facing forwards) before anyone asks! Again, thanks for all your replies. I have asked the question of VOSA but I wont hold my breath for an answer. Regards TC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 PJay - 2013-03-19 12:14 AM Mel B - 2013-03-18 11:42 PM Derek Uzzell - 2013-03-18 10:16 AM Keithl - 2013-03-17 8:52 PM Mel B - 2013-03-17 8:38 PM Lenny - I did read his post, but I've also seen some where the belt 'runs through' a part secured to the seat but still has a securing point on the 'B' pillar - as he hasn't said what his vehicle is I therefore chose NOT to make that assumption, hence my comment. ;-) Mel, If you read Colin's post again you will see that he quite clearly quotes his MH as a "Rapido 987f" in his signature... Keith. One thing that hasn't been considered, however, is the passenger air bag ... what would happen if that went off in a front collision? Would its hitting the chair back cause an unexpected injury to the rear-facing passenger because of this? I don't know, but it is something else to think about. :-S My thoughts exactly Mel On my car I have a sticker on the passenger front sun visor, (So it's in your face!!) saying that you must not put rear facing childs seats on the front passenger seat,. The air bag should it go off, would /could be dangerous. Any way, why would you want to travel facing backwards?? PJay The dynamics of a rear facing child seat and rear facing swivel are completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Mel B - 2013-03-18 11:42 PM ...One thing that hasn't been considered, however, is the passenger air bag ... what would happen if that went off in a front collision? Would its hitting the chair back cause an unexpected injury to the rear-facing passenger because of this? I don't know, but it is something else to think about. :-S Most unlikely I would have thought, and it may well be the case that t5topcat's Rapido has no passenger-side air-bag (many A-class motorhomes don't). Regulations/advice applying to child-safety/child seats in a motor vehicle won't necessarily apply to adults. Besides which t5topcat's "good lady" is keen to know about the legality of this unusual practice, not whether it's inadvisable or dangerous. A few reasons for wishing to travel in a reversed passenger cab-seat might be: 1. There are people (or animals) in the rear of the motorhome the front passenger wants to keep an eye on or converse with. (And don't tell me motorcaravanners don't "converse" with their pets!) 2. There is a huge flat-screen TV in the rear of the motorhome that the front passenger wants to watch without the driver being distracted. 3. The driver is so terrifyingly bad that the front passenger would rather be facing backwards where he/she will be ignorant of the fatal accident that he/she believes will be inevitable due to the driver's incompetence. I'd be interested in how Rapido would respond to t5topcat's inquiry. It would be unrealistic to expect a French motorhome manufacturer to be aware of the intricacies of UK motoring law and its application to a hypothetical proposal that must surely be considered odd. You might as well ask Rapido to adjudicate on the legality of UK motorcaravanners A-frame towing in this country. If t5topcat's wife is happy for him to spend time researching this extensively to try to obtain a definitive, credible Yes or No answer (rather than put up those shelves in the kitchen she's been nagging him about for months), good luck to her. I don't think the practice is illegal in the UK, and I don't see why it should be elsewhere, but, to be truthful, I don't care whether it is or it isn't. If people choose to travel 'arse-backwards' in a motorhome's reversed passenger seat, that's OK as far as I'm concerned. And, should they want to do it upside-down, naked, smothered in tomato ketchup and wearing a chrome-plated diver's helmet, that's also fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t5topcat Posted March 19, 2013 Author Share Posted March 19, 2013 Derek, How did you know about the kitchen shelves :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.