Ian0354 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I have been corresponding with a family, Mum, Dad and children aged 7 & 9, who intend to come over from New Zealand and purchase a new MH with which to tour the UK & Europe and then take back to NZ when they return. We have discussed many aspects and now a question has arisen that I feel is just too important to be answered by my own views. What I would like to do is post the question for open forum discussion and then I will send a link to the family who can then read all comments. So; "We find lots of motorhomes that look great and have loads of room, but have only 2 seat belts. Over here, passengers are able to travel sideway with seat belts on. Is this possible in England? We would consider having a structural steel bar inserted (don't really know the terms but it is done over here), in order to get the extra belts put in. This then gets checked by the appropriate engineer and certificated BUT would this be considered legal over in Europe and the UK? What do you suggest?" Comments Please. I apologise to members who have read this question on MHT where it is also posted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I've bumped up a thread for you to read, 'carrying passengers, seatbelt laws' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian0354 Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 Thanks Colin. I did try a search for side facing. I will pass the link on. Regards, Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david lloyd Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Hi ian03/54 Quite apart from whether or not the use of side facing seat belts is legal I can honestly say that the real question is whether or not your friends would want to risk serious injury in the event of an accident as a direct result of travelling on side facing seats - with or without seat belts. After over twenty years experience on the emergency ambulance service my feeling is that travelling on a side facing seat is much, much more dangerous even in normal driving conditions and can be much worse in an accident. The fitting of seat belts can aggravate the injuries as the forces created in an accident increase significantly and will be transferred to some of the most sensitive organs in the body. If your friends have not yet committed to any particular type of vehicle then, in my opinion, it would be sensible to rule out any model with side facing seats for travelling. Best regards, David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian0354 Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 Hi David, Thanks for your remarks. It was for exactly the reasons you give that I didn't want to answer this question personally. On this forum, and on MHT, there have been many postings tonight from peoples own experiences. This family have toured in Europe years ago and maybe New Zealand doesn't have the levels of traffic that we endure. I wanted to show a weight of opinion. Regards, Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I think NZ traffic levels may be just a bit lower. A New Zealand lady I met a couple of years ago claimed there was so little traffic on most roads, she could read a book while driving! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bil h Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 About 5 years ago when driving in South Island I was the backup truck to a group of cyclists. I was pulled over by an unmarked law car and its occupants and told in very firm tones that if the cyclists continued to make it difficult for other drivers they would be stopped from cycling any further. Not a side seating answer but they do have some firm road laws. bil h Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrytraveller Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Leaving coaches aside, we know travel much too fast for their own and everyone else’s good. How many people with many years experience on the emergency ambulance service, can honestly say they have seen the results of motorhome’s involvement in accidents, which have caused injury to passengers in side facing seats? And if they have, what’s the percentage of MH’s to every other mode of transport. The possibility of injury in these side-facing seats is more likely IF in an accident I know, but what are we to do if a fragment from space was to hit us? Which seems more likely!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Bearing in mind that, as yet, your firends haven't bought a motorhome over here I would suggest they only consider 'vans with two rear forward facing seats equipped with three point belts. Anything else just shouldn't be considerdd as at all apropriate. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Terrytraveller - 2007-01-29 10:01 AM Leaving coaches aside, we know travel much too fast for their own and everyone else’s good. How many people with many years experience on the emergency ambulance service, can honestly say they have seen the results of motorhome’s involvement in accidents, which have caused injury to passengers in side facing seats? And if they have, what’s the percentage of MH’s to every other mode of transport. The possibility of injury in these side-facing seats is more likely IF in an accident I know, but what are we to do if a fragment from space was to hit us? Which seems more likely!! TerryI think you're indulging in statistics abuse! Each individual vehicle has, more or less, the same chance of being involved in an accident as any other. It matters not whether it is a motorhome, a car, or a bus. Motorhomes, on any stretch of road, run (broadly) the same general risks of accident as any other vehicles on that same stretch of road at the same time. A given driver carries (broadly) the same accident risk whatever vehicle he is driving.If the A&E services could point to injuries resulting from side facing passengers travelling in motorhomes, as they probably could if all data was analysed, it would prove nothing one way or the other. The statistics are accidents per vehicle mile. The likelihood of a particular motorhome being involved in a road accident is, therefore, no lower/higher in general than for any other vehicle, ditto motorhomes with side facing seats.The heightened risk lies in the seats, and not in the individual vehicle, or type of vehicle. True, you do first have to have the accident, but that is true for all secondary safety devices (seatbelts, airbags etc). However, once you have that accident, whatever the statistical likelihood may be, the risk of death or serious injury to the occupants of the side facing seats is substantially greater than for any other category of passenger, even if they are belted. If they are unbelted, not only are the risks to them greater again, but the risks to the belted front seat occupants are also substantially increased.The only advice that can be given is not to travel on side facing seats in any vehicle, whether belted or unbelted.Regarding the chances of being hit by a piece of space debris, sadly, that is infinitessimally small compared to having a road accident, even if driving on dry roads on a sunny summer's day in Sutherland! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel E Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Interestingly, NZ is the ONLY country I have driven in where motor insurance is NOT a legal requirement. Of course, without it you may lose your home to a damages claim, but it's your choice! And Brian I must argue with your statement that: "A given driver carries (broadly) the same accident risk whatever vehicle he is driving." If this were true then a sports car with much the same repair costs as a similar sized saloon would not be much more expensive for the same person to insure! The fact is that the relatively low insurance costs for motorhomes - relative to value - are because they are less frequently involved in expensive accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Mel E - 2007-01-29 1:57 PM .................... And Brian I must argue with your statement that: "A given driver carries (broadly) the same accident risk whatever vehicle he is driving." If this were true then a sports car with much the same repair costs as a similar sized saloon would not be much more expensive for the same person to insure! The fact is that the relatively low insurance costs for motorhomes - relative to value - are because they are less frequently involved in expensive accidents. Hello Mel. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm going to argue with that, too!I wasn't referring to the premium level the car/driver will attract from his insurer, but to the actual real life risk the driver alone presents.The sports car carries a higher premium than the family saloon, because the insurance companies compare the numbers of accidents involving various types of vehicles. The incidence of accidents involving sports cars is higher, overall, than for other vehicle types - generally because of the type of driver they attract, (youngish, less experienced, more impetuous, more competetive, more aggressive) who consequently have more accidents. It is not the vehicle per se that is being judged for premium level, but the perceived driver/vehicle risk package. Consequently, the sports car carries a premium loading, and a normally cautious driver just gets treated as a higher potential risk when driving a sports car.If the same driver also insures a family saloon, his premium for driving that car will not carry the sports car loading, and will be normal.You are right that the motorhome has a lower incidence of accidents than average, and is therefore regarded as a lower risk vehicle type, so gaining lower than average premiums. But that, surely, is because most of the drivers are that bit more, shall we say, mature, and therefore more experienced, more patient, less impetuous and less aggressive and so, overall, safer. But again it is the perceived driver/vehicle risk package that is being assessed by the insurer.However, it is no more true that sports cars are inherently dangerous, than it is true that motorhomes are inherently safe. Ultimately, it is the driver who makes all the difference. It is the driver risk factor alone that I was intending to refer to, and not the insurance companies' perception of the driver/vehicle risk factor. Thus a given driver, travelling a given road, will be no more nor less dangerous as a driver, whether he drives a sports car or a mororhome. That was my point: I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrytraveller Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Hi Brian, When I was a child I played with clockwork toys, I don’t seem to be able to stop sometimes. Regards Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Terrytraveller - 2007-01-29 4:36 PM Hi Brian, When I was a child I played with clockwork toys, I don’t seem to be able to stop sometimes. Regards Terry No good. Spring's gone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david lloyd Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Terrytraveller - 2007-01-29 10:01 AM Leaving coaches aside, we know travel much too fast for their own and everyone else’s good. How many people with many years experience on the emergency ambulance service, can honestly say they have seen the results of motorhome’s involvement in accidents, which have caused injury to passengers in side facing seats? And if they have, what’s the percentage of MH’s to every other mode of transport. The possibility of injury in these side-facing seats is more likely IF in an accident I know, but what are we to do if a fragment from space was to hit us? Which seems more likely!! Hi terrytraveller Firstly, let me confess that in my career I never had to attend an accident involving a motorhome - due in part to the fact that they were not as popular as they are now. However, as Brian says, vehicles with side facing seats all face the same dangers and it was not uncommon for many vehicles (including public transport) to have such seating arrangements. Indeed, many welfare vehicles including emergency ambulances used them for many years. The most popular arrangement, prior to the widespread introduction of two tier ambulance services (i.e. separate vehicles for emergency and out-patient work) was to have the two trolley cots fitted to either side wall with a permanently fixed, padded backrest above that incorporated pull down armrests and lap belts. Even the few purpose built out-patient vehicles would have side facing bench seats, possibly with room between to fix wheelchairs in the central aisle. Now I have been to a number of incidents involving such seating. The first example was an ambulance involved in an accident in which the driver was unhurt (forward facing seat, lap/diagonal seat belt) whilst all the passengers in the rear were injured to varying degrees. But it is wrong to also think that it is only in an accident that injuries can occur. The most serious ( and high profile) incident I knew of involved a crew at my own station who were taking out-patients into a day hospital. As the vehicle turned into the entrance (about 5mph) the combination of road camber and the sway of the vehicle led to a patient who had either refused to wear the lap belt or undone it en-route losing his seat and ending up in the central aisle. He was treated immediately by the crew before we arrived and then transferred to the nearest A&E unit ten minutes away. He died shortly after as a direct result of his injuries. In another incident a colleague was thrown forward into the cab of his vehicle when it braked hard to avoid a collision. He ended up unconscious in a crumpled heap beneath the dashboard and was also seriously injured. Having spent many miles trying to stay seated in the rear of a moving ambulance (mostly without a seat belt on as I needed to monitor/treat someone) I can testify just how difficult it is to keep your feet or even remain seated at low speed, high speed and under different road conditions. My own motorhome has a side facing seat immediately behind the driver seat which does not have seat belts and would not be used for travelling. I consider that, in the event of an accident or even severe braking, an occupant would be thrown into the cab. If they had a lap belt on this would have the effect of stopping their body from going that far but the upper trunk would pivot at the waist and continue in the direction of travel. Severe injuries could result from their head, shoulder and upper arm hitting the fixed bulkhead where the cab is married to the rear saloon. On top of that it is the added weight from that motion that causes the internal injuries from the lap belt to lower internal organs. Believe me, it was not uncommon for injuries to occur directly as a result of the use of side facing seats and now, thankfully, the use of them is diminishing and new laws will, at least, designate travel seats with seat belts. My own opinion remains the same, if the friends from New Zealand have not yet committed themselves to a particular model, try and select a model with forward facing travel seats or, at the very least, ensure side facing seats have seat belts fitted - and use them. Best regards, David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrytraveller Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Hi David and Brian, I totally agree boys - I really didn’t think I would get away with those remarks, hospitals, ambulances in a rush, No10 and side facing seats (at meal times) are the most dangerous places for normal folk to be. I suppose what gets up my nose is the government making all these rules and regulations for us plebs, did I read 3000 new regulations last year? How on earth have we all managed without them for the last 70 years I wonder? Regards Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Terrytraveller - 2007-01-30 10:17 AM Hi David and Brian, I totally agree boys - I really didn’t think I would get away with those remarks, hospitals, ambulances in a rush, No10 and side facing seats (at meal times) are the most dangerous places for normal folk to be. I suppose what gets up my nose is the government making all these rules and regulations for us plebs, did I read 3000 new regulations last year? How on earth have we all managed without them for the last 70 years I wonder? Regards Terry TerryI think at least part of the answer (quite a large part) is economics and not simply a desire to keep us "safe".Accidents have high costs, not only in terms of the medical treatment and emergency services costs, but also in terms of lost manhours on the part of those injured and lost family income should a "breadwinner" be killed or permanently disabled.I think the government is at least as concerned about those productive losses/state costs, as they are that the individual may hurt him/her self. Gordon, you see, needs to keep the taxes rolling in, and the spending going where he wants it, not where accidents send it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel E Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Brian, Just back from a week in Hong Kong, so sorry for the delay in replying. I was only quoting insurance as an example. I still believe that your statement that "A given driver carries (broadly) the same accident risk whatever vehicle he is driving." is just patently untrue. I know you're trying to argue that it is the driver that creates the accident, but the vehicle is still clearly material. Like it or not, you would be much more likely to have an accident in a Ferrari or McLaren M1 than in a Daewoo Matiz along the same stretch of highway. You might well be less likely to have an accident in the Ferrari than, say, a 20 year-old, but that's not the point you were making in the quote above. Mel E ==== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Hello Mel.How was Honkers? Still there I hope!Re the driver, I'm afraid I'm lost!Why should one car (presumed fully roadworthy etc) make the driver more likely to have an accident, under the same road and weather conditions, than another?Are you arguing that the driver alters his/her behaviour according to the vehicle they are driving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bil h Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Yes they do change attitudes according to what vehicle and also the passenger(s) bil h Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david lloyd Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Hi Brian Yes, I have to agree there with Mel E and bill h - the 'attitude' argument is depicted most clearly, for instance, when a teenage boy takes a perfectly average saloon car that has been driven safely for the better part of twenty years over many, many road miles and yet, in his hands, suddenly becomes a lethal weapon perhaps in one short trip. Regards, David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 david lloyd - 2007-02-01 10:28 AM Hi Brian Yes, I have to agree there with Mel E and bill h - the 'attitude' argument is depicted most clearly, for instance, when a teenage boy takes a perfectly average saloon car that has been driven safely for the better part of twenty years over many, many road miles and yet, in his hands, suddenly becomes a lethal weapon perhaps in one short trip. Regards, David DavidIf I understand you correctly, that would mean that the car had changed its attitude, not the driver changing his? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 bil h - 2007-02-01 12:49 AM Yes they do change attitudes according to what vehicle and also the passenger(s) bil h Any evidence for that Bill? Remember, we're talking (generally) about the normally mature and sensible motorhome driver, here, not the newly qualified and over exuberant youth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david lloyd Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Brian Kirby - 2007-02-01 1:02 PMdavid lloyd - 2007-02-01 10:28 AM Hi Brian Yes, I have to agree there with Mel E and bill h - the 'attitude' argument is depicted most clearly, for instance, when a teenage boy takes a perfectly average saloon car that has been driven safely for the better part of twenty years over many, many road miles and yet, in his hands, suddenly becomes a lethal weapon perhaps in one short trip. Regards, David DavidIf I understand you correctly, that would mean that the car had changed its attitude, not the driver changing his?Not really Brian - inferring that the youth has a different attitude to driving the same vehicle (to that of the normal driver of the vehicle) and that that constitutes the threat. The car is the same car, the road may even be the same road but the car is now being driven differently as a direct result of the attitude of the 'new' driver.DavidDavid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frank Wilkinson Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I don't think that accidents are anything to do with the type of car but are entirely dependent on the driver and his attitude.I see young men in very ordinary small family saloons, Citroen Saxos feature a lot as they gave a year's free insurance, and they drive like lunatics. On the other hand I have mature friends who have exotic and very fast cars but they drive them within their own limits, not the car's.It's actually harder to have an accident in an expensive sports car. I have a very powerful 2-seater and it has so many safety aids that it's almost impossible to slide it as its amazing anti-skid software takes over in milliseconds and corrects it. This coupled with enormous brakes makes it extremely safe to drive.If I go too fast around a roundabout that's become very greasy I'll feel a sudden twitch as it corrects. A more ordinary car would feel its back end starting to make contact with its front just before it ran out of road!The driver and not the car is what causes accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.