Appalled to see a couple in a new Golf the afternoon doing 80+ in the third lane, quite close to the car in front. Nothing unusual there you may think, however it was the three children on the back seat, AND ANOTHER TWO IN THE BOOT - sans parcel shelf, which made me look again ....
Can't believe the sheer stupidity of some people - the legal / insurance implications of them having an accident are unthinkable.
Steve
|
Can't believe the sheer stupidity of some people - the legal / insurance implications of them having an accident are unthinkable.
I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that the worst aspect of this behaviour is the legal/insurance implication. Children spread across the carriageway is of course much more serious.
|
To be honest, I can't see any real legal/insurance implications for the idiots doing this. The insurance will pay out and could, in theory, recover any losses for any unsuitable use of the car. In practice, unless there also happened to be some element of hire/reward I can't see them doing this - imagine the PR implications of suing someone (who probably can't even afford to buy or rent a Touran when they clearly need one) who has had to scrape their child off the road as it is?
It doesn't mean I remotely condone the behaviour but if anything bad did happen, responsibililty (if not guilt) would stop with the insurance company, unfortunately.
|
>>imagine the PR implications of suing someone (who probably can't even
>>afford to buy or rent a Touran when they clearly need one)
I think they can afford a bigger, older car, when they drive a new Golf! Even a cheap-as-chips Montego would do!
|
|
|
there are a few parents I know whose exasperation levels are such that they want to put all the children in the boot -- preferably a real saloon-car boot, not a hatchback.
I think I rather take the fun out of the idea by reminding them that as a child, I rather enjoyed my (not infrequent) journeys in the boot...
|
NW,
Strapping them into the rear seats may of course reduce the exasperation levels.
Never ceases to amaze me the number of cars we pas/are passed by on the motorway with unrestrained children in the back (and often with a "Baby on Board" dangly thing hanging in the back window!) Mind you I also saw a bloke in a gravel car park the other week in his new pick-up racing around with 4 kids in the back being thrown around - with squeals of delight(?) Struck me as very dangerous.
|
Strapping them into the rear seats may of course reduce the exasperation levels.
Unfortunately, it doesn't reduce the noise levels, which is why the saloon-car boot is such an attractive idea.
For sheer peace of mind, you really can't beat the satisfaction of knowing that the clunk of closing bootlid denotes the beginning of peace-and-quiet until you reach your destination
|
"clunk of closing bootlid denotes the beginning of peace-and-quiet until you reach your destination"
Heaven, hell or purgatory? Or do little children still go to limbo?!!
|
|
For those without a saloon car though, one of those closed roof boxes makes for effective alternative.;)
|
|
|
|
>>For sheer peace of mind, you really can't beat the satisfaction of knowing that the clunk of closing bootlid denotes the beginning of peace-and-quiet until you reach your destination
I'll second that...mind you I've always been tempted by those dual cab Land Rovers where the rear passenger compartment is physically separate from the front one. But it's still a Land Rover :-((.
Seriously though the Spam family ended up taking both cars when we went from Bournemouth (near Poole) to Cornwall on holiday this year. Not only did it save me the end of holiday packing all the carp back into the car nightmare; as an added bonus the kids found it difficult to squabble when they we in different cars.:-))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need a license to drive, a license to keep a dog, a license to own a TV set. You don't need a license to have kids.
|
Dog licences were abolished many years ago.
Saw a car in France last month (ancient little Pug) with 2 adults in the front, child on passenger's knee.
Then I looked into the back, where there were only 6 more children... yet none in the boot.
The springs on the car were an interesting looking shape, too!
|
In France? It's not uncommon in the West Yorks/East Lancs region of England.
What ARE the legal/insurance implications?
Is it still the case that if there are more occupants across the rear seat than there are seatbelts, the excess occupiers aren't breaking any rules by not wearing one?
What about adults in the back of a Transit van? Is that illegal, or just a case of "at your own risk"? (And if so, can adults legally ride in the boot portion of an estate car?)
|
What about adults in the back of a Transit van? Is that illegal, or just a case of "at your own risk"? (And if so, can adults legally ride in the boot portion of an estate car?)
I think you can get points on your license for carrying passengers in the back of a van.
|
I believe the irony of these situations is that the parent thinks they are such a careful driver they will never have an accident and thus their children are perfectly safe without a seatbelt.
Were an accident to happen, said parent would blame the other driver for the death of their children.
|
|
|
|
"2 adults in the front, child on passenger's knee."
As small children, my brother and I regularly travelled this way. My mother would always tell us to sit back, so we wouldn't bump our heads on the dashboard if my father braked suddenly. He would say that was wrong and that we should sit forward so our heads would have less distance to travel (and velocity to accumulate) before it hit the dashboard. I don't recall who won those arguments.
Travelling in the open back of a pickup was always a treat even as an adult. The last time my mother came to visit me in the US she, at almost 60, insisted on sitting in the back for a short trip. No legal/insurance implications there though.
|
"2 adults in the front, child on passenger's knee." As small children, my brother and I regularly travelled this way. My mother would always tell us to sit back, so we wouldn't bump our heads on the dashboard if my father braked suddenly. He would say that was wrong and that we should sit forward so our heads would have less distance to travel (and velocity to accumulate) before it hit the dashboard. I don't recall who won those arguments. Travelling in the open back of a pickup was always a treat even as an adult. The last time my mother came to visit me in the US she, at almost 60, insisted on sitting in the back for a short trip. No legal/insurance implications there though.
I used to sit between my mum and dad on his vespa as a baby....
Imagine the out cry now :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah! I remember a happy holiday deep in rural Wales in about 1992 when our family of 5 and my sister-in-law's family of 5 shared my Volvo 740 estate on days out to avoid driving in convoy with 2 cars.
Happy days but don't suppose we could get away with it now (children have grown far too big!)
|
In a nutshell apparent offence as a motor veh shall at all times be such that no danger is caused to any person in or on the vehicle by reason of manner passengers carried. (MV Con and Use Regs 86 Reg 100.) 3 points involved.
Likewise offence for a person not without reaosnable excuse drives a motor vehicle on a road where child under 14 is in rear without wearing child restraint or adult belt if certain conditions met - Over 12 and more than 150cn in height. Various other minor exception not apparently highlighted in post. (MV( Wearing of Seat Belt) Regs 1993))
DVD
|
|
|
|
