Hi folks

I've been looking at a Hymer motorhome from the early nineties- main problem 
is it only has seatbelts in the front two seats and as there are 4 of us we 
need in the rear as well.

How feasible is this?  Are there fixing points? What are the regulations for 
carrying people/children in the back? Seats must be forward facing is that 
right?

Lots of questions I'm afraid, but I don't want to make an expensive mistake.

thanks

Neb

I think you will find that the rear seats can face in any direction, I have 
had cars with side facing rear seat (land rover discovery) and also driven 
cars with rear facing seats,(some Volvo estates).
As for your other questions sorry I can't help.

GGJ

"Nebulous"  wrote in message 
news:SoudnW68msc78MnanZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Hi folks
>
> I've been looking at a Hymer motorhome from the early nineties- main 
> problem is it only has seatbelts in the front two seats and as there are 4 
> of us we need in the rear as well.
>
> How feasible is this?  Are there fixing points? What are the regulations 
> for carrying people/children in the back? Seats must be forward facing is 
> that right?
>
> Lots of questions I'm afraid, but I don't want to make an expensive 
> mistake.
>
> thanks
>
> Neb
>
>

Nebulous wrote:

> I've been looking at a Hymer motorhome from the early nineties- main problem 
> is it only has seatbelts in the front two seats and as there are 4 of us we 
> need in the rear as well.
> 
> How feasible is this?  Are there fixing points? What are the regulations for 
> carrying people/children in the back? Seats must be forward facing is that 
> right?

Maybe they offer addon kits.

you might ask your question here:

http://www.hymer.com/eu/index.php?kategorie=100181&case=17

It's their job to answer such questions.

good luck

Dario

"dario"  wrote in message 
news:47550785$0$13104$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> Nebulous wrote:
>
>> I've been looking at a Hymer motorhome from the early nineties- main 
>> problem is it only has seatbelts in the front two seats and as there are 
>> 4 of us we need in the rear as well.
>>
>> How feasible is this?  Are there fixing points? What are the regulations 
>> for carrying people/children in the back? Seats must be forward facing is 
>> that right?
>
> Maybe they offer addon kits.
>
> you might ask your question here:
>
> http://www.hymer.com/eu/index.php?kategorie=100181&case=17
>
> It's their job to answer such questions.
>
> good luck

Thanks very much.

Since posting I found this:

http://www.ukmotorhomes.net/faqs.shtml#seatbelts


which gives a lot of detail. It certainly looks as though the best option 
with children is to buy a motor home which had seat belts in the rear as 
standard fit. Anything else seems to be a compromise.

Neb

"Nebulous"  wrote in message 
news:SoudnW68msc78MnanZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Hi folks
>
> I've been looking at a Hymer motorhome from the early nineties- main 
> problem is it only has seatbelts in the front two seats and as there are 4 
> of us we need in the rear as well.
Legally you don't 'need' them, you may want them for obvious reasons but you 
don't 'need' them.

> How feasible is this?  Are there fixing points? What are the regulations 
> for carrying people/children in the back?
You are only required to use seat belts where they are fitted.

> Seats must be forward facing is that right?
Nope

Safety is an overall thing, not just seatbelts.  All you are doing is 
playing the odds.  Statiscally the effects of most accidents are  alleviated 
by using seatbelts but sometimes they're a hinderance, ie if you end up 
upsidedown in a lake.  Same with side airbags and so on.  A particular car 
for example can get an overall good safety rating because of various 
features yet still be lacking in some area, say for example rear impact 
resistance.  You buy the car on its overall safety rating, not on individual 
features then hope that if you're unfortunate enough to have an accident the 
odds are right and you hit the bit that's protected best.  Unfortunately I 
can't find the source for this but I remember reading that ultimately, if 
you're going to have an accident, the best safety measure is to be in a 
vehicle bigger than the one you hit because you will decelerate more slowly.

Back to campers.  Most vehicles on the road are cars with an all up weight 
of not much more than a tonne, most campers run around nearly fully loaded 
with an all up weight over 3 tonnes.  The passengers are also sitting higher 
than the front of most cars so side impact is also less of a problem.  My 
camper has seat belts which the kids use but usually they're slouching or 
laying or doing something that makes the belts effectively useless.

I suppose what I'm saying is don't get too worried about not having them. 
Campers have a good road safety record which is why the insurance is low, if 
they hit anything it's likely to be smaller than they are so deceleration 
wont be too rapid and because of the nature of the vehicle it's difficult to 
keep kids sitting upright in the optimum position for a seatbelt to be 
effective.

I'm not being complacent but, having travelled thousands of miles in mine 
trying to get the kids to sit bolt upright for hours on end with the seat 
belt in the correct position, I got to the point where they got fed up with 
the constant bollockings and didn't want to come any more.  I've now taken a 
more pragmatic approach (and waffled far more than I intended to).

Rgds

Andy R

We wanted seatbelts for 4 and simply passed over those that did not have 
them fitted by the manufacturer.  I am afraid that I do not agree with 
some of the other posters comments as side seats are dangerous and 
diagonal seatbelts will offer none or very little protection in the 
common front or rear shunt.  As a fire officer of many years experience 
i have never found a seatbelt hinder a passenger but have known them to 
save many people's lives.  They do however have to fit and be worn 
correctly.

I can take on board about being larger than something MAY help in an 
accident but don't forget that the body of motorhome is so flimsy and 
offers virtually no protection in a crash.

Incidentally when I bought my 10 year old Swift motorhome earlier this 
year I wrote to Swift to see if there were any recalls and they 
contacted me to have my rear seatbelts frame replaced (free of charge) 
Apparently it was only fitted to the wooden floor but Alko have now 
replaced it and it is secured to the chassis.

Don't take a risk with your children's lives - despite the odds of being 
in an accident as being low.

Dave

Nebulous wrote:
> Hi folks
> 
> I've been looking at a Hymer motorhome from the early nineties- main problem 
> is it only has seatbelts in the front two seats and as there are 4 of us we 
> need in the rear as well.
> 
> How feasible is this?  Are there fixing points? What are the regulations for 
> carrying people/children in the back? Seats must be forward facing is that 
> right?
> 
> Lots of questions I'm afraid, but I don't want to make an expensive mistake.
> 
> thanks
> 
> Neb
> 
>

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:51:32 GMT, Dave Smith 
wrote:

>We wanted seatbelts for 4 and simply passed over those that did not have 
>them fitted by the manufacturer.  I am afraid that I do not agree with 
>some of the other posters comments as side seats are dangerous and 
>diagonal seatbelts will offer none or very little protection in the 
>common front or rear shunt.  As a fire officer of many years experience 
>i have never found a seatbelt hinder a passenger but have known them to 
>save many people's lives.  They do however have to fit and be worn 
>correctly.
>
The point with a Motorcaravan is that you are more likely to be
injured or decapitated by a van thats not pack properly (and most
arent) than get injured by not wearing a seatbelt.
I dont wear one. Im exempt but wouldnt wear one if I wasnt

"Custard" <ignore the facts-completely@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:5lhsl3h3ov7koqs5dq07m8og3ifa60390t@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:51:32 GMT, Dave Smith 
> wrote:
>
>>We wanted seatbelts for 4 and simply passed over those that did not have
>>them fitted by the manufacturer.  I am afraid that I do not agree with
>>some of the other posters comments as side seats are dangerous and
>>diagonal seatbelts will offer none or very little protection in the
>>common front or rear shunt.  As a fire officer of many years experience
>>i have never found a seatbelt hinder a passenger but have known them to
>>save many people's lives.  They do however have to fit and be worn
>>correctly.
>>
> The point with a Motorcaravan is that you are more likely to be
> injured or decapitated by a van thats not pack properly (and most
> arent) than get injured by not wearing a seatbelt.
> I dont wear one. Im exempt but wouldnt wear one if I wasnt

Unless there is some underlying medical condition I can see no logical 
reason for not wearing a seatbelt.  Whether you have packed the van badly or 
not you are unlikely to be better off in an impact without a belt.

Rgds

Andy R

"Dave Smith"  wrote in message 
news:E2m7j.17262$jy3.4233@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> We wanted seatbelts for 4 and simply passed over those that did not have 
> them fitted by the manufacturer.  I am afraid that I do not agree with 
> some of the other posters comments as side seats are dangerous and 
> diagonal seatbelts will offer none or very little protection in the common 
> front or rear shunt.  As a fire officer of many years experience i have 
> never found a seatbelt hinder a passenger but have known them to save many 
> people's lives.  They do however have to fit and be worn correctly.
Exactly.  The bench seats in the back of most campers are designed for 
adults to sit at a table.  Many children cannot sit with their backs against 
the back of the seats with their backsides as far back as they will go 
because the seat base comes part way between their knees and ankles, so they 
sit forward or put their feet on the seats.  Unless you've got incredibly 
well disciplined children who will sit bolt upright on bench seats with no 
lateral support with their legs dangling for hours on end then the belt 
becomes next to useless.  As soon as they slouch the danger of a broken neck 
from 'submarining' is just as great as the danger of other injury caused by 
being loose in the vehicle.

> I can take on board about being larger than something MAY help in an 
> accident but don't forget that the body of motorhome is so flimsy and 
> offers virtually no protection in a crash.
But it's not the body that generally gets hit, it's the chassis.  If the 
body's been hit sufficiently hard for there to be major intrusion into the 
passenger area then belted in or not, you're still going to be squidged.

> Incidentally when I bought my 10 year old Swift motorhome earlier this 
> year I wrote to Swift to see if there were any recalls and they contacted 
> me to have my rear seatbelts frame replaced (free of charge) Apparently it 
> was only fitted to the wooden floor but Alko have now replaced it and it 
> is secured to the chassis.
>
> Don't take a risk with your children's lives - despite the odds of being 
> in an accident as being low.
It's not  just the odds of being in an accident, it's the odds of it being 
the 'right/wrong sort' of accident.

Given the choice I'd rather have the belts fitted but I wouldn't get too 
excited if they weren't there in the same way I would in a car.

If you're going to retro fit belts then a five point harness is the way to 
go.  Probably not much more expensive, much more likely to be worn properly 
for extended periods and probably more comfortable to wear because it'll 
support the child while he's sleeping.

Rgds

Andy R

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:14:03 -0000, "Andy R" 
wrote:

>
>"Custard" <ignore the facts-completely@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
>news:5lhsl3h3ov7koqs5dq07m8og3ifa60390t@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:51:32 GMT, Dave Smith 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>We wanted seatbelts for 4 and simply passed over those that did not have
>>>them fitted by the manufacturer.  I am afraid that I do not agree with
>>>some of the other posters comments as side seats are dangerous and
>>>diagonal seatbelts will offer none or very little protection in the
>>>common front or rear shunt.  As a fire officer of many years experience
>>>i have never found a seatbelt hinder a passenger but have known them to
>>>save many people's lives.  They do however have to fit and be worn
>>>correctly.
>>>
>> The point with a Motorcaravan is that you are more likely to be
>> injured or decapitated by a van thats not pack properly (and most
>> arent) than get injured by not wearing a seatbelt.
>> I dont wear one. Im exempt but wouldnt wear one if I wasnt
>
>Unless there is some underlying medical condition I can see no logical 
>reason for not wearing a seatbelt.  Whether you have packed the van badly or 
>not you are unlikely to be better off in an impact without a belt.
>
>Rgds
>
>Andy R 
>
Well you are entitled to your opinion. Wrong though it may be.

"Custard" <ignore the facts-completely@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:ss1tl3dpdumi2b65bpfqt2iv0qltn4r07f@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:14:03 -0000, "Andy R" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Custard" <ignore the facts-completely@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:5lhsl3h3ov7koqs5dq07m8og3ifa60390t@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:51:32 GMT, Dave Smith 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>We wanted seatbelts for 4 and simply passed over those that did not have
>>>>them fitted by the manufacturer.  I am afraid that I do not agree with
>>>>some of the other posters comments as side seats are dangerous and
>>>>diagonal seatbelts will offer none or very little protection in the
>>>>common front or rear shunt.  As a fire officer of many years experience
>>>>i have never found a seatbelt hinder a passenger but have known them to
>>>>save many people's lives.  They do however have to fit and be worn
>>>>correctly.
>>>>
>>> The point with a Motorcaravan is that you are more likely to be
>>> injured or decapitated by a van thats not pack properly (and most
>>> arent) than get injured by not wearing a seatbelt.
>>> I dont wear one. Im exempt but wouldnt wear one if I wasnt
>>
>>Unless there is some underlying medical condition I can see no logical
>>reason for not wearing a seatbelt.  Whether you have packed the van badly 
>>or
>>not you are unlikely to be better off in an impact without a belt.
>>
>>Rgds
>>
>>Andy R
>>
> Well you are entitled to your opinion. Wrong though it may be.

It may not help when you drive off the end of the flat earth you must also 
believe in, but seat belts clearly help in the vast majority of other 
accident types.

Rgds

Andy R

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:05:45 -0000, "Andy R" 
wrote:

>
>It may not help when you drive off the end of the flat earth you must also 
>believe in, but seat belts clearly help in the vast majority of other 
>accident types.
>
>Rgds
>
>Andy R 
>
Well I prefer empirical evidence and seatbelts didnt help save the
life of a good friend so Ill take my risks and you take yours.

"Custard" <ignore the facts-completely@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:hq4vl318u58qu2sk6uguu2gun4ngb5dp18@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:05:45 -0000, "Andy R" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>It may not help when you drive off the end of the flat earth you must also
>>believe in, but seat belts clearly help in the vast majority of other
>>accident types.
>>
>>Rgds
>>
>>Andy R
>>
> Well I prefer empirical evidence and seatbelts didnt help save the
> life of a good friend so Ill take my risks and you take yours.

A friend of my mothers got killed standing at a bus stop when the bus 
mounted the pavement and knocked down the bus shelter.  My mother however 
still waits for buses in the rebuilt bus shelter rather than stand in the 
layby which I assume she should be doing using your logic.

Rgds

Andy R

"Custard" <ignore the facts-completely@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:hq4vl318u58qu2sk6uguu2gun4ngb5dp18@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:05:45 -0000, "Andy R" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>It may not help when you drive off the end of the flat earth you must also
>>believe in, but seat belts clearly help in the vast majority of other
>>accident types.
>>
>>Rgds
>>
>>Andy R
>>
> Well I prefer empirical evidence and seatbelts didnt help save the
> life of a good friend so Ill take my risks and you take yours.

So you think its fine to be thrown through your windscreen in to the other 
car possibly then injuring someone else through your own ingnorance

>>>It may not help when you drive off the end of the flat earth you must 
>>>also
>>>believe in, but seat belts clearly help in the vast majority of other
>>>accident types.
>>>
>>>Rgds
>>>
>>>Andy R
>>>
>> Well I prefer empirical evidence and seatbelts didnt help save the
>> life of a good friend so Ill take my risks and you take yours.
>
> So you think its fine to be thrown through your windscreen in to the other 
> car possibly then injuring someone else through your own ingnorance

And I will also mention that if I had not been wearing a seatbelt 10 years 
ago I would not be here to be writing this.

In message , Campa-Man 
 writes
>
>"Custard" <ignore the facts-completely@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:hq4vl318u58qu2sk6uguu2gun4ngb5dp18@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:05:45 -0000, "Andy R" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>It may not help when you drive off the end of the flat earth you must also
>>>believe in, but seat belts clearly help in the vast majority of other
>>>accident types.
>>>
>>>Rgds
>>>
>>>Andy R
>>>
>> Well I prefer empirical evidence and seatbelts didnt help save the
>> life of a good friend so Ill take my risks and you take yours.
>
>So you think its fine to be thrown through your windscreen in to the other
>car possibly then injuring someone else through your own ingnorance
>
>
I was on a Search & Rescue training course at the weekend talking to 
Staffs Police Helicopter crew about their heat detection equipment etc.
They told us of one accident at night where a car had gone into the 
hedge and the passenger, not wearing a seatbelt went through the 
windscreen. The guys on the ground couldn't find her but from the air 
were directed to where she lay face down in a lake of water in the 
field. Just as they reached her, the image on the screen went blank as 
her body temperature dropped as she had drowned. All in the space of 
less than twenty minutes.

People who argue against seatbelts really ought to get real.
-- 
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

"Custard" <ignore the facts-completely@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:hq4vl318u58qu2sk6uguu2gun4ngb5dp18@4ax.com...

> Well I prefer empirical evidence and seatbelts didnt help save the
> life of a good friend so Ill take my risks and you take yours.
____________________________________________________

"Custard" has a thick skin!


My take is that a friend who didn't wear a belt DID survive. He went through 
the windscreen and had one hundred and twenty six stitches put into his face 
by a Plastic Surgeon who fortunately was available when the bloody mess 
arrived at A&E where they repaired other injuries too. The resulting scarred 
skin was but a pale shadow of a once very good-looking face. A belt would 
have almost certainly have avoided one hundred and twenty six stitches for 
Gordon and a great deal of  pain and anguish.

PM

"PM"  wrote in message 
news:2sOdnZOMn9pJiv3aRVnyuQA@bt.com...
>
> "Custard" <ignore the facts-completely@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:hq4vl318u58qu2sk6uguu2gun4ngb5dp18@4ax.com...
>
>> Well I prefer empirical evidence and seatbelts didnt help save the
>> life of a good friend so Ill take my risks and you take yours.
> ____________________________________________________
>
> "Custard" has a thick skin!
>
>
> My take is that a friend who didn't wear a belt DID survive. He went 
> through the windscreen and had one hundred and twenty six stitches put 
> into his face by a Plastic Surgeon who fortunately was available when the 
> bloody mess arrived at A&E where they repaired other injuries too. The 
> resulting scarred skin was but a pale shadow of a once very good-looking 
> face. A belt would have almost certainly have avoided one hundred and 
> twenty six stitches for Gordon and a great deal of  pain and anguish.

Well I've been away for a few days folks, and this has certainly generated a 
great deal of interest.

We can argue about one-off accidents forever, but you need to play the 
percentages and I believe the percentages are better if wearing seatbelts.

Well over 20 years ago, before seatbelts were compulsory, I was in an 
accident where I would have been killed if I was wearing one. That still 
doesn't put me off and I don't go anywhere without belting up.

Looking at photos of motorhomes I see some with 2 forward facing seats with 
headrests and 3 point belts built in. They look both more comfortable, and 
more suitable for what I think I need.

All I have to do now is afford one!

Neb

"Nebulous"  wrote in message 
news:JvydnTi1mbUH-P3anZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Well I've been away for a few days folks, and this has certainly generated 
> a great deal of interest.
>
> We can argue about one-off accidents forever, but you need to play the 
> percentages and I believe the percentages are better if wearing seatbelts.
>

I think its down to the individual.  I personally prefer to be strapped
in and for their own safety and to prevent them from roaming about the 
vehicle or becoming high velocity projectiles , so are the dogs, cats and 
even the hamsters.

The seat belt laws seem to have created more died in the hole non- wearers. 
I know people who happily belted up before but now almost defiantly refuse 
for no other reason than they dont like being told what to do..

I've always wondered if its possible to fit racing driver style harness to 
side facing lap belt points?  And would they be any safer?

:o)



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Hilary"  wrote in message 
news:4760a0f9$0$26036$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> "Nebulous"  wrote in message 
> news:JvydnTi1mbUH-P3anZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> Well I've been away for a few days folks, and this has certainly 
>> generated a great deal of interest.
>>
>> We can argue about one-off accidents forever, but you need to play the 
>> percentages and I believe the percentages are better if wearing 
>> seatbelts.
>>
>
> I think its down to the individual.  I personally prefer to be strapped
> in and for their own safety and to prevent them from roaming about the 
> vehicle or becoming high velocity projectiles , so are the dogs, cats and 
> even the hamsters.
>
> The seat belt laws seem to have created more died in the hole non- 
> wearers. I know people who happily belted up before but now almost 
> defiantly refuse for no other reason than they dont like being told what 
> to do..
>
> I've always wondered if its possible to fit racing driver style harness to 
> side facing lap belt points?  And would they be any safer?

IMHO sideways facing seats are simply best avoided.  Unless you can support 
the head sideways I imagine any rapid acceleration/deceleration of the 
vehicle would injure the neck badly and without upper body restraint back 
injury would be inevitable.

Rgds

Andy R

"Nebulous"  wrote in
news:JvydnTi1mbUH-P3anZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@pipex.net: 

> We can argue about one-off accidents forever, but you need to play the
> percentages and I believe the percentages are better if wearing
> seatbelts. 
> 
> Well over 20 years ago, before seatbelts were compulsory, I was in an 
> accident where I would have been killed if I was wearing one. That
> still doesn't put me off and I don't go anywhere without belting up.

FWIW, in the last few decades, I've had three accidents caused by my 
seatbelt whereas I've never had an accident where a seatbelt would have 
helped. Seat belts also cause several near misses for me each year, yet I 
willingly wear a seatbelt (although I'd be very tempted not to if the law 
didn't require it!)

In the most serious, I was negotiating a roundabout when the seatbelt 
slipped off my shoulder, retracted then locked, pinning my arm to my side 
and preventing me from steering.

Someone else has already mentioned the problems that short people face from 
seatbelts not fitting them properly. However, tall people also have issues 
because vehicles and seatbelts are not designed to fit them. Having a belt 
lock and pin you into your seat when you need to lean forward or sideways 
to look around a door pillar or A-pillar is unnerving and a bit like having 
blinkers suddenly applied.

-- 
Geoff

In message , Geoff Lane 
 writes
>"Nebulous"  wrote in
>news:JvydnTi1mbUH-P3anZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@pipex.net:
>
>> We can argue about one-off accidents forever, but you need to play the
>> percentages and I believe the percentages are better if wearing
>> seatbelts.
>>
>> Well over 20 years ago, before seatbelts were compulsory, I was in an
>> accident where I would have been killed if I was wearing one. That
>> still doesn't put me off and I don't go anywhere without belting up.
>
>FWIW, in the last few decades, I've had three accidents caused by my
>seatbelt whereas I've never had an accident where a seatbelt would have
>helped. Seat belts also cause several near misses for me each year, yet I
>willingly wear a seatbelt (although I'd be very tempted not to if the law
>didn't require it!)
>
>In the most serious, I was negotiating a roundabout when the seatbelt
>slipped off my shoulder, retracted then locked, pinning my arm to my side
>and preventing me from steering.
>
>Someone else has already mentioned the problems that short people face from
>seatbelts not fitting them properly. However, tall people also have issues
>because vehicles and seatbelts are not designed to fit them. Having a belt
>lock and pin you into your seat when you need to lean forward or sideways
>to look around a door pillar or A-pillar is unnerving and a bit like having
>blinkers suddenly applied.
>
You seem to have a very dodgy seat belt. I would get it replaced if I 
were you.
Also on most vehicles the upper mounting point is adjustable to 
accommodate different heights of wearers.
-- 
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

hugh  wrote in 
news:iAQAntB7fmYHFASw@raefell.demon.co.uk:

> You seem to have a very dodgy seat belt. I would get it replaced if I 
> were you.

Although the arm-trapping incident happened decades ago, the same issue 
still exists in some modern cars - and I've refused to drive those in 
which it does since that incident.

> Also on most vehicles the upper mounting point is adjustable to 
> accommodate different heights of wearers.

As you say, *most vehicles* have adjustable anchors. Of course, there are 
still some where the range of adjustment is insufficient, there is no 
adjustment, or where the seatbelt top anchor is too far forward when the 
seat is fully to the rear.

However, the main issue with modern vehicles isn't whether the top anchor 
point is adjustable; it's whether you have adequate vision out of the 
vehicle with the seat fully to the rear. In way too many (IMO), with the 
seat fully back, a tall driver has to move forward too peer round the A-
pillars, door pillar, and rear-view mirror. On many cars, tall drivers 
also need to lean forward to be able to see traffic lights, signs etc. 
that are obscured by the roof line. IOW, the prime culprit these days is 
general vehicle design - they're just not properly designed to 
accommodate tall drivers.

Seat belts are designed to lock when they are subjected to more than a 
preset accelerative force or when the belt is pulled from the reel at 
more than a preset speed. On most cars, that accelerative force is often 
exceeded during cornering or braking. This happens to drivers of more 
average stature also, but they are less likely to need to lean forward, 
and so don't notice the belt locking. Also, it's very easy to lean 
forward quicker than the belt will allow, exceeding the preset speed, and 
causing the belt to lock.

The upshot is that the belt is most likely to lock in some of the places 
where that's least wanted. For example, the last incident I had was a few 
days ago. I was braking for a corner and needed to lean forward to peer 
around the offside A-pillar, which completely obscured the road around 
the corner. The belt locked, pinning me back into my seat, which meant I 
could only see about ten yards of the road ahead.

FWIW, I've driven several vehicles over the last few years and I've had 
my belt lock up on me on most, if not all.

-- 
Geoff

In message 
          hugh  wrote:


>>
>>So you think its fine to be thrown through your windscreen in to the other
>>car possibly then injuring someone else through your own ingnorance
>>
>>
> I was on a Search & Rescue training course at the weekend talking to
> Staffs Police Helicopter crew about their heat detection equipment etc.
> They told us of one accident at night where a car had gone into the
> hedge and the passenger, not wearing a seatbelt went through the
> windscreen. The guys on the ground couldn't find her but from the air
> were directed to where she lay face down in a lake of water in the
> field. Just as they reached her, the image on the screen went blank as
> her body temperature dropped as she had drowned. All in the space of
> less than twenty minutes.
> 
> People who argue against seatbelts really ought to get real.

It is said that Princess Diana might still be with us if she had been 
wearing a belt that night!

I also have a friend who beleives he owes his life to his seatbelt 
after his car left the road at high speed.

I too would not consider a van that did not have four belted forward 
facing seats.  My gradchildren are precious!

Martin



-- 
Created on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:41:45 GMT, Martin Dixon 
wrote:

>In message 
>          hugh  wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>So you think its fine to be thrown through your windscreen in to the other
>>>car possibly then injuring someone else through your own ingnorance
>>>
>>>
>> I was on a Search & Rescue training course at the weekend talking to
>> Staffs Police Helicopter crew about their heat detection equipment etc.
>> They told us of one accident at night where a car had gone into the
>> hedge and the passenger, not wearing a seatbelt went through the
>> windscreen. The guys on the ground couldn't find her but from the air
>> were directed to where she lay face down in a lake of water in the
>> field. Just as they reached her, the image on the screen went blank as
>> her body temperature dropped as she had drowned. All in the space of
>> less than twenty minutes.
>> 
>> People who argue against seatbelts really ought to get real.
>
>It is said that Princess Diana might still be with us if she had been 
>wearing a belt that night!
Yeah but a lot of things are said about Diana
>
>I also have a friend who beleives he owes his life to his seatbelt 
>after his car left the road at high speed.
I have a freind dead because he did use one
>
>I too would not consider a van that did not have four belted forward 
>facing seats.  My gradchildren are precious!

Oh pleeeeeeese Dont start with crap like that

In message , Custard 
<ignore@the.facts-completely.invalid> writes
>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:41:45 GMT, Martin Dixon 
>wrote:
>
>>In message 
>>          hugh  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>So you think its fine to be thrown through your windscreen in to the other
>>>>car possibly then injuring someone else through your own ingnorance
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I was on a Search & Rescue training course at the weekend talking to
>>> Staffs Police Helicopter crew about their heat detection equipment etc.
>>> They told us of one accident at night where a car had gone into the
>>> hedge and the passenger, not wearing a seatbelt went through the
>>> windscreen. The guys on the ground couldn't find her but from the air
>>> were directed to where she lay face down in a lake of water in the
>>> field. Just as they reached her, the image on the screen went blank as
>>> her body temperature dropped as she had drowned. All in the space of
>>> less than twenty minutes.
>>>
>>> People who argue against seatbelts really ought to get real.
>>
>>It is said that Princess Diana might still be with us if she had been
>>wearing a belt that night!
>Yeah but a lot of things are said about Diana
>>
>>I also have a friend who beleives he owes his life to his seatbelt
>>after his car left the road at high speed.
>I have a freind dead because he did use one
>>
Oh pleeeeeeese Dont start with crap like that
>>I too would not consider a van that did not have four belted forward
>>facing seats.  My gradchildren are precious!
>
>Oh pleeeeeeese Dont start with crap like that
>
>
>
The overwhelming probability is that wearing a seat belt reduces the 
level of injury.
-- 
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

"Geoff Lane"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9A0573FD7F7F8gjctcswxnsrt@138.199.67.64...
> "Nebulous"  wrote in
> news:JvydnTi1mbUH-P3anZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@pipex.net:
>
>> We can argue about one-off accidents forever, but you need to play the
>> percentages and I believe the percentages are better if wearing
>> seatbelts.
>>
>> Well over 20 years ago, before seatbelts were compulsory, I was in an
>> accident where I would have been killed if I was wearing one. That
>> still doesn't put me off and I don't go anywhere without belting up.
>
> FWIW, in the last few decades, I've had three accidents caused by my
> seatbelt whereas I've never had an accident where a seatbelt would have
> helped. Seat belts also cause several near misses for me each year, yet I
> willingly wear a seatbelt (although I'd be very tempted not to if the law
> didn't require it!)
>
> In the most serious, I was negotiating a roundabout when the seatbelt
> slipped off my shoulder, retracted then locked, pinning my arm to my side
> and preventing me from steering.
>
> Someone else has already mentioned the problems that short people face 
> from
> seatbelts not fitting them properly. However, tall people also have issues
> because vehicles and seatbelts are not designed to fit them. Having a belt
> lock and pin you into your seat when you need to lean forward or sideways
> to look around a door pillar or A-pillar is unnerving and a bit like 
> having
> blinkers suddenly applied.

Just how tall are you?

I'm a fairly average height, drive with my seat well back and find my vision 
is pretty good in most modern cars.

It maybe that you have to learn to lean forward more slowly so that your 
belt doesn't lock?  I can't remember the last time a seat belt locked up on 
me- although whilst driving I am conscious that if I move quickly it could.

I was a passenger in a car when we had quite a spectacular accident - 
rolling several times- the first time nose to tail.. The roof at the 
passengers side was touching the dashboard and touching the back of the seat 
(no head rests) Somehow with all the rolling I landed up in the back and 
when I recovered consciousness I was able to crawl out the back window with 
no injuries other than mild concussion. Yet as I said it didn't put me off.

Neb

"Nebulous"  wrote in
news:GrmdnbMsiIHzZf7anZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@pipex.net: 

> Just how tall are you?

Well over 6ft and tall enough so that I need to have the seat back as far 
as it will go on most cars, and even then don't fit behind the wheel of 
quite a few (the last I failed to fit was a Land Rover Defender).

> I'm a fairly average height, drive with my seat well back and find my
> vision is pretty good in most modern cars.

You're lucky! It would appear that you're in the "normal range" for which 
cars are designed.

> It maybe that you have to learn to lean forward more slowly so that
> your belt doesn't lock?  I can't remember the last time a seat belt
> locked up on me- although whilst driving I am conscious that if I move
> quickly it could. 

Often, cornering or braking forces mean the belt has already locked 
before I try to lean forward. However, you wouldn't notice it unless you 
do try to pull on the belt because there's a small amount of movement 
before the ratchet "bites". The belt doesn't pull tight (like it would 
with a pre-tensioner); the mechanism merely prevents you from pulling out 
more than a small amount of slack, but that small amount is enough to 
convince you that the belt is slack. I suspect, the reason why you 
haven't noticed your belt locking is that you haven't tried to move 
forward, but if it doesn't lock under "sharp" cornering or moderate 
braking then it's not doing its job! That said, the problem isn't the 
belt - it's that cars aren't designed for very tall or very short 
drivers.

-- 
Geoff

hugh  wrote in news:BdtYwWBPy7YHFAmh@raefell.demon.co.uk:

> The overwhelming probability is that wearing a seat belt reduces the 
> level of injury.

... but increases the likelihood of having an accident.

While seatbelts (with a few exceptions) are very good at mitigating the 
severity of accidents, they cannot do anything to reduce the likelihood of 
an accident.

From personal experience, accidents have happened because the driver was 
wearing a seatbelt that interfered with that driver's control of the 
vehicle. However, I've also seen suggestions that drivers feel safer from 
wearing a seatbelt and so are more inclined to take risks. The theory goes 
that everyone has a personal risk comfort zone, wearing a seatbelt reduces 
the perceived risk, and so people take more risks in overtaking, 
tailgating, etc. I'm not sure whether evidence exists to show that this has 
translated to a higher number of accidents, but it does seem plausible IMO.

-- 
Geoff

In message 
          Geoff Lane  wrote:

  That said, the problem isn't the
> belt - it's that cars aren't designed for very tall or very short
> drivers.
> 

Very true!  There is one tall guy in my car sharing group that suffers 
from this.  In my previous car, a Peugeot 306, he didn't have enough 
headroom in the back.  It may be he would have been OK if the car 
hadn't had a sunroof.  But I think this is why he prefers a MPV for 
his own car.

Headroom is something I have never had to consider when buying a car, 
but nowadays I do.

Martin

-- 
Created on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/

"Custard" wrote
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:05:45 -0000, "Andy R" wrote:
>
>>
>>It may not help when you drive off the end of the flat earth you must also
>>believe in, but seat belts clearly help in the vast majority of other
>>accident types.

> Well I prefer empirical evidence and seatbelts didnt help save the
> life of a good friend so Ill take my risks and you take yours.

Apologies for bringing up an old thread...but I wouldn't be typing this at 
all if it wasn't for a seatbelt.

Is that sufficient empirical evidence?

Being a passenger in a car that went up a bank at speed, and then rolled 
numerous times across a field....I thanked anyone who would listen for that 
seatbelt that held me in my seat!!!

On the other hand, a dear friend of mine would probably have been saved if 
he *had* been wearing his seatbelt.  Hit from the rear at speed on a 
motorway whilst he was driving a van (short bonnet!), he literally went 
straight through the windscreen and was killed by being run over by his own 
vehicle...RIP Vinnie, you are missed.