Print

[autorover1]

My 1966 2A had never had seat belts fitted from new. (Had been originally taxed as "farmers")
I never fitted belts when I restored it and it passed its mot with no problem. AFAIK it is still trundling round like that.
I know all pre 1965 cars are exempt. Maybe it was classed as commercial

According to the MoT regs. , goods vehicles needed  front seat belts from 1st April 1967 , passenger vehicles (Cars)  1st Jan. 1965 

[Oilierthanthou]

According to the MoT regs. , goods vehicles needed  front seat belts from 1st April 1967 , passenger vehicles (Cars)  1st Jan. 1965

That agrees quite well with this pamphlet from the early 80s.
I remember in the 60s, new vehicles only had to have seat belt anchorage points. Later a retrospective law said "all vehicles with anchorage points must be fitted with belts". (There was still no law requiring them to be worn.)
The retrospective law meant we all had to scour the scrap yards for cheap belts, just to keep our cars legal.
Then in 1982? it became a legal requirement to wear them.

[Wittsend]

We have several members based in Norway.

I wonder how they manage with the centre seat

As we all know the centre front seat was a Land Rover feature straight from the factory.
Were Norwegian Land Rover owners expected to rip out their centre seats when the seat belt laws came in ?

I don't know what the testing procedure is in Norway, but I'd be inclined to find another testing station.

That said a cubby box/tool/spares storage can be quite useful....


 

[autorover1]

I had a nice spat with LR when I purchased a 9 seat One Ten station wagon and it had no seat belt anchorages for the  rear forward facing ( 2nd Row) seats , when they were  legally required .
Initially they said they had never made or sold a 9 seater   . Eventually  it was agreed they had and yes, anchorages should have been included. Fortunately they are all add on items and were fitted by the supplying dealer.                     

[Worf]

According to the MoT regs. , goods vehicles needed  front seat belts from 1st April 1967 , passenger vehicles (Cars)  1st Jan. 1965

Interesting. So my 2A must have been classed as a "light van"
Grey area now it is classed as "historic" ?
Someone else's problem now though.

[Craig T]

My April 67 station wagon didn't have seat belts or screen washers originally but it was an export one going to Malta, maybe they had different rules?

When it was returned to the UK in October 67 seat belts were fitted but only bolted in through the door pillars and through the aluminium seat box sides! How it passed MOT's for all those years I'm not sure.
When I restored it the belts were a bit past it so they were replaced with modern look-a-likes and I retrofitted the proper anchorages.

Craig.

[Wittsend]

UK rules, Construction & Use regs would not apply outside of the UK. Anything the factory & dealers could do to save make money.

[rustynuts]

Is anyone aware of the legal precedent that was used to enforce seat belt wearing. I am sure people said it was against their human rights to be made to wear one but something must have overcome that argument.

Thanks

Martin

There is no legal precedent relating to the wearing of seatbelts. The requirement was introduced as an act of parliament. Legal precedents relate to case law, i.e. where there is no clearly defined law, a judge makes a ruling and subsequent cases take that ruling as a precedent and it is accepted as law

Parliament is the ultimate law maker and acts of parliament trump everything else (except when an international court decides that parliament has been a naught boy!).

[Wittsend]

Excellent answer 

... and quite correct.

[rustynuts]

Excellent answer 

... and quite correct.

Wow, that must be the only time in my life when the law module I did at uni has been of any use!

[582LTR]

Rustynuts, so my question then is what was the ‘thing’ that tipped Parliament to overrule human freedom to choose whether to wear one and make it compulsory. From previous replies it was the cost of the deaths.

Martin

[Genem]

The Hansard record shows the actual discussion in Parliament. I suggest a bit of searching. Its often quite fun, some of our Lawmakers were ( and are) quite strange in their opinions... I recall looking at Hansard on vehicle lighting and finding an honourable member in the 1950s seriously suggesting that vehicles should turn off their headlights when approaching each other, lest the drivers be dazzled ...  Imagining the M25 on a December evening, every car on sidelights...

[Wittsend]

You should come to Norfolk, most drive round on sidelights or no lights at all !

Newer cars have auto lights, which means things are getting a little better - except to say a lot of those drivers just assume the car will turn the lights on when needed.
To say nothing of the cars with just one working headlight 

Always remembering the bon mot wrongly attributed to Joseph Lucas: - A gentleman doesn't venture out after dark.

 

[rustynuts]

Rustynuts, so my question then is what was the ‘thing’ that tipped Parliament to overrule human freedom to choose whether to wear one and make it compulsory. From previous replies it was the cost of the deaths.

Martin

Don't know. At the time I was more interested in my Commodore VIC 20 computer, dreaming about being able to get a motorbike in a few years time and starting to wonder what girls were all about.

Seriously though, I think that you are right about the cost of deaths, together with the level of risk that is tolerated by the public, which reduces over the years. Years ago if you got your arm ripped off by an unguarded machine tool or an entire town suffered the consequences of being downwind of an asbestos factory that was just accepted as normal life. Today we have different expectations and legislation reflects that.

As someone who works in high hazard industries, I know that as well as risk tolerance, the cost of life is something that drives legislation and standards. Taking into account legal costs, fines and reputational damage, the price of a life can be measured in millions. In other parts of the world sadly it can be somewhat less. For example, here a chemical plant processing highly toxic material will be automated and remotely operated. In somewhere like India it may be cheaper to send someone out to manually operate the plant. If a valve leaks and the operator is killed, no problem, bung his family a few hundred quid and get some other poor sod to do the job.

You can always argue that any law infringes upon personal freedom. The scales of justice that symbolise law represent a balance of public good versus private good. If there were no laws we could rob and kill with impunity, which might be good for the individual doing so, but not for society. Ultimately we have no legal right to drive a motor vehicle on a public road: we have to be licenced to do so and therefore cannot argue that any of our rights are being infringed by having to comply with legislation.

[Genem]

You can always argue that any law infringes upon personal freedom. The scales of justice that symbolise law represent a balance of public good versus private good. If there were no laws we could rob and kill with impunity, which might be good for the individual doing so, but not for society. Ultimately we have no legal right to drive a motor vehicle on a public road: we have to be licenced to do so and therefore cannot argue that any of our rights are being infringed by having to comply with legislation.

Heading way OT...The old Norse sentence of "Outlaw" meant that the individual was outside the protection of the Law, any one could do as they wished to the person so sentenced. They were not people to be feared, they were in fear themselves, generally had to flee, go hide somewhere from a population of grumpy and armed neighbours... In current terms, the removal of all Human Rights permanently or for a period of X years.

See "Erik the Red" and the settlement of Greenland.  "Erik had to flee Norway, for he had committed Man-Slaughter..."