Seat Belt Laws

SexyGreyFox

SexyGreyFox

SexyGreyFox

Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
57,170
Location
Stoke on Trent
I was watching one of my many weekly Traffic Cop type programmes last night and a seat belt incident happened.
The guy was pulled over for not wearing his seat belt but when the Copper looked in the car he had got it around his waist and the shoulder strap over his head to the left hand side and down by his waist.
Of course the Copper was shocked and asked him to go through how he puts it on and it was really silly but he'd done it all his life and he felt more comfortable.
The bloke argued that he was wearing his seat belt but the Copper said he wasn't wearing it properly.

The bloke says he would opt to go to Court because he was wearing it so the charge of not wearing his seat belt was false.
I can't find the bit of the law that says the bloke is in the wrong so help please.

Here's the video, I remembered a couple of things wrong -

 
Last edited:
I can't find any legislation in the governments site to indicate how the seatbelt must be worn.

www.gov.uk

Seat belts: the law

If your car or other vehicle has seat belts you must use them, with only a few exceptions
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

I can't see that he was guilty of anything.
 
I'm having difficulty picturing how it was being worn but this is probably the legislation you're looking for...

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986

www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
Hard to picture how it was being worn but maybe this section?
(8) In this regulation—

“body-restraining seat belt” means a seat belt designed to provide restraint for both the upper and lower parts of the trunk of the wearer in the event of an accident to the vehicle;
Click to expand...
 
I suspect the court would say you had to wear the belt as designed to be worn, IE if the car only had a lap belt then just having it on the lap would comply with the law as that was how it was designed, but as the car had a standard belt when built you had to ear it as a standard belt and not a lap belt.
[edit]
Basically the law is likely written to take into account there are several legal types of seatbelt, two of which are mandatory to be worn if the car was supplied with them/passed testing with them, and one that more advanced (4 point/racing belts), so doesn't describe in detail how they're to be worn, and even a few cars still on the road that are old enough they didn't come with belts and the law IIRC doesn't require them to be retrofitted.
 
Last edited:
Agree with @Werewolf as a piece of safety equipment the law would expect it to be used as intended.

I'd further back this up with that even though lap belts are still legal, if originally fitted to your vehicle, it is illegal to retrofit them. Which shows there is a difference between a lap belt and a 3 point one, the biggest difference being the 3 point one is designed to be worn over the upper part of the body.
 
Freakbro said:
Agree with @Werewolf as a piece of safety equipment the law would expect it to be used as intended.

I'd further back this up with that even though lap belts are still legal, if originally fitted to your vehicle, it is illegal to retrofit them. Which shows there is a difference between a lap belt and a 3 point one, the biggest difference being the 3 point one is designed to be worn over the upper part of the body.
Click to expand...
That was pretty much my thinking (you've put it much better).

IIRC as you say you can improve on the "original" safety equipment*, but cannot remove or roll back equipment that was legally required when the car was new.
The idea being that you don't make older cars illegal because they don't have the current legally mandated equipment, but you ensure that anything made after the date it became law always has it.


[edit]
I also cannot see how the guy honestly thinks he always wore it that way if he passed his driving test anytime in at least the last 40 years. The driving instructor would have put him right, and the driving test examiner should have failed him.


*My dad bought a kit of seatbelts for the back of one of his cars when they became available as an "add on" around the time it became law for them to be fitted to new cars, he described it as the only time he ever bought the Sun for himself (as they did an offer on the kit).
 
Last edited:
Would the argument boil down to the user manual for the car he was driving and whether it states how you should properly adjust and use the seatbelt?

Ignorance is never a good defence and given most cars have some degree of adjustment in the seat and seatbelt, which is the first thing you learn before ever turning a wheel in a car, then they're likely not going to get the outcome they expect.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
I got it wrong, he puts it behind him

Here's the video

Click to expand...

From that video it should be pretty obvious to him that he's doing it wrong - the fact he's adding an extra step of putting it behind his back - and he almost certainly knows that, he's just trying to get off on a technicality.

No different to people who drive around holding their phone in front of their face on loudspeaker because apparently it's OK if you're not holding it up to your ear :rolleyes:
 
Based on the The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 yes he is because section J, part 47, subsection 8 says...
8) In this regulation—

“body-restraining seat belt” means a seat belt designed to provide restraint for both the upper and lower parts of the trunk of the wearer in the event of an accident to the vehicle;
Click to expand...
And the way he was wearing it would not restrain the upper part of the trunk of the wearer in the event of an accident to the vehicle.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
I agree with you all but is he actually breaking the law if he's still technically wearing it?
We can all make assumptions but where's the bit of the law that says he has to wear it how it was designed?
Click to expand...

Because I would say a lot of law, where not explicit, is implicit. So if the seatbelt is designed to be worn in a certain way and the law says you must wear your sealtbelt, then implicitly it is stating it must be worn as intended. (IANAL :p)
 
Murphy said:
Based on the The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 yes he is because section J, part 47, subsection 8 says...

And the way he was wearing it would not restrain the upper part of the trunk of the wearer in the event of an accident to the vehicle.
Click to expand...

Nice one Murphy, appreciated.
That's settled that then :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom