Is it unlawful or just unsafe?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Just Lou

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Posts
8,105
Is it unlawful to carry more passengers, than you have seat belts for, in your motorhome?  Seems to me it probably should be, but I don't know. 

We are attending a family reunion next week and will be the transport of choice for some family members to and from some nearby events.  Should we limit the occupants to the number of seatbelts available?

lou
 
Interesting Question ...

I think it IS illegal - all occupants of a vehicle need to be strapped in. Whether it will be enforced is another story. And the truth is, most of us with RVs will have folks moving around while we roll down the road - using the bathroom, making a sandwich, taking a nap, etc. I look forward to other posts on this one ...

Danny
Poulsbo WA
 
I found the Warning Notice on side facing seats in our Fleetwood a bit confusing.

"Warning : This seat not to be occupied whilst vehicle in motion" - and then provides seat belts for it !!

Paul
 
Those seat belts are for when the vehicle is stationary Paul.
 
When sitting in that seat and you fall asleep, it keeps you from falling out.
 
It would be illegal in a passenger car or light truck. It would not be illegal in a bus, which is not even required to be equipped with seat belts for every passenger. Not sure where a motorhome fits in the scheme of things, but I believe the federal DOT regulations require a seat belt for every passenger the motorhome is rated to carry.  However, the requirement to actually use the seat belts is another matter and will vary by state. You might want to check with your state for a ruling specific to a motorhome in use as a private vehicle.
 
Non use of seatbelts unsafe ase we are all aware.  Whether or not it is illegal in the state you are traveling in would depend which state you are traveling.
 
It is illegal to sit in a seat ment for a passenger that has seat belts and not wear them.  It is illegal to ride in the back of a pick up when a seat with seatbelts is not occupied.  It is not illegal to sit in the back of a pick up when the passenger seats are occupied.  As for a motor home I would assume as long as all of the seats with belts are occupied and the rest is sitting in a seat designed for sitting and not placard then it would be legal.  It kind of funny that a human can ride in the back of a p/u un restrained but a dog cannot.  This is in the state of WA.  Traffic laws differ from state to state.
 
Ron said:
Non use of seatbelts unsafe ase we are all aware.  Whether or not it is illegal in the state you are traveling in would depend which state you are traveling.

Not really, unless you are traveling in New Hampshire.  From the Prevention Institutes article SEATBELTS: CURRENT ISSUES by By Toni Gantz and Gretchen Henkle October 2002:

In 1985, at least one mandatory seatbelt use bill was introduced in all but two (Idaho and Nevada) of the 49 states holding Congressional sessions that year. By September 1989, 34 states had enacted mandatory seatbelt use laws. As of December 27, 1995, with the passage of Maine's belt law, every state except for New Hampshire had a mandatory belt law. (The auto industry concurrently developed and began installing passive restraint systems in some car models, mainly in the forms of automatic shoulder harness seatbelts and airbags, but these were not widely available.)

New Hampshire's state motto gets rephrased "Live Free and Die.

The article goes on to discuss primary enforcement:

Some of the most dramatic improvements have been seen through the passage of primary, or standard, enforcement seatbelt laws, which allow a police officer to stop a driver and issue a ticket for the sole reason of not wearing a seatbelt. Secondary enforcement laws, unique to the U.S., allow for non-belted occupants or drivers to be ticketed only after being stopped for another moving violation. To date, 19 states have a primary enforcement law.

A recent study by Alma Cohen and Liran Einav at Harvard University's Department of Economics showed that seatbelt usage increased an average of 11 percentage points after the passage of secondary enforcement seatbelt laws and 22 percentage points after the passage of primary enforcement laws. When states switched from secondary enforcement laws to primary enforcement laws, usage increased an average of 13 percentage points. This also translates into fewer fatalities: as Evans and Graham reported in 1991, after the passage of primary laws, states experienced an average reduction in motor vehicle occupant fatalities of over 20%; secondary law states experienced an average 7% reduction in fatalities.

California, a primary enforcement state, currently reports 91% usage -- the highest in the country. After the passage of a mandatory seatbelt law in 1986, California's usage rate went from 26% to approximately 45%. By 1992, California's usage had increased to 71%. With the passage of the primary enforcement law in 1993, California's usage rate jumped to 83%, steadily climbing to the current rate. According to the National Safety Council, California's fatality rate has decreased by over 34% since the passage of the primary enforcement law.


California's decrease in traffic fatalities concurrent with its tough enforcement should convince any think folk of the desirability of buckling up and staying buckled.
 
What I don't understand is..It's against the law NOT to use your seat belt in my state, but hey if you wanna ride your motorcycle don't worry about your head bouncing off the pavement...no need for a helmet here??? How does that kind of thinking work? I mean I'm not Pro seat belt. I figure that it is my right to or not too use it. If someone gets in a wreck, and is thrown out of a car, and  strikes someone else and kills them...then they can make it a law(just my opinion). but for them to go on and on about how it saves lives, then say...NO on a helmet law..makes no sense to me.
 
It's simple. No one really argues against wearing a seat belt so the laws stay intact. But there's a very vocal group campaigning against wearing motorcycle helmets so most states let the bikers go bare headed.
 
your right...it's usually some saying.." it's our freedom to go without a helmet, we feel more free out there and the experience is something you can't describe"... To them I say.."ya ever had a bird hit ya in the head will riding??? a june bug??? or have you ever had a car pull out in front of you and had to go down to miss them??? usually the answer is either..Yea...hu..hu.. what's your point? or I'm a good rider.. Trust me there are only 2 types of riders...Ones that have gone down.. and ones that are going to go down.. doesn't matter how good you are..it will happen..kevin
 
dont' get me wrong...I still feel that the seat belt or helmet should be left up to the person, but if your gonna make me wear a seat belt...ya gotta make them wear a helmet too..besides...I've been hit in the head by a bird, with a helmet on and it dang near nocked me off the bike, and I had a headache for atleast 2days..kevin
 
Depends on which law book you read.

First: Have you ever read a warranty all the way to the end?  Was the last sentence "You may have other rights which vary from state to state"? 

Laws vary from state to state and from "Age" to "Age"

In Michigan for example. ALL front seat occupants must be properly "Restrained" with seat belts or a proper child restraint system depending on the age of the occupant.

Rear seat passengers are required to be properly restrained under the age of 16, 16 and over can choose to live or die should the vehicle crash.  (And yes, I've seen more than one accident where seat bealth either made the difference, or would have had they been used, all, were, of course, fatals, the person WITH NO BELT died, (Save in one case where the person with no belt was thrown from the vehicle, thus loosing control, and the now human-less truck went on to kill two people, again, a seat belt would have saved TWO lives in that one)

Other states, laws vary

The law of physics that I kind of allueded to above, the one that says your chances of walking are EIGHT times better WITH a belt than without (Both of surviving and of surviving with little or no injury)  That one is universial, it's in force EVERYWHERE and the penality for violation may well be death! (Or what's worse)

Several years ago I had a baby daughter, and needed a baby sitter (She's 27 now) Hired a teen who had recently been in an accident... Her friends (3 of them) laughed at her when she buckeled up.  She had the good grace not to laugh at their funerals.  They broke the law of physics, They paid the price.. She did not, She split her lip (that and some brusing was all she had, not even a trip to hospital was needed)

After that I saw a truck, rollover, 3 people, Mommie, Dead.  Daddy Server injuries  Both, no seat belt,  Junior, in compliance with the law at that time belted.. He had minor injuries.  Such as I might do shaving in the morning, from flying glass. Not even a band-aid was needed, just a few seconds of pressure.

I'm sold on belts
 
My family owned a salvage yard for years, we had 10 wreckers and 3 cranes we ran out of their. When I was younger I used to go with my dad and uncles to wrecks all the time, usually in bad weather(cold,wet,dark out). I too have seen many many things that you wouldn't want to see in a persons life, including a mans brain steaming on the highway after his truck finishing raping itself around a pole. I have been in 3 wrecks 1st I was hit by a drunk driver in the 80's, cut my eye, and my left leg, then I missed my turn and ended up in a ditch with a dented car, last buy not least I fliped my car upside down while spinning on ice on my way home late one night...all three...no seat belt. you are right they do help save lives, as do motorcycle helmets too, I just feel that if you want to then wear them if not..then don't..kevin
 
kevin said:
I just feel that if you want to then wear them if not..then don't..kevin

Well, Kevin, if you decide to "not" wear them - and everyone else is given that choice, it not only increases your and their risk of injury or death (proven beyond a shadow of doubt by study after study in State after State), but it also effects me. It impacts my pocketbook in that my health care costs go up. Millions and millions in health care cost increases such as ER costs, ambulatory costs, Medicare costs, Medicaid costs, and so forth go up by the millions of injuries caused by not wearing seat belts. There are tons of references for this  -- HERE is one from the State of MN.

The helmet issue I agree should be under the same strick law codes in every State -- for the reasons stated above. However, the fact that some States drag their feet on such issues does not lessen the validity of the State laws prohibiting non use of seat belts.
 
UK-RV said:
I found the Warning Notice on side facing seats in our Fleetwood a bit confusing.

"Warning : This seat not to be occupied whilst vehicle in motion" - and then provides seat belts for it !!

Paul

It's interesting that you mention this because I think other than the driver and passenger seats ALL other seats in our 94 Allegro Bay (barrel chair, sofa bed, dinette table, etc) have this warning message even though they have seatbelts.

As far as seat belts, I believe it's a state/state thing (same as ridding in back of a trailer).  This link specifies different rules in different states http://www.woodalls.com/output.cfm?ID=1195129 (I've seen better 'table format' ones but I can't find one at the moment).  Different states also have different rules on how it can be enforced (e.g. in Florida you need to where your seatbelt but officers can't actually stop you if they notice you aren't wearing it - they can only stop you for another infraction and then charge you for not wearing the seatbelt (no idea what the logic is there but whatever)).

I think it's safe to assume that most (all ?!?) of us think that everyone should where a belt at all times although I have to admit that when I'm the passenger I have gotten up to get a drink or food or use the bathroom while the RV is in motion.
 
Bob,
I understand what your saying about it causing cost to go up, but from what I've seen in my short life span the health care system is alot like the oil companies. They don't need any reason to raise the cost, they do as the please and leave you and I to figure out how to pay. I've found that you are almost better off to not have health insurance at all.  I do however wear my seat belt in the wifes car, and the motor home. My truck "74" chevy farm truck only has a lap belt...kevin
 
Back
Top Bottom