Safe Speed Forums

I expect police to use common sense, not put out major dragnets... but to appear at the school gates from time to time to give people advice - Road Safety Minister Stephen Ladyman

Mr Ladyman recognises that in some cases "there will be hell to pay". He suggests parents blame him.

There three cases where a child between three and 12 years old may travel in the back of a car using no more than an adult seat belt:


short and occasional journeys made for reasons of "unexpected necessity" (so not on regular school runs, but you don't need to worry if you are picking up a friend's child because he or she has been unexpectedly detained at work)
two other children are already using restraints in the back seat, leaving no room for a third. (However, it would often be safer for the child to travel with a restraint in the front seat.)
in taxis
In addition:


Children under three may travel in the back of a taxi without a special seat or cushion
In old cars with no seat belts - children between three and 12 may travel in the back seat, though the Department for Transport points out that this is "not safe"
Emergency vehicles, including ambulances and police cars, are exempt
What else does the new law change?

Here are three more changes:


Seated bus and coach passengers over the age of 14 must use seat belts where fitted
From May 2008, child and baby seats must meet a standard known as UN ECE regulation 44.03, or the higher standard 44.04 - this means they will be marked with an E and the numbers 44.03, or .03
From May 2009, all passengers in any vehicle will have to use an appropriate restraint (baby seat, child seat, booster seat/cushion) or seat belt, where seat belts are fitted

In old cars with no seat belts - children between three and 12 may travel in the back seat, though the Department for Transport points out that this is "not safe"

If a car is that old that it doesn't have rear seat belts, then either it is used for show purposes only or if used as an everyday car, then perhaps it should be made law to have seatbelts fitted in the back.

Would I be able to say that this was an 'unexpeted necessity'