The law on passengers in the back of soft top 90 with canvas off

[Tom17]

As above really seems a bit of a grey area. I've been doing it. I'm fully insured as a 6 seater and soft top declared to insurance too but unsure never had any bother police have been behind me with people in the back and didn't get a tug anybody able to clear this up?

[Snagger]

I don't think there is a policy, after all, it's just like having pax in the back of a convertible. I used to have the 2 kids and 2 dogs in the back of our Lightweight with the rag top rolled up on all sides with no problem, though I did fit lap straps and tie the dogs down. I think the biggest problem you'll run into is other peoples' envy come the summer!

[Tom17]

I don't think there is a policy, after all, it's just like having pax in the back of a convertible. I used to have the 2 kids and 2 dogs in the back of our Lightweight with the rag top rolled up on all sides with no problem, though I did fit lap straps and tie the dogs down. I think the biggest problem you'll run into is other peoples' envy come the summer!

Yeah that's what I've been doing it just seems too good to be true law wise

[Mo Murphy]

Yeah that's what I've been doing it just seems too good to be true law wise

... until you roll it in an accident.

Mo

[tacr2man]

... until you roll it in an accident.

Mo

Dont think he mentioned his intention to do that with it !

[Maverik]

Soft top or hard top doesn't exactly make a difference as they both have as much role protection as a folded piece of paper. I can't see how any rules would change and as long as you're complying with seating and belting arrangements and your passengers aren't hanging out the vehicle or throwing things like bangers out the back... then I can't see you breaking the law.

[Tom17]

If anything the soft top is a little more protected as I have the military roll bar too

[discomikey]

I don't think there is a policy, after all, it's just like having pax in the back of a convertible. I used to have the 2 kids and 2 dogs in the back of our Lightweight with the rag top rolled up on all sides with no problem, though I did fit lap straps and tie the dogs down. I think the biggest problem you'll run into is other peoples' envy come the summer!

so whats the difference between that and poeple riding in the back of my 88 pickup, with or without 3/4 tilt. as long as there were seats?

im sure it would be illegal but effectively its the same haha

[missingsid]

I think the key is fixed seating in place? Side facing seats are seatbelt exempt IIRC?

The military have done this for years, even as an officer, the bus collecting my father and his colleagues was sometimes replaced with a 10 tonner with or without a tilt and that included a 15 mile motorway section!

Then again my Series 1 would have been used for pasengers in the back in its time?

But times change and a major accident today would no doubt result in a criminal charge and custodial sentance if a death occoured!

If anyone has the deffinative answer it would be a major. help to a huge number of LR owners i think!

[Maverik]

I doubt there is a definitive answer, I think this is more a common sense type thing. obey the seat belt rules and general vehicle safety laws, have well behaved kids/passengers/dogs.

Most of the Laws and rules and guidance is here: https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving

[mad_pete]

As long as you are insured I don't think you have to have a roof if you don't want to.

[Maverik]

Let me consult the

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

1986 No. 1078

ROAD TRAFFIC

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986...

[discomikey]

you seem to be having fun with that tonight,

i would love to know the difference re sitting in the back between soft top and pick up cab as its the same vehicle with a different piece of tin on, although i doubt it will say that in the regulations haha

[AndrewHorsfield]

I always thought that child seats and booster seats could not be side facing, therefore kids needing them couldn't use side facing seats?

[Snagger]

so whats the difference between that and poeple riding in the back of my 88 pickup, with or without 3/4 tilt. as long as there were seats?

im sure it would be illegal but effectively its the same haha

I don't think there is a difference. As far as I know, there isn't any rule specifying that the seats have to be inside a roof structure.

[Snagger]

I always thought that child seats and booster seats could not be side facing, therefore kids needing them couldn't use side facing seats?

Correct. Age and height restrictions apply to the kids using them. But that's only on vehicles usually used for those kids - taxis, friends giving you a lift and so are exempt.

[trafman]

Initially I did not respond to this one as have spent too much time dealing with this sort of question professionally as a Traffic Police sgt and have wanted a break from such thoughts but will add my comments, considerations and suggestions as so many on here have been so giving with their excellent advice re a suitable Land rover to use on Ascension Island.

This is where I come from: 21 yrs as a Traffic cop most of its as a Sgt and for a lot of that time working in a small team that dealt with a Fatal Collision every 13 days. Divide 21yrs by 13 and that's a ton of grief and a ton of experience but the following is just my personal take and thankfully have started to enjoy my retirement 10 months ago.

The question was what does the law say so as to not avoid the question, it all depends on age of vehicle, position of seats ie side facing ( does not require seat belts ) forward facing, is there any thing that divides the passenger space fron drivers area and plenty more variables.

It is all the variables that causes us all to have sketchy knowledge understanding so gues what we need a flow chart or a guide. Mr Google is great for that but in addition try WWW.MOTUK.CO.UK look at testers manual section 5.1 that will help and offers flow charts etc.

Now the important thing: Common sense and the what when it goes wrong, you can guess that having had the occupation that I have have have been to far too many scenes involving double and triple fatalities and sadly far too many involving kids. Thought Did Mr Landrover initially design his vehicle to transport your nearest and dearest and little ones 100 mile down a motorway at 70 mph left lying about insecure or was he trying to make the worlds best utility vehicle to take the odd SAS over desert terrain or farm hand a mile or so across a field on a temporary use side facing seat at 15mph ?

Now its that sort of question that I would ask as a Police officer will likely ignore the odd sighting of someone sat insecure in the back of a landy as most wont actually know the seatbelt law to the enth degree and most police are not dealing with a fatal collision every other week. When the law does know what its talking about is after it has all gone horribly wrong it then ends up interviewing Dad for death by Dangerous driving, ( you may want to look it up as dangerous includes the manner in which you carry passengers or the load in or on the vehicle).

What is a real horror is at the scene of a fatal or even life changing injury RTC is a potentially culpable driver finding themselves being arrested there and then if they are fit to be so. Imagine the scene of the Collision and then being arrested effectively you are now going to be asked was it really bright to leave a child or an adult insecure in a space which is really only fit to carry tools or the odd sheep. You may be thinking it would be very insensitive and wrong to arrest someone who has just been involved in the loss of their family but for reasons that are not connected to this topic its can and does happen. As a caring human being I have hated having to arrest a father or partner at the scene of a fatality but it does happen and for sound evidential reasons, its the country holding you to account for making the decision to carry say a child unsecured, who is not expected to make the same conscious decisions that we would expect of an adult, they relied on Dad ?

There is an offence of putting a vehicle to unsuitable purposes, think Ford transit builders van and bob the builder sticking a few of his mates in the back to take them to the building site, plod stops them obviously no seats and belts in the back and Bob walks away with 3 more points on his licence and a £100 less well off. It might be seen that taking a farm hand or you family down a country road between farms or in a village and for a short duration or distance is suitable as obviously this risk is relatively low and much reduced. MR plod may consider that is a suitable purpose, its when its gone wrong and Plod suggests that a day out halfway across the country motorways B roads at 60mph (think 120mph when its head on) is not suitable purpose that you may struggle to convince Plod, the CPS and find yourself at Crown court looking at potentially custodial sentence that you would then reflect and think was it really a good idea to exercise my freedom to make that decision ? with freedom comes responsibilities .

Now you will realise why I did not initially respond, its just not a healthy topic, please don't take this as an invite to question the reasoning behind all of the above or expect me to get into justifications etc as I wont. I just want to give some food for thought from one who has dealt with the outcome of kids and plenty of adults not secured in vehicles, I can count at least a 100 people who I have seen that did not make it home because they or Dad ? decided they did not need securing, when that vehicle rolls or is hit the worlds strongest man is not holding on its a tumble drier spinning you outwards.

If you read above and you know if it did go wrong that you could cope with the scene, cope with the outcome then you nearly have the right to decide to carry Kids and adults unsecured in or on your vehicle . I said nearly as I doubt you would ever get the willing permission from those that attend and deal with the scenes or at hospitals or mortuaries later.

Anyway now I have cheared everyone up I can see a few more Defender 90s with side facing seats coming on the market, now I am looking for a good one to export out to Ascension Island but it will be used front seat only or on a rare occasion very short distance and slow with anyone in the rear.

There is my answer it is should you not can you.

Trafman

[Bowie69]

Drove the lightweight with no doors, roof, or hood sticks, 4 people in the back, 2 in the front (it's 24V), no questions or suggestions it was illegal.... well not by anyone we met

[HampshireHog]

Some food for thought when its laid out like that

[Snagger]

Trafman, thanks for your input. It makes good points, but I think few of us would plan to take a few kids down the motorway in an open pickup. I assumed the thrust of the question was whether it was legal to have the soft top off with passengers in the back for a short, low speed journey, like for a pub lunch or dog walk. I was quite content to use our Lightweight with the sides rolled up with the kids in the back for trips to the local park, school runs and up the road to Billing, but wouldn't think of a high speed drive like that. Equally, I don't see the problem with having adults in the back of a pickup as long as the seats are suitable for a similar drive, but again not for high speed or long distances. Granted, the consequences of an accident to could be the same irrespective of whether on an A-road or motorway, but context is important.

[Retroanaconda]

Comes down to your own risk assessment at the end of the day. Personally I see the risk associated in a run to the pub and back with a few friends on the back as being of an acceptable level. Whereas a hundred miles up the motorway/ dual carriageway I would say presented an unacceptably high risk.

Where the law allows it it is fine, but you have to take some personal responsibility as above - 'it was legal and so therefore appropriate' probably won't wash if you're in court for causing death etc. and I certainly wouldn't want to be standing in the dock trying to justify my decision.

[trafman]

Glad my input was taken exactly as it was meant and it sort of answers the question, is it legal, well yes it can be just needs to be appropriate use. I am def not for the nanny state and as always its about common sense and a balance.

The use of the MOTUK link will help get the definitive of when a seat belt needs to be fitted and basically if its fitted it should be worn, now its time to enjoy the sunshine and using the LRs to explore and have some fun.

Cheers

Trafman

[discomikey]

IIRC for the same reason you mentioned (I cant tell you if this is 100% definately true but its what i have always heard) you can ride in a trailer (Agricultural) as long as you are considered "in" it and not on the sides, with a max speed of 20MPH and with legitimate reason to do so (I.E. bale carting although obviously not on the way back sat 18 layers up!)

Like you say, slightly different than bombing down the motorway at 80 with mates unstrapped in the back of your 90/110

[mad_pete]

It's not 120 mph when it's head on. It's still 60mph. Common mistake that I myself have made. The 2 cars act on each other and the total mass is doubled. If you just take car A the deceleration is from 60 - 0 whether it's a tree or another car on the other side.

[CwazyWabbit]

It's not 120 mph when it's head on. It's still 60mph. Common mistake that I myself have made. The 2 cars act on each other and the total mass is doubled. If you just take car A the deceleration is from 60 - 0 whether it's a tree or another car on the other side.

All these years mad_pete and that is something I had never questioned however it does make perfect sense now. Would it be a 120mph crash if the vehicle you hit was big enough to keep going at 60 mph and reverse your direction of travel and send you back the way you came at 60mph?