Is it legal for a passenger to walk about while motorhome is in motion?

[Barclaybasher]

Therefore, a passenger moving around a motorhome while it's moving could be considered as creating a potential danger, thereby violating this regulation.

This further reinforces the requirement for passengers to remain seated and restrained while the vehicle is in motion.

Aren't these just your interpretation of the regulations ?

 

[dunnah01]

Which book ?

The Billy Big B@lls book of 'ooh look at me I'm an Alpha male because I'm not wearing a seatbelt belt'

 

[Philemery]

And this one as well - in English but unfortunately the only one I can find has subtitles on it:

Not true, the driver is held responsible for ensuring passengers are wearing seat belts. Highway Code rule 100:

"The driver MUST ensure that all children under 14 years of age in cars, vans and other goods vehicles wear seat belts or sit in an approved child restraint where required (see table above). If a child is under 1.35 metres (approx 4 feet 5 inches) tall, a baby seat, child seat, booster seat or booster cushion MUST be used suitable for the child’s weight and fitted to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Laws RTA 1988 sects 14 & 15, MV(WSB)R, MV(WSBCFS)R & MV(WSB)(A)R"

That is for children, adults are responsible for themselves.

 

[L' Hobo]

Does that cover going to the loo in a coach, how about walking round on a train - people get killed in train accidents and they don't have seat belts do they?
Where do you draw your line?

Some people have mentioned Coaches PSV (or should be PCV's now)
Having been a Bus & Coach Operator, the way it was explained to me was, Buses are designed to have standing passengers and the Coaches have this same Type Approval dispensation.

They both have an aisle, numerous safety tested hand holds and a professional trained driver.
Most private vehicles, have few, if any, of these.

Personally, I never allow hot drinks to be served while the vehicle was in motion, only cold but, as I was a Transport H&S Rep for the T&GWU for a short time and attended a number of fatal accidents, maybe I'm a bit too cautious?

 

[barryd]

Therefore, a passenger moving around a motorhome while it's moving could be considered as creating a potential danger, thereby violating this regulation.

This further reinforces the requirement for passengers to remain seated and restrained while the vehicle is in motion.

Aren't these just your interpretation of the regulations ?

No. From ChatGTP. I thought I had put that in the link, now amended. It seems pretty accurate though. If you move around a motorhome whilst its moving and the coppers see you there is a very good chance you will get done and under that legislation you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Of course there is also a chance that you wont get done as well depending on if the copper could be bothered or not but the same could be said for most offences really including speeding.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[our poppy llll]

Another thing to get the scaredy-cats quivering

Who likes to use a slow cooker when driving and arrive after a long drive to enjoy a lovely Beef Stew in red wine

Whooooah you been looking in my kitchen, I’ve dun a old “Landenar” recipe “boiled beef n carrots”, all done in a slow cooker.. goin to Lidl to get 4 beef drippin yorkshires for dinner tonight in a min, wife’s sister is coming for dinner, she’s a stick insect that can eat a horse, then a cow, a sheep, a lamb and 6 chickens, an apple pie and a litre of custard... she’s got hollow legs… she also destroys my wine collection..

 

[our poppy llll]

Given the clearly delinquent, devil may care, rules are for sissies type of response this serious enquiry has attracted (at least I assume it was serious but there again, what a brilliant popcorn post if it wasn't), it's a wonder anyone would ever open a campsite. Anarchy is clearly just around the corner wherever motorhomers gather in their bed-sits on wheels and you'd think the risk would be too much but then it is clear that the afore mentioned delinquents steer well clear of places that might expect some collective responsibility for the enjoyment of the facility. Who'd have thought motorhoming is the last frontier for some . . .

Whoo hooo correctively described funsters, “delinquent funster” mmmm like it! Can Jim print stickers with that caption on? Or would that be the domain of The “Roaming Rotfords”

I can just imagine the back of my van.. “here comes a Delinquent Funster: watch it”

 

[Bill-H]

Some people have mentioned Coaches PSV (or should be PCV's now)
Having been a Bus & Coach Operator, the way it was explained to me was, Buses are designed to have standing passengers and the Coaches have this same Type Approval dispensation.

They both have an aisle, numerous safety tested hand holds and a professional trained driver.
Most private vehicles, have few, if any, of these.

Personally, I never allow hot drinks to be served while the vehicle was in motion, only cold but, as I was a Transport H&S Rep for the T&GWU for a short time and attended a number of fatal accidents, maybe I'm a bit too cautious?

I was replying to post #194 "It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not, walking around in a moving motor vehicle qualifies you for a Darwin award."

Coaches are motor vehicles are they not? The matter of type approval, design or lack there of wasn't mentioned in my post or the reply, just the all-encompassing term 'motor vehicle'

 

[Barriesimpson]

I've been driving 45 years and never had a crash on 4 wheels.
To suddenly suggest that a 10 second walkabout will kill you is a bit silly.

A brave statement.

 

[PaulW2]

It's not legal walking around inside a motorhome but it's less dangerous than, say, legally riding a motorbike.

The law, once again, isn't a substitute for common sense.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Barriesimpson]

Whenever I drink and drive I always end up spilling it!

Co-pilot: Captain, you can't land the plane here with all this turbulence and fog.
Captain: Here, hold my beer.

 

[eddie]

The Billy Big B@lls book of 'ooh look at me I'm an Alpha male because I'm not wearing a seatbelt belt!

And that ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls sums this up

"Look at me"

Nothing is further from the truth, the truth is we are just getting a can of drink whilst the vehicle is on a long straight road, because we can, nothing to do with posing or being an Alpha male, in fact most of the people who are happy to take calculated risks don't really give a toss what the "sheeples" think, actually taking that a stage further I personally don't even think about "sheeple" at all let alone when they start their "sing song" "Ooooooo your being naughty" diatribe which is based soley on what they (The Sheeple) think is safe, in their opinion.

As a kid who used to build wooden go carts and race then down a steep hill time and time again for fun, walking down the RV (Which is a Coach BTW) and getting a couple of cans of drink seems fairly safe by comparison

And as for "If you had to pick up the pieces" If that is your career choice I thank you for your service, but I assume that anyone working as a paramedic or copper knew what was what when they signed up, the same as plumbers clearing blocked toilets and drains, unpleasant but part of the job

 

[TobyQuest]

When making laws, governers have to always factor in the most retarded moron of a person and see if the law is adequate. So I expect its illegal to be walking around in a motorhome, simply for the fact that they need to maximise health & safety and minimise serious injuries. Some people would have a party in it while driving down the road.

Nevertheless even if things are illegal, practically speaking if you need to nip to the loo, or grab something from the back, just do it!
Thinking something is illegal means people take more precautionary steps anyhow, like not doing it as frequently or for as long eg dont do it while navigating mountain hairpins, better to avoid it while at high speed or bumps, corners, roundabouts or right under the eyes of the police. Simple

 

[TDub49]

A classic example of the old saying "If a thing can be done it doesn't meant it should be done . . . . "

 

[Northernraider]

The Billy Big B@lls book of 'ooh look at me I'm an Alpha male because I'm not wearing a seatbelt belt'

When I was 14 I had a cousin killed in a car accident when it went on fire and the seatbelts jammed . They don't always save lives.

There's also many who've been injured because of the seatbelt .

Should be a personal choice in my book , unless a minor which of course should have to use a belt till 16 when they can choose.



I'm quite sure no one on the planet has ever said " ooh look at me I'm not wearing a seatbelt" only a fool would think anyone doesn't wear a belt to show off in any way . As really only a nosey ba@@teward would notice .

I don't think I had mine on once round Morocco....

I usually have it on in the UK....but I have something jammed in it to keep the belt very loose

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Northernraider]

And that ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls sums this up

"Look at me"

Nothing is further from the truth, the truth is we are just getting a can of drink whilst the vehicle is on a long straight road, because we can, nothing to do with posing or being an Alpha male, in fact most of the people who are happy to take calculated risks don't really give a toss what the "sheeples" think, actually taking that a stage further I personally don't even think about "sheeple" at all let alone when they start their "sing song" "Ooooooo your being naughty" diatribe which is based soley on what they (The Sheeple) think is safe, in their opinion.

As a kid who used to build wooden go carts and race then down a steep hill time and time again for fun, walking down the RV (Which is a Coach BTW) and getting a couple of cans of drink seems fairly safe by comparison

And as for "If you had to pick up the pieces" If that is your career choice I thank you for your service, but I assume that anyone working as a paramedic or copper knew what was what when they signed up, the same as plumbers clearing blocked toilets and drains, unpleasant but part of the job

 

[eddie]

A classic example of the old saying "If a thing can be done it doesn't meant it should be done . . . . "

Baaaaa!

Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done either……

It just means if “you” don’t think it should be done don’t do it!

It doesn’t mean if “you” don’t think it should be done, lecture and bore other people


Baaaaa!

 

[TinaLes]

Slight thread drift, sorry but A Good example this week on The BBC News of the law being an ass.
Man received a hefty fine in the post for pulling over and stopping on the hard shoulder of a CCTV monitored Motorway.
The man was on the news, because he wanted to appeal the fine as he pulled over feeling very ill to vomit, its been a few years now, but I have had similar circumstance but not on a Motorway thankfully.
Apparently pulling over to be sick is not deemed as a medical emergency! So you either hang on to the next service area...yea right! or be sick in the car on your lap weaving in lanes, or stop and get fined!.. seems harsh to me
LES
Law Quote from Google
Yes, drivers can be fined for stopping on a motorway hard shoulder, even if they need to be sick. The Highway Code states that the hard shoulder is for emergencies only. A driver stopping for any other reason, including to be sick, could face a fine of up to £60 and three penalty points.
Here's why stopping on the hard shoulder without an emergency is against the law and the potential consequences:

• Highway Code Rule 270:
  This rule specifically prohibits stopping on the carriageway, hard shoulder, or slip road, except in an emergency, or when instructed by police or traffic officers.
• Emergency Only:
  The hard shoulder is intended for genuine emergencies like a vehicle breakdown or medical emergency, not for minor inconveniences like a need to stop and be sick.
• Safety Concerns:
  Stopping on the hard shoulder can be dangerous, especially if traffic is heavy or visibility is poor. It can also create an obstruction and increase the risk of accidents.
• Penalties:
  Stopping on the hard shoulder without a legitimate reason can result in a fine and penalty points on your license.
• Alternative Solutions:
  If you need to stop because you're feeling unwell, it's recommended to try and safely pull into a designated rest area or service station, if possible. If that's not feasible, and you're in immediate danger, you may need to stop on the hard shoulder but should do so as safely as possible and contact emergency services if necessary.

In summary: While it's understandable to want to stop and be sick if you need to, the hard shoulder is not the place to do it. You risk being fined and could put yourself and others at risk. It's best to look for a designated rest area or service station if you need to stop.

What a load off tosh, its obviously some time since the author of this, or one of his family has felt the need to be instantly sick, as no way would have time to get to the next rest area for relief eg NoroVirus. I would reluctantly pay the fine should the circumstance arise.
Les again.

 

[PP Bear]

Come on everyone, you need to install the autopilot in the drivers seat

 

[dunnah01]

Slight thread drift, sorry but A Good example this week on The BBC News of the law being an ass.
Man received a hefty fine in the post for pulling over and stopping on the hard shoulder of a CCTV monitored Motorway.
The man was on the news, because he wanted to appeal the fine as he pulled over feeling very ill to vomit, its been a few years now, but I have had similar circumstance but not on a Motorway thankfully.
Apparently pulling over to be sick is not deemed as a medical emergency! So you either hang on to the next service area...yea right! or be sick in the car on your lap weaving in lanes, or stop and get fined!.. seems harsh to me
LES
Law Quote from Google
Yes, drivers can be fined for stopping on a motorway hard shoulder, even if they need to be sick. The Highway Code states that the hard shoulder is for emergencies only. A driver stopping for any other reason, including to be sick, could face a fine of up to £60 and three penalty points.
Here's why stopping on the hard shoulder without an emergency is against the law and the potential consequences:

• Highway Code Rule 270:
  This rule specifically prohibits stopping on the carriageway, hard shoulder, or slip road, except in an emergency, or when instructed by police or traffic officers.
• Emergency Only:
  The hard shoulder is intended for genuine emergencies like a vehicle breakdown or medical emergency, not for minor inconveniences like a need to stop and be sick.
• Safety Concerns:
  Stopping on the hard shoulder can be dangerous, especially if traffic is heavy or visibility is poor. It can also create an obstruction and increase the risk of accidents.
• Penalties:
  Stopping on the hard shoulder without a legitimate reason can result in a fine and penalty points on your license.
• Alternative Solutions:
  If you need to stop because you're feeling unwell, it's recommended to try and safely pull into a designated rest area or service station, if possible. If that's not feasible, and you're in immediate danger, you may need to stop on the hard shoulder but should do so as safely as possible and contact emergency services if necessary.

In summary: While it's understandable to want to stop and be sick if you need to, the hard shoulder is not the place to do it. You risk being fined and could put yourself and others at risk. It's best to look for a designated rest area or service station if you need to stop.

What a load off tosh, its obviously some time since the author of this, or one of his family has felt the need to be instantly sick, as no way would have time to get to the next rest area for relief eg NoroVirus. I would reluctantly pay the fine should the circumstance arise.
Les again.

I suppose the argument would be you shouldn't be driving on the motorway in the first place if you're ill or susceptible to being instantly sick. You can never win taking on the law .

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[PaulW2]

One interesting aspect of such laws is who they are intended to protect.

The person who is doing the thing, or other people?

Different jurisdictions answer these questions quite differently.

In the US, for instance, 19 states have universal crash helmet laws for motorbikes. Three states have no crash helmet laws. And 28 states say only people younger than 18 or 21 are obliged to wear helmets.

Once you're older, you should know better and if you die that's tough. We're not here to nanny you.

In the UK we often twist everything into a nannying opportunity. "Well, we all pay for the NHS and it's not fair if you're reckless because it costs us all money." And so we give ourselves the chance to participate in our favourite sport: moaning about the behaviour of others.

 

[Yorick]

The Highway Code is not the law. Just a code.

 

[Rog NotJane]

One interesting aspect of such laws is who they are intended to protect.

This feels like the first sensible question in this thread. As I understand it, the laws are certainly not to protect you, the person choosing not to wear a seatbelt. They’re not to protect the paramedics who attend your crash. They’re to make society cheaper to run. Wearing seatbelts means less people in hospital means less costs to the NHS means more care for people not in road traffic accidents.

Going back to the initial topic of this thread, I think that maybe the Angle Morts stickers are probably not there to remind an individual on a bike that they might be killed by your van, they’re there to educate everyone who sees a van that there are blind spots. They’re free public service notices not individual warnings. That maybe means they satisfy both camps on this thread

 

[Barriesimpson]

This feels like the first sensible question in this thread. As I understand it, the laws are certainly not to protect you, the person choosing not to wear a seatbelt. They’re not to protect the paramedics who attend your crash. They’re to make society cheaper to run. Wearing seatbelts means less people in hospital means less costs to the NHS means more care for people not in road traffic accidents.

Going back to the initial topic of this thread, I think that maybe the Angle Morts stickers are probably not there to remind an individual on a bike that they might be killed by your van, they’re there to educate everyone who sees a van that there are blind spots. They’re free public service notices not individual warnings. That maybe means they satisfy both camps on this thread

Ok, all this reasoning sounds good to me. So I'll let you all not wear seat belts, walk around the van while driving etc. but you all need to lighten up and let me smoke. Deal?

 

[DandJ]

The Highway Code is not the law. Just a code.

Sort of true and untrue at the same time. It cites many things that you MUST do and then shows the relevent legislation, it also cites some things that you SHOULD do, or not do....

Here's an example...

Rule 97​

Before setting off. You MUST ensure that

• you have a valid licence and insurance to drive the vehicle you intend to use (see Motor vehicle documentation and learner driver requirements)
• your vehicle is legal and roadworthy (see Motor vehicle documentation and learner driver requirements and Vehicle maintenance, safety and security for important vehicle maintenance and safety checks).

You SHOULD ensure that

• you have planned your route and allowed sufficient time for breaks and possible delays
• you have sufficient fuel or charge for your journey, especially if it includes motorway driving
• you know where all the controls are and how to use them
• clothing and footwear do not prevent you using the controls in the correct manner
• your mirrors and seat are adjusted correctly to ensure comfort, full control and maximum vision
• head restraints are properly adjusted to reduce the risk of neck and spine injuries in the event of a collision.

Great thread though, has me chuckling at some of the posts.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Rog NotJane]

Ok, all this reasoning sounds good to me. So I'll let you all not wear seat belts, walk around the van while driving etc. but you all need to lighten up and let me smoke. Deal?

Same reasoning but a lot more explicit: the government are balancing tax from cigarettes against healthcare costs from illness caused by smoking.

Of course it’s a lot more complex than that (lobbying by tobacco, votes from smokers etc) but this is the general point. It also applies to alcohol (my vice), social media, electric cars, etc.

 

[Rog NotJane]

Sort of true and untrue at the same time. It cites many things that you MUST do and then shows the relevent legislation, it also cites some things that you SHOULD do, or not do....

I think this is: the Highway Code is not the law but it includes references to the law.

 

[Wildbill]

Dose geting the wife to role up a joint cut a line and get me a beer out of the fridge count in this discussion
WB

 

[Verteuil Man]

The Highway Code is deemed to be 'Best Practice' and is then cited in legal cases.
I do love grey areas.

 

[dunnah01]

The way it's all setup is that you pay not to wear a seatbelt or walk about your van. There should be a proper collection system so those that want to pay can pay and it should be charged at a rate that covers the costs of any consequences and a bit of extra for profit. £5000/annum would seem reasonable

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}