Taxi Driver Online

Starting in September


http://www.childcarseats.org.uk/law/ind ... taxiunder3

Lucky the TX's have one built in already.

I don't want any snotty kids in the front with me, so no change.

_________________
IDFIMH

We done this a while ago but if you notice it states "If Available".

Taxis and Private Hire Cars
The law is exactly the same as for children travelling in cars.

Taxis and private hire cars - Children under 3 years old
If carried in the front seat, an appropriate child restraint MUST be used (the adult seat belt is not sufficient)

If carried in the rear seat, an appropriate child restraint MUST be used, IF AVAILABLE.

If an appropriate restraint is fitted in the front of the car, but not the rear, children under 3 years old MUST sit in the front and use that restraint. (Remember, you could move the restraint from the front to the rear if you wish, and you should do this if you are using a rearward-facing baby seat and there is a passenger airbag fitted).

Regards

JD

Been on about this before, kids under 3 in a taxi its not clear
I feel strongly about this
I have a some grandkids [5 in total] [hows about that then] and some more on the way.

one of them is 4 years old, am very careful, naturaly, how they are transported in my vehicle, in my taxi the seat belts front and rear are charged with a electronic seatbelt tensioners, now if the seat belt is not correctly fitted, ie. if its not around their waist and is not over the shoulder bone this becomes very dangerous to the child, if the seatbelt is hanging around their necks in accident when the tensioners go off this can/could decapicate the child, not only that I have 8 airbags fitted which work in conjuction with the seatbelt tensioners, ie if your not in the right position and the belts arn't fitted right to the toddler, who knows what will happen

so if they are to young to go in belts what do we do, I don't want to end up in court, nor does any other driver, but its totally unclear, taxi or not.

Not ideal, but as long as they don't sit in the front it's down to the parents.

_________________
IDFIMH

Not ideal, but as long as they don't sit in the front it's down to the parents. [/quote]

Wrong Sussex, its the driver who's responsible

so someone comes along with a baby in arms, wants a taxi, how you going to strap in the baby???

If the person sits in the back with their baby, then surely this bit must apply.

If carried in the rear seat, an appropriate child restraint MUST be used, IF AVAILABLE.

By wording it in that way, the 'powers that be' are saying if one isn't available, then the status quo remains.

_________________
IDFIMH

well I need it be a bit more legal clear,

this could be the scene..

Yes your Honour, all the passengers was belted up except the baby, as I braked hard as this drunk ran across the road through , the airbags went off as we was hit from behind by another car through me braking, the airbags went off causing decapitation of the baby to which then was projected through the windscreen. as far as I can see I was within the law as a restraint wasn't available

I'm afraid i'm quite brutal with this subject, EVERY PASSENGER i carry MUST WEAR A SEATBELT without exception.
I wont carry a parent who holds the baby on their lap, either the baby is in a carry thingy that accepts a belt or i dont take them. a lap belt can kill a baby just as much as a shoulder one that could strangle/break their neck.
Neither will i carry 4 adults and a baby, no belt no ride!

Same hear mate, not many of us think like this and work like this, seat belts on or I don't travel,
those that don't care, you see it all the time, no one with belts on, leaving themselves wide open to a could be manslaughter court case, a civil case for a claim, or worse still being maimed/ injured or killed by the passengers

I'm not sure the issue is over the rights and wrongs of carrying little ones in the back without a proper seat.

It's whether the law permits it. And I'm sure that if it wasn't permitted, then they would have said so.

_________________
IDFIMH

who, the law or the Council, the Council don't give a [edited by admin], but if you enquire deeper in the Council, they will have a department dealing with children safety seats and all that forget what you call the department

I had one dept girls in the taxi not long ago, her advice was if the restraints are not brought by the parents and the seatbelts don't fit the child, you must not take them

so where do we go from here.
I think this wants putting up on a on one of the Law forums on the net for a good answer from the police.

I agree in part, but should an accident occur and the child is injured then it comes down to common sense.
A lot of law comes down to the driver being prudent, if you know its not really safe but do it anyway because the law says you can, it doesnt mean its safe/right. Take speed limits, a road sign says 50mph limit and your doing the limit, then you have an accident because someones broken down on a blind bend and you hit them, the law would say you were driving dangerously because you should have forseen the possibility of an accident occuring by not slowing down for the bend.
Common sense says that an unrestrained child in a vehicle is in danger of even the mildest accident.
The seatbelt law is still to vague really.

I must admit though most punters with babies do carry them in these new fangled multi purpose carry/safety/ chair buggy contraptions in my experience.

Here's a case of a child of three being injured while wearing a seat belt.

S (A CHILD) v ADAM (2002)

PSLA: £1,100 (£1,254.88 RPI) Total: £1,100
Trial date: 14/1/2002 Judge: Deputy District Judge Sutton
Court: County Court (Birmingham) Type of Award: Court Award
Age at injury: 3 Age at trial: 7
Sex: Male

S, male, aged three at the date of the accident and seven at the date of the infant settlement approval hearing, was involved in a side impact road traffic accident. S was shocked after the collision. He was taken to his local hospital where he was diagnosed as having suffered a seat belt restraining injury consisting of bruising to his chest wall and abdomen. The bruising settled within two weeks of the accident. S also suffered psychological symptoms. He experienced travel anxiety and became nervous when travelling by car. He refused to sit in the front of the car and advised his parents to put their seat belts on before a journey. The prognosis which had been given was for the psychological injury to resolve within six to nine months of the accident. S also suffered from sleep disturbance for the first few weeks after the accident. He was absent from nursery for one week. At the date of the hearing, S was symptom free, his psychological symptoms settled in accordance with the prognosis. General Damages: £1,100. [Stephen Garner, Barrister, No.8 Chambers, 8 Fountain Court, Steelhouse Lane, Birmingham]

This case can be found in the Kemp looseleaf in the following section(s): F Spine and ribs .