Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Is it a Melton thing?
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29327		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  grandad [ Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Is it a Melton thing?
One of our drivers was challenged this evening by a PCSO for having a child in the car without a child seat. I spoke with the police about this and they insist that the exemption from using a child seat only applies if the taxi or private hire vehicle has a partition.
this website seems to say that this is correct. https://www.gov.uk/child-car-seats-the- ... a-car-seat
However this website says the opposite. http://www.childcarseats.org.uk/the-law ... -vehicles/
Which is correct?
Author:  mancityfan [ Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it a Melton thing?
grandad wrote:
One of our drivers was challenged this evening by a PCSO for having a child in the car without a child seat. I spoke with the police about this and they insist that the exemption from using a child seat only applies if the taxi or private hire vehicle has a partition.
this website seems to say that this is correct. https://www.gov.uk/child-car-seats-the- ... a-car-seat
However this website says the opposite. http://www.childcarseats.org.uk/the-law ... -vehicles/
Which is correct?


It's a Melton thing.
There is no requirement on licensed taxi/private hire car operators to provide child seat/boosters.
Author:  grandad [ Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it a Melton thing?
The problem is that this Government guide stated that the exemption only applies if the car has a fixed divider between the driver and rear compartment. This guide was updated only last month and it is this guide that the police are quoting from.
Is there a link to the actual legislation for this?
https://www.gov.uk/child-car-seats-the- ... a-car-seat
Author:  Sussex [ Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it a Melton thing?
Before the new(ish) child seat laws came in then the partition thing applied.

However once the new(ish) child seat laws came in the taxi/PH were given an exemption to those laws.

I'm guessing ROSPA know what they are talking about.

http://www.childcarseats.org.uk/the-law/

I'm guessing the DfT know what they are talking about.

And I'm guessing the folks who wrote the law know what they are on about.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006 ... 892_en.pdf
Author:  grandad [ Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it a Melton thing?
I get all of the advice on the law by people such as Rospa etc. But what about the link that I have put which is from Gov.uk? This is only 1 month old and this is what the police are quoting as the law. Who do I contact in the Government to ask?
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it a Melton thing?
grandad wrote:
I get all of the advice on the law by people such as Rospa etc. But what about the link that I have put which is from Gov.uk? This is only 1 month old and this is what the police are quoting as the law. Who do I contact in the Government to ask?

Which bit on that link needs clarification?

If you have a partition you don't need car seats etc.

If you don't have a partition normal rules apply.

Normal rules allow an exemption for taxi/ph if the job isn't a regular pre planned run.

It confirms that in that link.

I'm confused that you are confused.
Author:  MR T [ Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it a Melton thing?
grandad wrote:
I get all of the advice on the law by people such as Rospa etc. But what about the link that I have put which is from Gov.uk? This is only 1 month old and this is what the police are quoting as the law. Who do I contact in the Government to ask?

Ministry for Transport taxis div.
Author:  Midlife martyr [ Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it a Melton thing?
Sussex wrote:
grandad wrote:
I get all of the advice on the law by people such as Rospa etc. But what about the link that I have put which is from Gov.uk? This is only 1 month old and this is what the police are quoting as the law. Who do I contact in the Government to ask?

Which bit on that link needs clarification?

If you have a partition you don't need car seats etc.

If you don't have a partition normal rules apply.

Normal rules allow an exemption for taxi/ph if the job isn't a regular pre planned run.

It confirms that in that link.

I'm confused that you are confused.


I'm with Grandad then as I'm confused it's always been my understanding that all Hackney and Ph have been fully exempted from child seat regulations on the grounds of impracticality.
If the information provided by the Gov.Uk link is correct in affect it means only WAV hackneys will be able to carry children as no drivers going to carry 3 child seats around.
Author:  grandad [ Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it a Melton thing?
Sussex wrote:
grandad wrote:
I get all of the advice on the law by people such as Rospa etc. But what about the link that I have put which is from Gov.uk? This is only 1 month old and this is what the police are quoting as the law. Who do I contact in the Government to ask?

Which bit on that link needs clarification?

If you have a partition you don't need car seats etc.

If you don't have a partition normal rules apply.

Normal rules allow an exemption for taxi/ph if the job isn't a regular pre planned run.

It confirms that in that link.

I'm confused that you are confused.

So what you are saying is that we can't do jobs that have children if they are rang in unless we have all the different size child seats available in the car.
Author:  grandad [ Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it a Melton thing?
I have just checked again on the link I posted regarding the taxi needing a partition, which was updated last month and it would seem that it has been updated this morning and the partition bit has been removed.
Confusing or what?
Author:  cabbyman [ Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it a Melton thing?
The government site can't make up it's mind:

At one point it says:

Taxis and minicabs (private hire vehicles)
If the driver doesn’t provide the correct car seat, children can travel without one - but only if they travel on a rear seat:

and wear an adult seat belt if they’re 3 or older
without a seat belt if they’re under 3

However, further on, it says:

Unexpected journeys
If the correct child seat isn’t available, a child aged 3 or older can use an adult seat belt if the journey is all of the following:

unexpected
necessary
over a short distance

You can’t take children under 3 on an unexpected journey in a vehicle without a seat belt or the correct child car seat, unless all of the following apply:

it’s a licensed taxi or minicab
the rear seats are separated from the driver by a fixed partition
the child travels on the rear seats

Now, to me, the first section says that I can take a child in the rear seats for any planned journey. However, if the journey is unplanned (ie an emergency), I can only take a child under 3 if I have a fixed partition.

Does anyone else read it like that?

I think the government bod responsible for drafting web content needs to try again!
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it a Melton thing?
grandad wrote:
So what you are saying is that we can't do jobs that have children if they are rang in unless we have all the different size child seats available in the car.

No because that's not regular, that's from time to time.

In short if you had a regular contracted school run then that could require the kids having proper seats, but if Mrs Brown is taking her kids shopping that won't require them to use kid seats.

But that's been the case since 2006, nothing has changed recently on that, other than the kind of seat required, if they are required.
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it a Melton thing?
cabbyman wrote:
The government site can't make up it's mind:

It's the legislation that matters.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006 ... 892_en.pdf

And that exempts us. It says so in the legal bit, section 16, and in the explanatory notes.
Author:  mancityfan [ Tue Jun 14, 2016 2:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it a Melton thing?
Re; Seat Belts
Thanks for your e-mail forwarded by Pippa Brown. The Statutory Instrument No1892 about seat belts is now online at http://www.00si.dov.uk/si/si2006120061892.htm

However, I would not recommend that anyone spends too much time studying the new
regulations. They amend earlier regulations and therefore are not readable as a stand-alone document. They also need to be considered with section 15 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended by SI 3105 of 1992. In addition, there is more to come in the form of another SI relating to children in front seats which must use a different parliamentary approval process and therefore is still being finalised. They are also intended to come into force on 18 September.



The exception in licensed taxi/private hire cars is that in cases where there is no child restraint in these vehicles:-

- a child under 3 years may travel unrestrained in the rear: and

- a child 3 years to 135 cms in height must use an adult belt and travel in the rear.

Children up to 135 cms in height may only travel in the front seat of any vehicle if they use the correct child seat/booster.

Drivers remain responsible for making sure that passengers under 14 years use seat belts/child seats/boosters as required.

There is no requirement on licensed taxi/private hire car operators to provide child seat/boosters.

Hope this is helpful.


Tim Norman
Road User Safety Division Dept for Transport
LONDON SW1 P 4DR 020 7944 2043
Author:  cabbyman [ Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it a Melton thing?
Thanks, MCF.

So, DfT are suggesting that the regulations will be unfathomable with so many amending statutes. I wonder how long it will take them to pass a consolidating instrument!! :oops:
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/