01422 396 769 
quoteTHIS POLL IS NOW CLOSED. NEW POLL COMING SHORTLY.
Motorhome seat belt law is a hot topic at the minute and one that can be somewhat confusing as your recent comments suggest.
September’s seat belt article prompted us to question why some new motorhomes can have a different number of berths to allocated travel seats with belts.
It seems a little strange that a motorhome which is classified as six berth for example, has only enough seats to safely (or in some cases legally) carry up to four passengers.
We are eager to get your thoughts on the topic – do you think motorhomes should have the same number of belted travel seats as berths?
Elddis has already made its belts = berths pledge so there’s a belted travel seat to match the number of sleeping berths in all its motorhomes. Should other manufacturers follow suit?
To have your say in this month’s poll, simply vote using the options below.
If you have more to say on the topic, scroll down to share your view and join the conversation!
I’m not clear on the berths = seatbelts thing.
I’m converting a small van to travel long term as a camper. I can fit a single bed in the rear and its only me travelling. The fact the van has three seats across the front cannot possibly mean I need three beds ion the rear?!?! presumably, when people here say it must be equal, what they actually mean is that there must be at least one seat for every berth and no less but, the reverse is not an issue. You can have more seats than beds, right?
It’s kind of correct Pete. You don’t have to have three beds if you have three travel seats. But designated travel seats must each have a seatbelt. Find out more here: https://www.caravanguard.co.uk/news/motorhome-seat-belts-time-belt-10291/
its the logical thing to do,whats the point of having 4 berths and only 2 belted seats crazy
I have a six berth Autotrail with four belts!!! But,I have a four seater dinette which would be easy to include two more belts rear facing
No problem
Yes the number of berths and seatbelts must be equal. Manufacturers must accept a duty of care to their customers, there will always be some owners who think that the number of berths signifies that the Motorhome is designed to carry people safely without the use of seatbelts. Similar to a bus, where even standing is allowed.
Surely as customers we get what we deserve, if people werent stupid enough to buy mismatched vans, manufacturers wouldnt bother to make them and dealers wouldn’t stock them. When looking round vans for sales I just laugh at 6 berth vans with 2 belted seats.
We have a Bailey 740 which can sleep 4, with its fixed double and convertable lounge. We only wanted it for 2 of us and the seperate lounge area from the sleeping area is what made us go for this one, It has just 2 belted seats.
Bailey also do the 745 which is the same but the front dinette has two designated travel seats with belts. It is less spacious.
We have what is technically a four berth but intended really for couples, and we like it that way. If we were forced to have 2 extra belted seats in order to get this layout we’d be less satisfied.
I am not in favour of this legislation because it takes away choice.
Rearward facing seats should not require belts and this is usual nanny state laws out of step with reality. Statistically, fewer people are injured or killed in motorhome accidents each year than on trains or buses. Does every passenger on a bus or train have to wear seat belts. Oh no that might just give them ideas…..
Yes! The number of berths in a motorhome should equal the number of seats with belts. My van is a four berth van but only has two designated travel seats. I risk breaking the law if I take more than one passenger with me. Manufacturers should be made to supply enough travel seats to allow owners to comply with the law.
Of course seat belts should equal berths in addition there should be sufficient payload for the people on board
Can’t see the logic of not having enough seatbelts to match berths. People will be breaking the law without realising it, and putting lives at risk.