Why no seatbelt for rear facing dinette seats?

[MichMoose]

Just out of curiosity, why class C dinette seats have no seatbelt for rear facing seats? I would think rear facing seats would be more safe in case of front crash. And since front crash would be more common than rear crash, shouldn't rear facing seats be preferred seating location? Is there a law that prohibit me from adding a seatbelt on the rear facing seat? Is there a federal regulation (FMVSS)against the rear facing seat seatbelt?

[DrewE]

pnichols wrote:
I notice that all modern cars/SUVs/cross-overs/PU trucks have headrests on the backs of all personnel seats. Of course this make all the sense in the world.

Then .... why don't all the states in (at least) the list above also require headrests on all the forward facing, rear facing, and side facing passenger seatbacks where seatbelts are required? :h

Mainly because vehicle equipment standards are defined at the federal level. The use of seat belts (and other equipment, e.g. headlights when the wipers are on) is legislated at the state level, but the requirements for new vehicles are not with the exception of California emissions requirements. Imagine how hard it would be for a vehicle maker to comply with fifty different and potentially contradictory sets of requirements.

Some of the standard safety equipment on cars is not due directly to legislation but due to crashworthyness ratings promulgated by the insurance industry. I don't know for a fact whether or not headrests fall into that category these days.

[pnichols]

I notice that all modern cars/SUVs/cross-overs/PU trucks have headrests on the backs of all personnel seats. Of course this make all the sense in the world.

Then .... why don't all the states in (at least) the list above also require headrests on all the forward facing, rear facing, and side facing passenger seatbacks where seatbelts are required? :h

[The_Logans]

Here is the latest on which states require rear passengers to be belted in:

"In the following states, the law is that all passengers in the RV have their seat belts on, regardless of where they are located in the RV":

Alaska
California
Colorado
Delaware
Washington
D.C.
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa
Kentucky
Maine
Massachusetts
Montana
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wyoming

[paddykernahan]

Short C, 22 foot.
Only seatbelts are in the front two seats of the Sprinter.
This is great. I don't have to take my sister-in-law with us. 🙂

[Butch50]

..

[Butch50]

I don't know about it being a DOT requirement on seat belts for each sleeping position or not. In my Super C in its original configuration it had the capacity to sleep 10 people. 2 in the King bed, 2 bunk beds, 2 dinette sleeping, 2 sofa sleeping, and 2 in over cab sleeping area. There were only seat belts for 7 people. Our rear facing dinette seat has no seat belts.

We had the bunk beds eliminated and wardrobe installed along with the sofa bed now has theater seating instead. So only need 2 seat belts anyway as it is just the 2 of us traveling.

[DrewE]

pnichols wrote:
After seeing their mess, Class C coach areas are a LONG WAY from being anywhere near as safe as the steel clad cab area.

That is true of pretty much any RV; with very few exceptions, they do not hold up well at all in a serious crash. I think you're right that seat belts would be of little advantage when seated in the house part in such a situation. Even if the basic structure held together, there are innumerable household things that could and likely would go flying every which way--the contents of drawers and cupboards and shelves and so forth.

In a more minor crash or sudden panic stop, on the other hand, seat belts in RVs may very well prevent injuries such as broken limbs or concussions or similar. Needless to say, it is always advisable to avoid crashing at all so much as it is possible to do so.

[pnichols]

The year before last our friends who were traveling with us across the U.S. at the time totaled their Class C via a bus from a cross-street hitting them head-on on the side wall just behind the driver's seat.

Nearly everything inside the coach area came loose and/or flew apart - from BOTH WALLS of the coach. I hate to think what would have happened to the bodies and heads of anyone sitting in either dinette seat - seatbelts or no seatbelts.

Our lifelong friends - the driver and his DW - fortunately came away with only bruises. They rented a van, we helped them load it up with as much of their personal items from the RV as we could, and they drove across the country back home.

Nobody should be in Class C dinette seats if hit from the side!!! Probably a head-on or rear-ender would be different, but still potentially as dangerous from flying microwaves, refrigerators, wall cabinets, etc. .... which all went flying during their accident.

After seeing their mess, Class C coach areas are a LONG WAY from being anywhere near as safe as the steel clad cab area.

[Bordercollie]

Our kids grew up before seatbelts became mandatory in cars and RV's. Thank heaven that we never had a collision or other impact accident in our Maxi-Van conversion. School and public transportation buses still don't have shoulder/seat belts. Buses like RV's would need head restraints and some kind of face/head protection from the next seat back ( airbags?)

[j-d]

DrewE wrote:
Mine does have seat belts, such as they are, at all four dinette positions (and also three more on the side-facing couch). Supposedly (from random Googling) federal DOT requirements are that there be at least as many seat belt equipped seats available as there are designated sleeping positions.

Ours, in Signature, is set up like Drew's

[MichMoose]

You might be right. My RV sleeps 4 therefore only two seat belts with dinette..

[fireflock]

I don't think any manufacturer puts in passenger seatbelts based on safety or who might want to ride where.

I bet the decision making process goes like this:
(1) How many seat belts for we HAVE to install
(2) Where is the easiest/cheapest place to put them?

End of story.

It's a sad reflection on the industry that they will sell a family bunkhouse model C without any real provision for kids, carseats, or safety.

I can save them the focus group costs - putting all of the seatbelts next to each other and at the same table is a BAD IDEA! Spread them out so the kids are spread out. Parents will thank you.

[pauldub]

I doesn't seem like any of the seating options in the back end meet any kind of automotive standards for crashworthiness.

[Photomike]

When I was looking it varied with the unit. Some only front facing, some both. Could have to do with weight or even how the unit was built.