Are rear headrests required by law uk

Illegal no head rests?

To my knowledge headrests are not a legal requirement. However I believe that compensation could be reduced if someone rear ends you and you suffer a whiplash injury. So removing them is not a good idea.

As there is no requirement to inspect or check the presence or absence of head restraints on the MOT inspection it can be assumed that their use is not compulsory.

Put your peepers over the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regs.

Do you see any mention of head restraints?

Not a legal requirement.

As there is no requirement to inspect or check the presence or absence of head restraints on the MOT inspection it can be assumed that their use is not compulsory.

MOT testing is a funny thing, they don't check for everything. A quick example is side repeaters. A car would fail an SVA test for not having side repeaters but, would not fail an MOT for not having them.

MOT testing is a funny thing, they don't check for everything. A quick example is side repeaters. A car would fail an SVA test for not having side repeaters but, would not fail an MOT for not having them.

Took a Volvo 340 for an MOT after I'd replaced the front bumper. The original had the repeaters in the bumper sides, I couldn't find a replica so replaced it with an earlier one without the repeaters - FAIL.

I fitted repeaters in the sides of the front wings and when the owner smashed the front again, the only replacement bumper I could find had repeaters in the side!

May have been the only one with two sets of repeaters!

Legality and MOT-standard can be slightly different things.

An example would be space-saver spare tyres. Legal to use on the road, but not allowed on an MOT.

The law really is an ass, isn't it! What are you supposed to do if you have a puncture on the way to the MoT test? Put the flat tyre back on for the test?

The law really is an ass, isn't it! What are you supposed to do if you have a puncture on the way to the MoT test? Put the flat tyre back on for the test?

Or if pram wheels could pass the MoT

The law really is an ass isn't it. You have something which is a get you home device. Because it adversely affects the car's handling it's only advised for short distances. But you can pass the MoT with it even though other tyre mismatches are a no no.

There was a Mondeo local to me running on a placarded 50mph only spare for months.

Head restraints are, IIRC, required by construction and use regulations and have been since eighties. Certainly never seen a modern mass produced car without them.

The law really is an ass isn't it. You have something which is a get you home device. Because it adversely affects the car's handling it's only advised for short distances. But you can pass the MoT with it even though other tyre mismatches are a no no.

You can't pass an MOT with it if you have it in use as a road wheel. Reason for rejection 1 b. Special lightweight or space saving wheels and tyres fitted as road wheels.

Removing head restraints is STUPID in the extreme. Even a low speed frontal bump or rear end shunt could KILL YOU by breaking your neck. Whether it's actually illegal I don't know for sure.

The automotive industry has spent $billions developing mechanical and pyrotechnic active head restraint systems in an effort to reduce neck injuries. Were we wasting our time?

We are considering making head restraints non removable. Not soon enough IMO.

It is a requirement of insurance that all cars are maintained in a roadworthy and SAFE condition. In the event of an accident he could fall foul of his insurance company.

IMO, any sensible MoT tester would put removed restraints down as an advisory.

I'd be quite happy for head restraints to be built-in and impossible to remove with the proviso that they should be FULLY adjustable, and that includes the angle of tilt relative to the driver's head.
Ford seems to have ended its fetish of hard-edged, sharp-angled front restraints in their latest models - I suffered four years of excrutiating pain in a company Focus - which I suspect was driven by their litigation-obsessed US customers who might have sued for whiplash injuries if the head restraint angle had been anywhere near vertical.

When I was considering buying a Hyundai i20, I found the head restraints very uncomfortable; the salesman suggested replacing them with a set from an i10. I was very surprised that my insurance company accepted that solution. I couldn't accept it though - the head restraints need to be the originals and so I didn't buy the i20 (must go back and try the new version).

Head restraints should not actually touch the back of your head when in a normal driving position, they are there to protect your spine and head in the event of being rammed from behind.

An illustration of how to here:-

Removing head restraints is STUPID in the extreme. Even a low speed frontal bump or rear end shunt could KILL YOU by breaking your neck. Whether it's actually illegal I don't know for sure.

The automotive industry has spent $billions developing mechanical and pyrotechnic active head restraint systems in an effort to reduce neck injuries. Were we wasting our time?

We are considering making head restraints non removable. Not soon enough IMO.

It is a requirement of insurance that all cars are maintained in a roadworthy and SAFE condition. In the event of an accident he could fall foul of his insurance company.

IMO, any sensible MoT tester would put removed restraints down as an advisory.

And yet a lot of smaller, cheaper, cars have head restraints that don't go high enough for taller drivers - some exactly at the right height to break the neck!

And yet a lot of smaller, cheaper, cars have head restraints that don't go high enough for taller drivers - some exactly at the right height to break the neck!

Note to Toyota: your cars are wonderful BUT you need to fit proper sized head restraints! What is going on at Toyota design HQ these days? Both my previous car (Avensis estate) and my current car (Auris hatchback) have minuscule rear head restraints which move barely 5cm upwards at full stretch, nowhere near the roofline, and the front ones are not much better. In the "whiplash/litigation avoidance" vs "rearward visibility" battle, the latter seems to be winning on recent models, which I find baffling.

I've frequently had to remove the passenger headrest from cars when transporting bulky items. It would be pretty annoying not to be able to do that.

I remove the rear headrests on all my cars and put them in the boot. They only get used if I have rear set passengers. Much better rear view without headrests in the way.

So it's not always stupid to remove headrests.

Choosing a child seat can be a quite baffling experience – there are so many sizes, types, brands and price points available that you might not know where to start.

I'm looking at buying a used car for a young family, so ideally a five-door with ample boot space for a pram, plus extra for holidaying at home. It must be petrol as mileage will be around 8000/year and.

I had a Focus and am now seeking a used petrol vehicle, preferably £8k to £12k but could go more if need be. I do 8000 miles a year that includes the daily city commute and monthly 200 mile motorway trips.

I have three children and would like a car that can give me good mileage but more importantly one with a big boot. I previously had a diesel and found that cutting down on motorway journeys meant my dpf.

I need to replace my car. I do 35k miles a year all over the country, have a wife and two kids and a budget of £8000. I want something as economical and comfortable as possible, I am 6'2" . My current.