Child seats and courtesy cars
Discussion
ajstephe said:
MickC said:
What a load of nanny state b
ks.
Mick whilst it may well be a nanny state, any law that prevents me from having to explain to a parent that their child was killed when they hit the front windscreen as they were not properly restrained gets the thumbs up in my opinionks. We need to get back to acceptable risk vs absolute laws imho. Yes its sensible to have your child in a car seat. But if for one day you don't have one (say because you've got a courtesy car) then that sounds fine to me. The risk, to my judgement anyway, is acceptable. Of course if the child was killed or injured in a collision then thats a tradgedy, but no more so than the children who die as a result of a collision where they ARE strapped in, or for whatever other reason.
Do we want to peanalise every single risk anyone ever takes? Because if so, I suppose we'd all better stay in bed all day (and even then someone's going to say thats bad for us). Deciding what risk is acceptable is the hard part - but I think we should be allowed to decide without the law having to tell us.
edited to fix quoting, oops
Edited by MickC on Thursday 11th November 09:44
speedyguy said:
Tiggsy said:
MilnerR said:
How many people on here would have a £10,000 Ming vase travelling loose in the back seat? Very few I expect, but there are plenty who let their child travel loose.
Stupid point. Are you suggesting children are as fragile as a vase? 
Fragile or not their a damn sight more valuable than any vase.
The ming vase example was supposed to imply that kids and vases are alike....they aren't. As you point out, the value differs....and as I pointed out, so does their fragility. A ming vase should be wrapped in cotton wool, kids.... shouldn't be.
My son (aged 12) spent most of last Summer in the river, mostly by accident as he and his friends had what I term a 'swallows and amazons' Summer. Playing games in countryside by my house, in the river. My Summer was spent listening to various thuds and splashes as they fell out of the trees, sometimes into the river. There were very few tears, no broken bones, just every night some dirty shattered but delighted kids (age range 9 to 13).
I do not believe in wrapping him up in cotton wool. However, none of those activities have, imo, a high risk (the river is slow running, shallow, there were about 8 kids, all strong swimmers, still a slight risk but justified in my opinion and probably safer than crossing roads).
However, I always insist on a seat belt and did insist on a car seat when he was younger (he is tall enough not to require one, tall as me and I don't use one). I am clearly a perfect driver (
) but others are not and I never want think that my child's death could have been prevented by using correct safety equipment. I think we do live in a nanny state to a large extent but this one is justified. I spent my childhood playing in the weird 'cubby hole' where the rear parcel shelf would be in an old VW beetle and did not die but the thought of using that argument to justify why I didn't prevent my son's death turns my blood cold.
I do not believe in wrapping him up in cotton wool. However, none of those activities have, imo, a high risk (the river is slow running, shallow, there were about 8 kids, all strong swimmers, still a slight risk but justified in my opinion and probably safer than crossing roads).
However, I always insist on a seat belt and did insist on a car seat when he was younger (he is tall enough not to require one, tall as me and I don't use one). I am clearly a perfect driver (
) but others are not and I never want think that my child's death could have been prevented by using correct safety equipment. I think we do live in a nanny state to a large extent but this one is justified. I spent my childhood playing in the weird 'cubby hole' where the rear parcel shelf would be in an old VW beetle and did not die but the thought of using that argument to justify why I didn't prevent my son's death turns my blood cold.The problem today is where to draw the line. The obsession with removing risk and/or blaming someone else when a tragedy occurs is counter-productive. The ability and inclination to recognise risk and take personal responsibility for avoiding/minimising it is lost.
If the human race was inherently risk averse there would be no mountain climbers, round the world yachtsmen/women. F1 drivers, etc.
If the human race was inherently risk averse there would be no mountain climbers, round the world yachtsmen/women. F1 drivers, etc.
Red Devil said:
The problem today is where to draw the line. The obsession with removing risk and/or blaming someone else when a tragedy occurs is counter-productive. The ability and inclination to recognise risk and take personal responsibility for avoiding/minimising it is lost.
If the human race was inherently risk averse there would be no mountain climbers, round the world yachtsmen/women. F1 drivers, etc.
Whilst I agree with your comments in respect of many aspects of life these days, I fail to see the relevance to this debate. We're talking about child seats - whether they were compulsory by law or not, my children are always in a car seat because I don't want them to die through no fault of their own in a completely preventable situation. I let my kids get up to all sorts of mischief that often involves them hurting themselves - they learn from their mistakes and I consider they need to experience lots of things in their lives. However, I don't see how they gain any lifeskills or improve their quality of life by not being safe inside a car. They have no control over the idiot driver who rams us from behind, so it's unlikely they'll learn anything from the experience.If the human race was inherently risk averse there would be no mountain climbers, round the world yachtsmen/women. F1 drivers, etc.
Are you suggesting that you let your chidren roam free in the back of your car?
I mountain bike, but I have no intention of putting a child seat on the back and taking my 3 year old down a black run at full speed. However, when he's old enough to do it himself I'll have no issues with us going together.
Red Devil said:
The problem today is where to draw the line. The obsession with removing risk and/or blaming someone else when a tragedy occurs is counter-productive. The ability and inclination to recognise risk and take personal responsibility for avoiding/minimising it is lost.
If the human race was inherently risk averse there would be no mountain climbers, round the world yachtsmen/women. F1 drivers, etc.
Agreed - but in this case - what absolute right does the parent have to over rule the law and place their child at risk? She can gamble with her own life, but that is her informed risk. Where is the child's informed risk?If the human race was inherently risk averse there would be no mountain climbers, round the world yachtsmen/women. F1 drivers, etc.
We should push boundaries of human endeavour through mountaineering, trekking, etc. But this is a selfish parent not protecting their child based on a fairly common sense law.
The human race IS fairly risk averse, has a high degree of self preservation (hence fight or flight being almost uncontrollable, it's a basal instinct), but we take calculated and known risks based on the information from our environment and prior experience.
MickC said:
Mad Jock said:
Surely this is illegal, and the mother was a little irresponsible anyway, legal or not?
Was the dealership failing in it's duty of care in providing an inappropriate vehicle in the first place?
I know that they are not responsible for providing child seats, but would you accept a SMART car as a courtesy car in these circumstances?
Oh No! No child seat?? Surely the poor little mite is dead by now then? Was the dealership failing in it's duty of care in providing an inappropriate vehicle in the first place?
I know that they are not responsible for providing child seats, but would you accept a SMART car as a courtesy car in these circumstances?
What a load of nanny state b
ks. Mad Jock said:
Not having any children, I'm a little vague when it comes to child seats in cars, but I am pretty certain that a 3 year old must be placed in a child seat, by law.
I was at a large, reputable Land Rover dealership yesterday, and there was a mother and young child, probaly about 3 years old, at the service desk. Mum was dropping off her car for service, and collecting a courtesy car. She was taken outside and shown around a SMART car. She then lifted the child into th epassenger seat, put the seatbelt on, and drove away. Definitely no child seat installed, and there being no back seats at all, unlikely to be.
I have no idea if there are child seats available for the front seat, but I don't think so, but no matter, there wasn't one fitted anyway.
Surely this is illegal, and the mother was a little irresponsible anyway, legal or not?
Was the dealership failing in it's duty of care in providing an inappropriate vehicle in the first place?
I know that they are not responsible for providing child seats, but would you accept a SMART car as a courtesy car in these circumstances?
There is no excuse for not putting a child car seat into a SMART car. Even I have installed car seats in this car (rearfacing seats and airbag could be deactivated). Some SMART-For2 cars have isofix anchorage points in the front passenger seat.I was at a large, reputable Land Rover dealership yesterday, and there was a mother and young child, probaly about 3 years old, at the service desk. Mum was dropping off her car for service, and collecting a courtesy car. She was taken outside and shown around a SMART car. She then lifted the child into th epassenger seat, put the seatbelt on, and drove away. Definitely no child seat installed, and there being no back seats at all, unlikely to be.
I have no idea if there are child seats available for the front seat, but I don't think so, but no matter, there wasn't one fitted anyway.
Surely this is illegal, and the mother was a little irresponsible anyway, legal or not?
Was the dealership failing in it's duty of care in providing an inappropriate vehicle in the first place?
I know that they are not responsible for providing child seats, but would you accept a SMART car as a courtesy car in these circumstances?
What she did was illigal for very very good reasons
Lena
Seems Like someone's having a moan at the H/A withholding £92,000 of taxpayers money on a £370,000k advertising campaign (probably taxpayers money) on how to fit a child seat.
http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/documents/CRS_6...
Loads of info and regs stuff here http://www.protectchild.co.uk/incar/retailer_list.... to keep people up to date.
(probably taxpayers money) on how to fit a child seat. http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/documents/CRS_6...
Loads of info and regs stuff here http://www.protectchild.co.uk/incar/retailer_list.... to keep people up to date.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff