Child seats and courtesy cars
Discussion
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?
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?
Pardon my ignorance on child seats, but as I understand it, most of them, but not all, these days are fitted via an Isofix system.
Now I didn't see whether this lady already had a child seat in her car, so I have no way of knowing if she could have moved it or not, but perhaps it simply wouldn't fit in a front seat?
I still have no sympathy for her predicament though, she could have told the dealer in advance, and had a more suitable vehicle available, or simply refused the car. However, if she had somewhere to go, maybe she had to take what she was given, and just take the chance.
Those of us who are old enough can well remember being driven around unrestrained, it was normal then. As were unrestrained adults, as was drink driving. There was also a time when it was OK to send a small child up a chimney, or down a mine, but we've moved on from that, and in these particular circumstances, I don't see it as a nanny state interfering.
We were the lucky ones, in that we are the survivors from that period of driving history. It's not even Darwin Awards stuff, as we weren't making the choices. Falling out of a tree, crashing your bicycle into a wall, getting stung by nettles, falling in a pond or river, all these things were, to some degree, within our control. While our parents might have told us not to play in the river, we just went ahead and did it anyway. It wasn't illegal.
However, no-one ever suggested that we should be restrained in a car, because there were no such restraints available then. We did, however, have the Green Cross Code, and the Tufty Club, and all sorts of other road safety stuff for kids. So there was some degree of nannyism, but not a lot really.
I started this thread not because I thought this mother was stupid, but becasue I wasn't sure of the law. I would hope that, even without the law, she would use a child seat anyway, but perhaps she would see this as an acceptable risk. I suppose the child might have an opinion, and most likely rather be free to climb around in the car. Or lie on the parcel shelf.
Now I didn't see whether this lady already had a child seat in her car, so I have no way of knowing if she could have moved it or not, but perhaps it simply wouldn't fit in a front seat?
I still have no sympathy for her predicament though, she could have told the dealer in advance, and had a more suitable vehicle available, or simply refused the car. However, if she had somewhere to go, maybe she had to take what she was given, and just take the chance.
Those of us who are old enough can well remember being driven around unrestrained, it was normal then. As were unrestrained adults, as was drink driving. There was also a time when it was OK to send a small child up a chimney, or down a mine, but we've moved on from that, and in these particular circumstances, I don't see it as a nanny state interfering.
We were the lucky ones, in that we are the survivors from that period of driving history. It's not even Darwin Awards stuff, as we weren't making the choices. Falling out of a tree, crashing your bicycle into a wall, getting stung by nettles, falling in a pond or river, all these things were, to some degree, within our control. While our parents might have told us not to play in the river, we just went ahead and did it anyway. It wasn't illegal.
However, no-one ever suggested that we should be restrained in a car, because there were no such restraints available then. We did, however, have the Green Cross Code, and the Tufty Club, and all sorts of other road safety stuff for kids. So there was some degree of nannyism, but not a lot really.
I started this thread not because I thought this mother was stupid, but becasue I wasn't sure of the law. I would hope that, even without the law, she would use a child seat anyway, but perhaps she would see this as an acceptable risk. I suppose the child might have an opinion, and most likely rather be free to climb around in the car. Or lie on the parcel shelf.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff