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?
The New Law for Children up to 3 years old:
In the Front Seat
The child MUST use the correct child restraint.
In the Rear Seat
The child MUST use the correct child restraint.
In a licensed taxi or licensed hire car, if a child restraint is not available then the child may travel unrestrained in the rear. This is the only exemption, and has been introduced for practical rather than safety reasons. You should always think about ways to make sure that a child seat is available.
It is the driver's legal responsibility to ensure that the child is correctly restrained.
The New Law for Children over 3 and up to EITHER 1.35 metres in height, OR the age of 12
In the Front Seat
The child MUST use the correct child restraint.
In the Rear Seat
The child MUST use the correct restraint, where seat belts are fitted.
There are three exemptions, where a child in this category does not have to use a child restraint. In each case the child MUST use the adult belt instead. They are -
1) in a licensed taxi or private hire vehicle;
2) if the child is travelling on a short distance for reason of unexpected necessity;
3) if there are two occupied child restraints in the rear which prevent the fitment of a third.
In addition, a child 3 and over may travel unrestrained in the rear seat of a vehicle if seat belts are not available.
It is the driver's legal responsibility to ensure that the child is correctly restrained.
In the Front Seat
The child MUST use the correct child restraint.
In the Rear Seat
The child MUST use the correct child restraint.
In a licensed taxi or licensed hire car, if a child restraint is not available then the child may travel unrestrained in the rear. This is the only exemption, and has been introduced for practical rather than safety reasons. You should always think about ways to make sure that a child seat is available.
It is the driver's legal responsibility to ensure that the child is correctly restrained.
The New Law for Children over 3 and up to EITHER 1.35 metres in height, OR the age of 12
In the Front Seat
The child MUST use the correct child restraint.
In the Rear Seat
The child MUST use the correct restraint, where seat belts are fitted.
There are three exemptions, where a child in this category does not have to use a child restraint. In each case the child MUST use the adult belt instead. They are -
1) in a licensed taxi or private hire vehicle;
2) if the child is travelling on a short distance for reason of unexpected necessity;
3) if there are two occupied child restraints in the rear which prevent the fitment of a third.
In addition, a child 3 and over may travel unrestrained in the rear seat of a vehicle if seat belts are not available.
It is the driver's legal responsibility to ensure that the child is correctly restrained.
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. We tend to take the child seat out of our car and pop it in the courtesy car. Why didn't that happen here? Having a child correctly restrained is probably sensible. 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. Don't undestand the logic.
I'm pretty sure my 2 year old would be safe playing with matches (takes considerable coordination to successfully strike a safety match) but I tend to keep them out of reach for the same reason, i.e. It's not worth the risk
I'm pretty sure my 2 year old would be safe playing with matches (takes considerable coordination to successfully strike a safety match) but I tend to keep them out of reach for the same reason, i.e. It's not worth the risk
I'm definately not condoning the actions of the Smart car driver, I certainly wouldn't do that with my kids - but I do remember as a child being transported everywhere in the back of my dad's Bedford Rascal Van sitting on an upturned milk crate. Upturned milk crates placed on a super smooth wooden floor protector make for interesting journeys.
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? Children have no say in how well they are restrained in a car. If an adult wants to risk a broken neck or a fractured skull then fine, a 2 year old doesn't have the capacity to weigh that risk and make an informed decision, therefore parents have a responsibility to ensure that their child is as safe as is practically possible. I travelled unrestrained in cars as a kid and came to no harm, still doesn't make it the sensible thing to do.
HD Adam said:
I remember when we were kids and going on a long drive, taking turns with my brother at laying on the rear parcel shelf because we were bored.
The old mans PA Cresta didn't have any seatbelts, front or back.
We got killed all the time
What was the top speed of the Cresta - and how many other cars would you be likely to meet back then?The old mans PA Cresta didn't have any seatbelts, front or back.
We got killed all the time
plg said:
Indeed.
And drink driving as acceptable and common when I was younger.
And seat belts weren't mandatory.
Doesn't mean it was safe. Roads are busier, people drive faster, our society approach to risk has evolved.
yes, we feel our cars are safer so we drive faster and take more risks to even it out (and kill more pedestrians/cyclists)And drink driving as acceptable and common when I was younger.
And seat belts weren't mandatory.
Doesn't mean it was safe. Roads are busier, people drive faster, our society approach to risk has evolved.
Mill Wheel said:
HD Adam said:
I remember when we were kids and going on a long drive, taking turns with my brother at laying on the rear parcel shelf because we were bored.
The old mans PA Cresta didn't have any seatbelts, front or back.
We got killed all the time
What was the top speed of the Cresta - and how many other cars would you be likely to meet back then?The old mans PA Cresta didn't have any seatbelts, front or back.
We got killed all the time
As for traffic, it seemed just as busy then as it does now. There were nowhere near so many Motorways, Dual Carriageways or Bypasses so most driving was done on normal A roads.
Still the same in darkest Norfolk actually
I think that given that,and the fact that everyone was on crappy cross-plies, you were in more danger.
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. Just because a parent hasn't got the wit to 'move' a car seat if they had one.
people shouldn't try to shift the blame to someone else for their own stupidity or lack of knowledge.
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.
Mad Jock said:
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?
All the isofix child seats I've used have had seat belt fixings as well. 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?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff