Car Seat Law a waste of time pt2(28 Posts)
I wanted to put this where you'd all see it.Its a very good example of why Car Seats are very necessary and DO have an impact on the safety of children in accidents
This link is of a US Traffic Accident report where a car went off the road across the central reservation and hit a couple of trees.
In the car were the driver, 24 and her 5 children aged 0 to 5.
All but two children were in Carseats, her 2yo son and 5yo daughter were not, both were ejected from the car on impact. The boy died at the scene, the girl sustained critical injuries.
The other three children recieved only minor/moderate injuries and will survive.
Still think the law is unecessary or that statistically they don't have much of an effect in a crash?
A friend of a friend was involved in a major motorway accident 2 years ago, they were trapped in there car for 5 hours while the fire services cut her and her 2 year old daughter free, the mother spent 6 week in hospital, a week of this on itu, and has since had 3 or 4 ops, the 2 yr old had minor cuts to her face but nothing more, and was treated for shock, the car they was travelling in was a BMW so obviously scored very high in safty standards, they cheif fire officer and police both said that if the child had not been in a car seat, there would have been noway that she would have survived the crash.
I personally feel that parents that do not use car seats, buster seats ect, should be charged with neglect !!!
I must have missed the original thread, but cannot believe that anyone would really think that carseats are unnecessary!
Have they never been in a car that has braked hard, let alone in an accident? The way things - including people - get flung around by even hard braking, or taking a corner too fast, is incredible.
Or do they perhaps think that the carseat law is too nanny-state?
Yes PrettyC, protecting ones children far too 'Daily Mail' for some!
LIZS, now have Evolva 123 Ultra, fitted and functioning DS loves it - looks more like big sisters highback than a baby seat.
lou33 (I think from the other thread) my Ds has SN too. If no standard market ones suited can't your OT get it provided as essential kit? Mt Pal has one that swivels round so less lifting - I'm sure she din't pay full for that.
I dislike nanny-state laws, but OTOH it helps me to dictate to others how I want my dc looked after.
I feel that the front seat belts law is too nanny-state, but OTOH, the rear seltbelt law is there to protect the driver and front seat passenger as much as the rear seat passengers, so it's not nanny-state IMO. Child carseats serve the same purpose: by restraining the child they protect those travelling in front as well as the child him/herself. I don't fancy geting my neck broken by a flying child in an accident that might otherwise result in nothing more than a whiplash.
Perhaps, having been in an accident myself, my perspective is slightly different to some of those other posters!
I would never say it was unnecessary. And I always use them.
Doesn't prevent me from saying I think they're a pain in the bum. Complaining about things that are perfectly sensible, it's a classic english trait, doncha know?
i have got one in our car, and i regulary check its in tight still!
when we were kids five or six of us would be sat on the back seat in my nan's car though!
there are many things we did as children that i would never allow my children to do now.
our awarness of danger improves as time goes by. just because nothing happened to you doesn't mean it is safe practice.
I attempted to reason on the original thread but tehre are some people who cannot see the wood for the tree's. they judge all situations by their own circumstances.
anyone that allows their child to travel without the proper safety precautions is neglectful.
we have also given my sister and her dd a lift my sister was not hapy being squashed between two baby chairs but she had the be squashed or dont have a lift option and my baby chair is not a small one we got maxi cosi priori xp and my neices is also a large one!
All anybody said - with links to a report - was that for children over two, there appeared to be little difference to accident outcomes if the children were wearng seatbelts or sitting in a child car seat.
Obviously there is a huge difference between sitting in a car seat and being absolutely unrestrained in the car. I can't tell from this report if the other children were wearing adult seatbelts or not. I suspect not. Who knows.
Both my kids always travel in their seats anyway.
I totally agree with the people saying that if a child is not restrained in a car then the parent is guilty of neglect! ALso parents that allow children under 14 to travel in the front are also guilty(other than the rear facing baby seats - which personally I hate). I have seen a car with 3 children around the ages of 3 - 5 unrestrained on the back seat, jumping around whileMum yells and screams at them! Is she not then guilty of driving without due care and attention too! Our kids are the most precious thing in the world, but obviouslynot to all parents!!
Oh put me in prison then. My stepdaughter has been riding in the front long before 14. She was taller than one of my best friends at 12. Should my friend be banned from the front seat too?
I have to say that I prefer boosters to the all in one seat for older children. Or to be more specific I prefer a system where the child is restrained by the car seat belt rather than for the car seat belt to be restraining a seat and for the child to be restrained by say a 3 or 5 point harness. Mainly because you have to have that harness done up extremely tightly to get a similar amount of protection, and 5 yos and tight harnesses don't mix very well ime.
Not sure if the OP is anti-boosters or just anti-unrestrained children. Can't believe that anyone was arguing that children shouldn't be restrained at all.
I was watching one of those 'most horrific videos' programmes not long ago (or rather, dh was inflicting it on me). One of the clips shown was from the in car CCTV in a taxi somewhere in the States. The passengers in the back seat were a mother and a small child, I'd say about a year, who was just lying on the back seat. The taxi was stopped a junction and another car hit it from behind. The child was thrown really forcefully into the seat in front, and then fell onto the floor. It was horrible. It's quite interesting that dh has stopped moaning about how much of a pain the child seat is since seeing that.
You can often judge a family by whether they let a child travel in the front seat.
Getting our oldest 3 through their driving tests at 17 almost in 3 consecutive years... that's scarey (for the parent being driven by the child).
My dh let his nephew ride in the front with him when they go off to football matches. he's now 12 and they have been going fro about 3 years. I don't apporve - but I have managed to perscuade dh to as a minimum ensure that he pushed the passenger seat as far back as it goes, so ominimse the ipact of the airbag should it have to go off.
If my nephew has to come in the car with me, he goes by my rules, which means the back!
His sister is only 9, but very tall, so her mum doesn't make her use a booster seat (she's well above 135cm). She's going to get a shcok when she next comes in the car with me!
sorry to steal your entry prettycandles but 'I must have missed the original thread, but cannot believe that anyone would really think that carseats are unnecessary!' too
This OP is a Child Safety Advocate who specialises in highlighting the need for appropriate Car restraints.
Quite frankly i think anyone who would readily put a child at risk for the sake of convenience or to save themselves a few pennies is being neglectful.
£100 for a carseat might be a lot of money, but when its the difference between life and death, i'd rather be a bit short for a few weeks than have to attend my childs funeral.
dd1 is 9 and very tall she has no booster seat and always sits in the front.
The introduction of this new law has caused confusion, if my aunt is anything to go by.
my cousins daughter is 3 and smaller than my 2 yo. Since this new law, she has put 3yo in the car without a car seat stating that you are able to do this in an emergency. I have told her it is unsafe. She has now bought a attachment for the belt.
It's not enough and I think 3yo is not safe.
I have 4 kids, 2 of them in our car are not able to use car seats as we have bucket seats right in the boot of the car and we had the police check it for us to make sure we were not breaking the law. One of them is my eldest child who is 12 at the end of the month but he has to use a car seat when travelling in middle of the car or in another car as he is not at the right height or weight as yet. It is law, he knows it and he abides by it. Its us adults that are in charge of our kids and surely their safety is our main priority. I can not believe some of the comments on the other thread, some people are just irresponsible and need to see first hand the results of their actions. We have been in 2 traffic accidents in the past through no fault of ours and each time the carseats have been replaced and the police have told us they have saved our kids lives. Children are precious, lets keep that way. Carseats are replaceable, kids are not.
I think allowing a child to ride in a car without a seat belt or a car seat as legally required by law is tantamount to child abuse. I couldn't live with myself if my child died because I didn't use a proper restraint.
Admitally it is hard to restrain children properly on public transport like buses, trains or taxis. However professional drivers are less likely to have accidents.
I constantly see kids clambering about in cars in front of us at high speeds on the motorway, and I pray that they never need to find out why they shouldve worn their seatbelts
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.