Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Was I unreasonable to let my mum drive 3 year old 1/2 a mile with no car seat?

189 replies

BurningBuntingFlipFlop · 31/08/2010 13:45

I'm not very well atm and this morning I was altogether rubbish so my mum offered to drop my ds of at nursery as she practically passes our hous on the way to work. She was running a bit late so I just ran out with ds and put him in the front with a seatbelt on. She drove the half a mile around the corner and as she stopped a random father at the nursery started having a massive go at her in front of ds, saying she was endangering his life etc. My mum was mortified, she called ne when she got to work and was nearly in tears.

So was i bu? It's not against the law btw, I checked.

OP posts:
Ishouldprobablywax · 31/08/2010 17:26

Yabu

BalloonSlayer · 31/08/2010 17:27

My one year old travelled in an ambulance people carrier to hospital, with just the seatbelt. It was going like the clappers and on the wrong side of the road. I was Hmm and Shock but apparently it was safer than in the proper ambulance (which had also turned up) because it had a seat belt.

Don't know why I am saying this, because that was an emergency. I guess I mean that we all have to make decisions on the spur of the moment, and in your instance there was no harm done. Smile

sethstarkaddersmum · 31/08/2010 17:32

If you don't regularly fit a carseat, and you aren't good at that kind of thing, it can be a big job - I'm talking 20 mins rather than a few seconds, from my experience before I used to do it regularly! (memories of wrestling with the damn things before I'd grasped the technique of pulling the strap all the way out and holding it with one hand while threading it through with the other....)
My mother is terrified of doing that kind of thing!

Original poster
BurningBuntingFlipFlop · 31/08/2010 18:35

In cases of unexpected necessity over a short distance. If the correct child restraint is not available then, in the rear seat only, a child of 3 years or more must use an adult belt. This exemption does not apply to children under 3 years and does not cover regular school runs or other journeys that are planned in advance.

It also says if there are no seatbelts children over 3 can travel unrestrained!

I doubt a police officer is going to make a grandmother prove she didn't have a car seat available! How could they?!

And to those who say the fact it was 0.3 miles makes no differnce then why does the law say "over a short distance"?

OP posts:
Original poster
BurningBuntingFlipFlop · 31/08/2010 18:37

Also emergancy is not mentioned in the law, and how does one define "unexpected necessity" anyway?

OP posts:
tokyonambu · 31/08/2010 18:58

Leaving the law aside, there's no evidence that car seats make any difference relative to an adult seat belt for children over about three. The critical thing is the seat belt. Booster seats might make it easier to see out, I guess. Whatever theories are advanced to to why booster seats are necessary, they certainly don't apply at the energies likely to be involved in a short urban journey.

"statistically,more accidents happen within a few miles of home"

Yes, because more journeys are made within a few miles of home and, indeed, every journey to and from your house has a segment within a few miles of home. The question is whether half a mile driven near your house is more dangerous than half a mile driven somewhere else, and that's quite a stretch.

In very round numbers, the risk of death in a car is about one in a million per journey. Using or not using a booster seat might, in the most pessimistic assumptions, add ten percent to that: say, 1.1 in a million. So not using a car seat for a single journey represents about a one in ten million chance of causing an unnecessary death. If you don't like one in ten million chances, better live in a bungalow, because stairs are way more dangerous.

sethstarkaddersmum · 31/08/2010 19:17

that's very interesting Tokyo, thanks.

mumbar · 31/08/2010 19:27

emergencies are just that emergencies.

I refused to put ds in my mums car the other day as we walked somewhere with others, some drove and before we left I asked if she had his seat. (I have bought parents booster). Mum said no so I said wait I'll get mine - she said he'll be OK but when time to return me and ds walked. I then told mum clearly I wasn't leaving him for the 2 days as planned if I couldn't trust her with regards to his safety. She wasn't happy but I know if she had an accident and something happened to him and he didn't have his seat I would NEVER forgive her as I couldn't know if the booster would have made a difference.

YANBU to think the man was OTT tho.

ragged · 31/08/2010 19:27

I would have done it, OP. Actually, I probably have done it (and even dodgier things).

There are much much bigger fish to fry. Maybe buy your mum's car a basic booster for such ad hoc use in future (not that they really make that much difference to the safety, but would satisfy the legal side!).

Tangle · 31/08/2010 19:48

Tokyo - please can you let me know where I can read up on the point you make re. childseats not being proven to improve safety over adult seatbelts for children over 3? thanks :)

Oartistic · 31/08/2010 19:56

Cripes. I am the worst, fussiest, most safety conscious mother I know (I am the type to cart them into the petrol station in their car seats so they can't be abducted/die of petrol fumes/escape from a locked car) - and I would still have done the same as you in the situation you describe, OP.

How many of the pious people on here never, ever take the tiniest risk with their children? Do you never, ever let them climb a tree or cross a main road with you unless said road is completely empty? As parents we spend the vast majority of our time silently assessing risk. I don't imagine the OP would have let her child sit in the front seat of the car on a motorway without a car seat. She was ill, she made a judgement based on her knowledge and understanding, and that's that.

dexter73 · 31/08/2010 19:57

I have read that too Tokyo but I can't remember where it was so I can't link to it.

tokyonambu · 31/08/2010 20:42

There's a section on it in Super Freakonomics, pp. 150?158. If you want it drier and with all the numbers, and you have access to the OU or some other academic library, SuperF provides a reference to:

Levitt, S. D. (2008), ?EVIDENCE THAT SEAT BELTS ARE AS EFFECTIVE AS CHILD SAFETY SEATS IN PREVENTING DEATH FOR CHILDREN AGED TWO AND UP.?, Review of Economics & Statistics 90 (1), 158-63.

Abstract:

Over the past thirty years, the use of child safety seats in motor vehicles has increased dramatically. There is, however, relatively little empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of child safety seats relative to the much cheaper alternative of traditional seat belts. Using data on all fatal crashes in the United States from 1975 to 2003, I find that child safety seats, in actual practice, do not provide any discernible improvement over adult lap and shoulder belts in reducing fatalities among children aged two to six. Lap-only belts are somewhat less effective, but still far superior to riding unrestrained.

StealthPolarBear · 31/08/2010 20:49

I have read superfreakonomics and while I think that's really interesting, he hasn't factored in the fact that a child in a seatbelt can move and fiddle and touch things and probably unclip their belt!
DS's car seat pins him in place - long may is stay :o

StealthPolarBear · 31/08/2010 20:49

However it's made me a lot less stressed about using HBB every now and again

Tangle · 31/08/2010 20:53

Thanks - I'll see if I can track it down :). It looks interesting but two points that catch my eye from the abstract are that its a study from the US (where car seat legislation is and has been different to in the UK), and that it only considered fatality statistics. I hope I can find the entire article so that I can see if/where these factors are discussed :)

Roobie · 31/08/2010 20:58

He was in the back seat with a seatbelt on - YANBU and I would have done the same thing. You have to take a rational approach occasionally and weigh up risks from a common sense perspective.

tokyonambu · 31/08/2010 20:58

It refers to injuries, and states there is again no major difference; however, the reference is to an unpublished manuscript Biscuit

franklampoon · 31/08/2010 21:51

YANBU

mumeeee · 31/08/2010 21:56

YABU. A 3 year old dhould not travel in the front of a car without a car seat.Also as it was only half a mile why couldn't they have walked.

JjandtheBeanlovesUnicorns · 31/08/2010 22:02

yabu,

no carseat and the front seat,

thats just seriously stupid.

Imisssleeping · 31/08/2010 22:03

Op was being lazy not putting car seat in and being lazy not walking the short distance.

tiggyhop · 31/08/2010 22:06

Read SuperFreakonomics (just finished it, the follow up to Freakonomics) - they run a test to see whether car seats are any better than seatbelts at preventing deaths in car crashes - apparently they are not.

But the child should have been in the back - that is much much safer (again according to SuperFreakonomics)

tiggyhop · 31/08/2010 22:06

SORRY have just seen earlier post about this...ignore me!

Cazwa · 31/08/2010 22:15

YANBU I would have done it.

Considering our parents generation didn't commonly use seatbelts for kids in the back I think a short trip like this is totally no big deal.

Swipe left for the next trending thread