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

[BurningBuntingFlipFlop]

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.

Yes and in out parents generation people smoked indoors, would you do that with your children aswell?

OP Why was he put in the back ?

Wouldn't DM be able to keep closer eye in the front ?

"our parents generation didn't commonly use seatbelts for kids in the back"
Yes and lots of children didn't live to tell the tale unfortunately.

We spend so much time in cars it's easy to forget they are actually really bloody dangerous.

"Worldwide it was estimated in 2004 that 1.2 million people were killed (2.2% of all deaths) and 50 million more were injured in motor vehicle collisions. This makes motor vehicle collisions the leading cause of death among children worldwide 10 ? 19 years old (260,000 children die a year, 10 million are injured)"
(From this page)

If this many children were being killed by drugs, or a disease, it would be all over the press. But it's not a news story because cars are so well integrated onto our culture and we 'need' our cars to get from A to B. Which is a more than a bit if you think about it.

A journey like you describe isn't an emergency. From a purely legal point of view, AFAIK your mum was breaking the law to take your DS with no car seat.

Strangely, if she'd taken him in a taxi/ mini-cab with no seat on the same journey, that would be legal (which makes no sense, but was a concession to the taxi industry AFAIK).

It's just not worth the risk IMO, I wouldn't do it.

YABU, being late for nursery is definitely not an emergency so as well as being unsafe, it was illegal.
Most accidents happen within a mile of home - wouldn't risk it.

" being late for nursery is definitely not an emergency so as well as being unsafe"

One journey not wearing a seatbelt at all (which isn't what happened here) would represent about a one in a million chance of death. If that worries you, it's about the risk of a short haul plane trip for a holiday. If you think the OP risked their child's life needlessly, would you say the same about a single commercial airline flight?

It is really starting to piss me off that people just wade in with the same shit without even bothering to read the thread - why? Why can't you be arsed to read the thread???

-It was legal
-He was in the backseat

Imisssleeping (& others) do you know the OP? Did you see her this morning? How do you know she wasn't too ill to walk there and back when she says she was? How rude are you??

OP - quite frankly, I'd hide this thread now, it will just go on and on and on and on with more people piling in who can't be bothered to actually read what you have written.

tiggy, superfreakonomics should be compulsory reading for everyone on mumsnet
It would save a lot of time
it's a great book

The man was out of order screaming at your mother. But not out of order to say something.

"I have read the thread and I don't agree it was legal "

But as she wasn't stopped by the police, it is all rather (to use the word correctly for a change) moot. It would also be interesting to know if anyone has been prosecuted under this legislation, ever. If a child were to be found, in an otherwise legal car, belted rather than belted and car-seated, unharmed, with no suggestion of speeding, dangerous driving or other offences, and the parent refused a fixed penalty on the grounds of exigent circumstances, would the CPS really pursue the case, against the grandmother, on the basis of a debate about the meaning of "unexpected necessity"?

I think I wouldn't have done it and my mum would rather be 5 minutes late for work than take him without a carseat, but I can see why you did it.

However that man was a self-righteous arse, perfect parenting syndrome, he'd obviously never put his little dahlings in such danger and he sees it as his job to spread his parenting wisdom by reprimanting others who aren't as perfect as him.

oh, how such parents annoy me.

Don't get me wrong, I know someone who NEVER uses carseat for her toddler and only has a group0 seat for the baby who is unstrapped in it, basically uses it as a basket. I judge in my head and then I hope that nothing ever happens to them (although a small crash in town with 20mph which threw both kids on the floor wasn't anough of a lesson). And we have discussed car safety, she doesn't admit she does what she does, although I have witenssed it several times, but I wouldn't dream of yelling at her about it, she could then start yelling at me about the fact that my children eat chocolate every day and someone else could start yelling at both of us about the fact that we had our children so close in age. There's no end to these things, I'd find out who the wanker is and have words

MrsPickles - yes, you can debate the 'unexpected necessity' if you like, I agree it's borderline.

It's the people wading in saying it has to be an EMERGENCY on an epic scale & other things which make it clear they have not read the thread and stating it was stupid to put him in the front, when the OP and many others have said, throughout the thread, he was in the back.

Also, it was a general rant on people not reading the threads, it's been tedious lately. People go straight from OP to answer - not even bothering to read even the last few posts to notice it's an old thread with an update. Are they so full of themselves that they think they are the only ones to have come up with 'point' that hasn't been mentioned in the previous 300 posts? It makes for a boring debate when the thread just goes round and round Grrrrr

"It's the people wading in saying it has to be an EMERGENCY on an epic scale"

Precisely. Rationally, it has to be enough of an emergency to justify a less than one in a million extra chance of your child dying. An urban journey without a carseat is about as dangerous as a short-haul commercial plane flight, and no-one starts on about "I only take my child on a plane when there's a dire emergency".

Eating chocolate every day nor having children close together is hardly potentially fatal.

Not a risk I would take.

I think the legality is a secondary issue. Yes, it might have been a short distance but you only need a tiny stretch of road with one moron driver on it for there to be an accident and, unfortunately, you just never know where the morons are going to be.

It's about balancing up the likelihood of an accident against the outcome if you're wrong. When the outcome is possible death, it's not a risk I would take.

Avril - what are you on about? I would never allow my children to ride in a car without a car seat. I was talking about how letting your child eat chocolate every day or having babies close together is nowhere near the kind of risk that could kill them whereas riding in a car without a safety seat, could.

"I would never allow my children to ride in a car without a car seat."

Translation: I would never expose my child to an avoidable one in more than a million chance of death.

I presume you would never take your children on a plane under any circumstances?

You are very rude, Avril.

Your translation is a million miles from what mine would be.