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.

You do not need child seats on licensed taxis

I think I'd worry vaguely about a 22mo, though, although I don't know what "the incorporated seat" means. The evidence about 3yo and older doesn't read across, and the key metric - the ratio of head weight to neck strength - is a lot worse. On the other hand, the chances of being involved in an accident in a black cab in a single journey (or any other vehicle on a single journey) are sufficiently low that the risk exposure is negligible, and a black cab will at least fulfil the requirements of a properly licensed, experienced driver in a properly maintained vehicle: it's at least as safe as the safer end of car travel.

I'm sorry OP but I think YWBU.

Where I live it would be very much illegal, but even if it weren't, imo it was an unreasonable risk to take.

DH and I are not the type of people who have ever said anything to anyone about their own parenting choices, (despite seeing some v. things recently), but I honestly would have said something in this circumstance. Especially as it was a GP and they are not always aware of current safety requirements. I would not likely have told her off as you've said the man did, but I definitely would have said something. The absence of using a carseat is likely the only situation in which I would do that, short of someone using physical violence on a child, etc.

"The absence of using a carseat is likely the only situation in which I would do that, short of someone using physical violence"

What? Do you seriously believe that, short of physical violence, placing a nursery-age child in an adult seat belt is the worst thing a parent can do?

When my children were that age, I sometimes made a cup of tea. The risks associated with that are fantastically higher than the risk you're worrying about.

No Tokyo, I believe that generally I wouldn't comment on anyone else's parenting choices, but that in this circumstance a GP could actually be unaware of current safety requirements and I would therefore say something.

It was my attempt to illustrate that I am not the kind of person who would normally poke my nose in unless an extreme circumstance, but that this situation could potentially have simply been a safety item the person was generally just unaware of.

Just thought I would add to the stream that a friend of mine who works on a paediatric ICU told me that she had a child brought in with head injuries following an RTA where the parents were driving, below the speed limit and the accident was not their fault.

The police in that case were considering murder/ manslaughter charges if the child died, purely on the basis of failing to use a child seat .

Even if the risks are minuscule, could you live with yourself, if something happened, purely because you did not transfer the car seat?

Under the circumstances a custodial prison term for you or your mother would be the least of your problems.

That said, it is easily done. I know my mother has driven my brother's child when she has visited from abroad so no car seat available.

"The police in that case were considering murder/ manslaughter charges if the child died, purely on the basis of failing to use a child seat"

The police don't charge, the CPS do. Such a case would stand less than zero chance of success, so the CPS would not charge. They'd look at R v HM Coroner for Inner London, ex parte Douglas-Williams (1999) which is the current case law, they'd read that "negligence must have caused the death in the sense that it more than minimally, negligibly or trivially contributed to the death", and "It is an essential ingredient that the unlawful or negligent act must have caused the death at least in the manner described.", realise that in order to prove that they'd need to show that the car seat would have saved the child's life beyond a reasonable doubt and that the difference in risk was not "minimal or negligible" and walk away.

The threshold for negligent homicide is incredibly high, and rightly so. And, as a matter of practical justice, juries don't convict when they're all sat there thinking "there but for the Grace of God...".

Are you a barrister/solicitor toky?

No. I have, however, been involved in decisions to charge, and know how the CPS operate.

Good posts, Tokyo :).

The lifetime risk of being struck by lightening is about 1 in a million. I only mention that because it's kind of the gold standard of what is a "negligible" risk to take; so small as to not be worth worrying about. The things that Tokyo & Avril are saying about typical public inability to understand risk assessment are 100% true.

Actually, I was trying to figure out where on Paul Slovic's famous charts this issue comes on. I think though that his work needs a new axis (besides the usual Dread and Familiarity axes): innocence of the victims. In other words, the risks of car accidents are normally vastly under-estimated, but because children who have no choice/influence in the situation are the ones at risk, the risk gets grossly magnified in these discussions. Ditto when a cute animal is involved (and the British especially are the observers, because the Brits are nuts about animal rights).

I wonder who has done the proper research on that?

yes, I like the lightning comparison too. When people start banging on the risks of paedophiles abducting and murdering their children I always want to demand to know whether they always take their child out in rubber-soled shoes in case of lightning strikes.

"When people start banging on the risks of paedophiles abducting and murdering their children"

Actually, your child being abducted and killed by a stranger, your child being killed inside a car, your one-per-week lottery ticket resulting in a jackpot win and being struck by lightening are all about the same probability: about one in a million per year. There might be a factor of ten in there somewhere, but at that degree of implausibility, who cares?

I bought five years of life insurance last month. The monthly premium is 1/11000 of the payout, so assuming their profit and some general handwaving, they're assuming roughly a 1 in a thousand chance of my dying over five years.

I hope that you & your mum (poor woman!) have recovered, now BBFF. Even people on this thread who say they wouldn't take the risk themselves overwhelmingly agree it was bang out of order for the man to have a go like he did.

Man ... 40 years ago almost nobody "interfered" even when children were obviously abused and neglected, nowadays everybody has to have a go over highly ill-defined and arguably quite negligible potential risks to children!

(oh, and apologies for misdescribing Slovic's axes previously, I think they are Unfamiliarity + Lack of Control, actually).