To Have Horrified By This And Refused To Get In Car?

[GoldenGytha]

I was out for lunch today with a friend, her niece and niece's two boys aged 4 and 1.

It was about a 20 minute drive along the dual carriageway to the place we went to for lunch, but after that friend's niece wanted to go to Matalan for some clothes for a forthcoming holiday.

When we got back into the car after lunch, Matalan was about a 5 minute drive back along the dual carriageway and niece told the 4 year old to just sit in his seat and not bother about his seatbelt as it was "only a couple of minutes along the road" She also didn't strap the baby into his seat.

I said "You can't do that, you must strap them both in, it's not safe" I was rather abruptly told that it was not my business, they'd be fine for all the distance they were going. I said I couldn't get in a car where a child wasn't safely strapped in, and that I was very uncomfortable with it.

After a lot of muttering and "FFS Golden, what a fuss to make about nothing, are you always this bad, and if it makes you fucking happy I'll strap them in"

I don't normally go about telling folk what to do with their kids, but this really shocked me, WIBU to have said something?

[peggyundercrackers]

Pigletjohn no I don't agree with the smoking ban, my parents and all the family smoked but neither me nor my brother do, I hate it however I would fight for their right to allow them to do what they want to.

Bunbaker I quite liked my school uniform and wore it every anyway I was at schools, I always wear my seat belt in my normal car because it is the law but in my other car I don't wear one and haven't for 20yrs or so because they are not fitted.

Katiekay I don't think it's right there is legislation to force people to wear seat belts, it should be their right. As I said previously the policy doesn't make sense when not all traffic is covered by this law, if it was about safety all transport would be covered but it's not.

[PigletJohn]

"Peggy

The "smoking ban" as you call it does not ban people from smoking.

It does however restrict their right to impose their vile habit on other people. Do you think that is wrong?"

[ErrolTheDragon]

As I said previously the policy doesn't make sense when not all traffic is covered by this law, if it was about safety all transport would be covered but it's not

Of course it's about safety, WTF else could it be about?
I'd be happier on public transport if there were seatbelts, but...

The forces involved with larger vehicles are rather different - far fewer people are killed and injured in them even without belts.

A double decker ts won't decelerate as fast in most accidents as a car would - it's the deceleration that's crucial, and how much energy the physical structure of the vehicle can absorb. Trains even moreso don't come to a sudden standstill. Whereas a car crashing into a larger car going the other way can stop and rebound.

[ThatBloodyWoman]

Oh Errol that's good to hear and has put my mind a bit more at rest -I use buses a lot,often with my dc's.

[KatieKaye]

Oh peggy - the law stating all occupants in a car is not about safety? Really? What is it about then?
What about the law stating people on motor cycles must wear helmets - I suppose that isn't about safety either in your eyes?

I really am curious to know why you have such a bee in your bonnet about seatbelts when you know that they save lives?

[FryOneFatManic]

peggy if an adult not wearing a seatbelt only risked their own life, then I'd let them take that risk.

BUT, a person in a car not wearing a seatbelt is risking the life of any other passengers/driver in the car, simply because they are unrestrained and therefore their bodies can kill others in the car.

I will not allow anyone to drive my children unless all people in the car wear seatbelts. I will not drive a car unless all passengers wear seatbelts, etc.

An unrestrained passenger or driver is not just risking their own life.

[sashh]

Is it wrong I want to know what Julia posted?


Back to the OP and the sensible comments.

About a month ago I was stationary, difficult to explain the road but imagine a cross roads, there was traffic crossing in front of me and cars on the opposite side waiting to turn left.

My hand slipped (hand controls) and my car is automatic so started to 'creep' - very slow and I got my hand back on the break PDQ.

But I hit a car passing across, the car I hit was going faster and spun 360 degrees, took the front end off the car waiting to turn left and came to rest in a fence.

All three cars are right offs. All three of us got out without a bruise between us.

[bonzo77]

OP YANBU. I had a stand up row with my FIL and ten removed myself and my child from our family car because he refused to put his seatbelt on. DH was driving, MIL next to him, DS, me and FIL in the back. I actually had to climb out over DS's baby seat. Told FIL at least that way he'd only kill his own son, and leave his GC fatherless, rather than killing me and DS. He grudgingly put the belt on.

[WitchWay]

The seatbelt law came in the month after I passed my driving test. My father always had seat belts fitted front & back in all the cars we ever had, so I'd already been used to wearing one. Crazy not to IMO & totally unacceptable not to make sure children are as safe as possible.

[mateysmum]

You are so right OP. To not restrain the children was not only stupid, it's illegal. I seem to remember a statistic that says most fatal accidents occur within 3 miles of home. On a dual carriageway, the speeds could have been 60mph. Those kids wouldn't stand a chance in an accident.

Well Done!