to be totally fuming with inlaws. I'm being made to feel totally in the wrong here!!!

[AnAngelWithin]

we live about a 20 minute walk from the inlaws. Yet they don't see their grandkids very often. Anyway, last weekend before last, they looked after all 4 of them for us on sunday afternoon while me and DH went to the cinema. Of course they returned totally hpyed up! Anyway, fast forward to last night and ds1 (age 9) said that FIL let him ride his bike (quite a big bike. he's only recently had it and still not too confident on it) down the road to their allotment. (takes about 10 minutes to walk so not that far) BUT WITHOUT HIS HELMET ON!! The road changes from a 40mph to 60mph half way down. DH thinks its no big deal but i am totally fuming. DH knew about this but didn't tell me. Obviously did the 'don't tell your mother otherwise you will get into trouble' thing. Not only that, but now DH has gone to work this morning, ds1 has said that he did actually fall off his bike that day!! These are the same grandparents who thought it would be ok to take the kids out in the car with no car seat, just sat on cushions off the sofa!!! But DH is trying to make me feel like I am totally in the wrong here but I don't think I am. I have got to see the inlaws today and I really don't want to. Its making me feel sick that I've got to have it out with them without DH to back me up. Not that he will cos he thinks that nothing was wrong.

good going angel - gosh didn't realise it was your 6 month baby on a cushion in the car. This is V. dangerous.

yes she was 6 months at the time. i can see the thing about it being a generation thing, and if i hadnt said anything to pbject then fair enough. its just that they seem to constantly go against my wishes.

lol, milknosugar.
No point in fuming about what's done, if these things are so important to you, got to write them down for ILs and read riot act to kids about them, too.

Was your FIL actually riding his bike with your DS, surely that makes a difference to the safety picture? TBH, (don't think) I wouldn't let my 9yo ride alone on a 60mph road, that would bother me more than the helmet thing.

Your ILs looked after 4 of your dc for an extended period... My ILs couldn't and wouldn't (nor would my parents, for that matter). So you sound a touch ungrateful -- not on the helmet thing in principle, but on getting so upset about it afterwards.

it's not a generation thing at all. If they bother do to up their own seat belts then why not your kids. Give them some printed info on crash tests.

didnt know there was a baby involved. but i still think they sound like fab gps and you are lucky to have them. i wouldnt leave my kids with people and expect them to not go out, so lesson learned you now leave car seats there. i dont think fuming about it is at all helpful, you are going to damage the kids relationship with them and cut off your own nose if you dont let them have the kids. you need to relax, but you need to find a pleasant way to tell them you want your rules sticking to. an argument will just make them think you are nuts. do you think your dh didnt tell you because he knew you would over react? you need to be careful with threats of not letting people have them alone, just remember they are only 50% your kids

Just to confuse the issue further, the law in Western Australia saying you have to wear cycle helmets resulted in an increase in injuries to cyclists, and a fall in the number of people cycling (see here). As the UK government want to encourage more cycling for health and congestion reasons, maybe a law isn't the best idea...

A study in the UK suggested that cars drive closer to people wearing cycle helmets as they perceive them to be more expert cyclists, which is presumably the reason for the increase in accidents.

I'm not saying kids shouldn't wear cycle helmets, just that the issue isn't actually as clear cut as it might seem. Child seats and seatbelts on the other hand definitely save lives.

... forgot to add, YANBU - your kids, your choice, and the grandparents should do what you ask them to. And a 60mph limit road is definitely unsuitable regardless of helmet or no helmet IMO.

SO DONT SEND YOUR KIDS!

Also risk compensation (or some other technical term I forget, beezneez).

Basically, cyclists wearing helmets seem to take more risks, people not wearing helmets are more aware of the dangers & therefore more careful.

Given that helmets are only expected to offer 100% protection up to speeds of 12mph (most adult cyclists can go nearly double that speed, and God knows what velocity you reach when thumped by a fast car), helmets don't protect much.

i never said i expected them not to go out?? im ungrateful?? ffs!!! ive already said im not going to get into an arguement about it, but i will tell them that they need to abide by my terms with regards to safety. yes i suppose they are good GPs. they will onyl have them all though if their other grown up daughter and her boyfriend come around as well though to help them look after them!

Think it depends on the road, re 60mph, most single-car-width country lanes technically have 60mph speed limits, too (don't they?).

Friend of DS1's, experienced cyclist wearing a helmet, rode down a main road and hit a small stone which wasn't visible on the road. Went over his handlebars and landed on his head and shoulder. Dislocated his shoulder and the helmet split in half. Just imagine if that had been his unprotected head. Fortunately there was not much traffic on the road at the time - although that is unusual for that road.

Your children, your rules. If ILs won't abide by them, they don't get to have the children and you may have to stick to seeing U films .

Angel, hopefully you won't actually say "You need to abide by my rules with regards to safety". Otherwise you will be waving goodbye to a lovely babysitting service.

Agree that a 9 yr old should know that he needs to wear a helmet. If he doesn't it means you haven't made him fully aware of why he should wear it.

If your DH isn't fully in agreement with your 'rules' then you will find it hard to get your children to obey them when you are not there.

It's done now though so what's the point in being angry.

hamster - it's exactly what I'd say! I'd make it so clear to them that if they put my kids at risk they wouldn't be looking after them.

YANBU It's not safe and the PIL should respect your authority. Just because nothing happened this time doesn't mean there is no risk.