Car seats RANT

[madamez]

THere are many and varied reasons for despising the current Government, but the new car seat law sure is one of them. Just what are you supposed to do if you're car-free but every now and again want to visit friends in the country? For those of you who don't have this problem, let me explain. Baby car seats fit nicely on top of buggies and also tend to be portable in themselves. For older kids, you can buy booster seats that aren't very big and can be carried in a bag. But for a child between the ags of 11month and (I have just found out) about 6 there is no kind of car seat that isn't a) expensive and b) far too bulky and heavy to carry on a train or bus along with child, buggy, luggage, etc.

So this new law that's allegedly going to 'protect' kids ie recude the risk by some pretty minor percentage is actually just another way of causing massive inconvenience to people who don't want to fit into the 'normal' demographic.

Message withdrawn

What would I do without the law? Oh, well I'd probably strap the kid to the bonnet, of course. Just like anyone who criticized the Dangerous Dogs act for being stupid, badly-worked-out legislation was automatically in favour of feeding kids to pitbulls.
At present, what we do is: spend ages ringing round every cab firm in the area we're going to visit to find one that's actually got a child seat; brace ourselves for a nice walk along an unpaved country road in the dark or accept that DS is going to have to miss out on some social occasions. I did once try to get some sense out of a health professional as to whether it was safer to sit in the front or the back of a car with child if no car seat was available and it was like talking to a brick wall - even the car-owning mums in that group could concieve of occasions when you'd need to travel in a car unexpectedly and wouldn't have a car seat handy, but this woman couldn't get her head round it at all.
As to the suggestion of learning to drive and buying a car FFS why would I want to? Way too many people needlessly own and drive cars as it is.

Oh, and flutterbee, here's one of my favourite debater's quotes, just for you. "If burning every book ever written saved the life of one child it would be worth it."

Jesus you're as thick as 2 planks aren't you madamez.

Er - that isn't what I was getting at, at all. Personally I find that the new law is pain when travelling with older children, but it wouldn't change my behaviour with younger children at all. I'm just curious as to how you would have travelled prior to this law as it seems to be the law that you're complaining about? I assume that your main problem is that the opt-out for occasional unplanned trips doesn't apply for under3s?

i dont understand the problem either as taxis are exempt from the law anyway.

but as said before i wouldnt travel with a child not in a car seat full stop...

another reaosn i LOVE this law.... before september my charge and his class mates were 5...

a few times id get a call from a random school friends mum...
"can you pick up X from school, i cant get there?"
"me yes no problem... ill just check the spare car seat is in the shed and not in daddies car"
"oh dont worry he doesnt need a car seat"
"actually yes he does if travelling in my car"
"NO im his mum I say its fine"NO its my car and im* driving and if I kill your child the nits my consiounce and I have to live with it!"

had the above converstion with 2 mums...

One of whom then asked me why (another time in person) I told about how if they werent on a car seat the adult seat belt could cause severe internal injuries, and even paralise them... result the next day she went and bought 4 car seats (only 1 son) so that she always had enough to ferry all his freinds around!

At least now its easier i can say sorry its against the law for me to travel without a car seat

NannyL I'm with you. I don't give lifts without car seats and don't allow anyone to give my daughter a lift without hers. Other mums frequently tell me it's fine by them for their child to do without. These are the same people I see driving past while talking on their mobiles.

Travelling in the car is about the most dangerous thing we do with dd. I couldn't tolerate the responsibility without doing everything I can to make it safer.

Before Christmas, though, there was a link on Mumsnet to a video made by the father of a boy whose seat failed in an accident. I'll have a look for it in a minute. The seat that failed looked to me like a Britax Kid, which is what we use. It's been bugging me since, I've been wondering if I should change...aaargh.

I also don't give lifts without car seats. We have one child (age 4), but DH and I both have booster chairs, with backs, in our cars. I also have a second booster chair, with back, in my car as I often bring one of DD's friends home - at least once a week smeone comes to play. We arealso thinking of getting a booster cushion for DH's car (and for occasional taxi jourrneys) as he has had to take a child to school a couple of times or so, and had to persuade the mum to let us use her seat. No room for full booster seat in his car all time, but cushion fits in boot and better than nothing.

Occasional trips and taxis are emempt - IMO it is very easy to get round this law with all the expemptions, so if you really don't want to put your child in a car seat (why? I can't comprehend but anyway...) that you can get round it.

I also agree that there is a big difference between giving a 10/11 year old a lift without checking height/seat need, than a baby or toddler.

Oh, and I have also been told that in a black cab it is safest to leave the child in their pushchair/buggy, fastened in, facing sideays or backwards.

I seem to recall some research (I will try to find it) that does suggest that the the use of car seats has not had such a significant impact on children's car safety as one would imagine. Maybe its not that surrpising when you look at how badly some of them fare in independent testing. Not that I would dream of not using one for a moment, but I do think Madamez has a small point regarding the manufacturer's lobbying.

I'll repeat my solution. If you don't wish to own a car (and good on you if you don't), use a carshare scheme if you want to visit the country. They will provide carseats. Then you can get where you want to safely and within the law.

Interesting points on this one, and I have been thinking that my posts could have seemed a bit muddled as I seemed to be attadcking the law, rather than whinging about the logistics of child safety (whcih was what I was really doing).

To clarify - I do not think that young children should travel in cars without appropriate car seats. I agree that legislation was the way to go (as we've seen there are some people who will protect their kids if the law demands it, but won't if not).

My problem seems to be with being a non-driving family, rather than the law per se. The one time I went in a taxi with my baby in my lap (no choice as I would otherwise have mssed the train) I was a complete wreck by the end of my 5 minute journey. I was not scared of being arrested, but very concerned about my ds's safety.

I don't want a car (and we can't afford one at the moment anyway), but I have been very surprised about how much harder it is to be a nondriving parent than it is to be a nondriving adult.

Indeed, my primary problem is that gap between babyseat and lightweight booster seat (ie between age 1 and about age 5) - makes life VERY difficult for the car free parent. I think the leglislation is ill-thought out, stupid, and a sop to manufacturer lobbying: I don't actually think that car seats give you cancer. I also note with suspicion the similar propaganda against using second-hand car seats: that really does sound like manufacturers' sales pitching.

Oh, and those of you going off into hysterical paroxysms at the idea of travelling without a car seat - is it just that you're all too young to remember the days when the damn things barely existed?
As someone else has pointed out, some research seems to suggest that they don't make that much difference in the first place. There has also been some research on safety devices which suggests that, the more protection there is in the vehicle (airbags, roll bars etc) the more dangerously it tends to be driven.
A greater contribution to road safety all round might be banning the use of private cars for journeys of less than 2 miles in urban areas, or something. Frankly, anyone who keeps a car in the city, unless they or a family member have either a mobility problem or a job that involves transporting lots of stuff around, well , they either don't use their cognitive faculties over much, or they're lazy.

Interesting point on the second hand sales - in Sweden the nursery shops we went in were happily selling secondhand seats

How on earth could you posssibly enforce a law banning journeys of less than 2 miles? There'd have to be so many exceptions for disabled/elderly/emergency etc that it couldn't possibly work even if every car had a tachograph.

Rustybear, well, quite! That wasn't a serious suggestion, of course, just a hypothetical example. Though a concerted propaganda campaign asking people Is Your Car Journey Really Necessary would not be a bad idea. Would be kind of interested to hear how anyone justifies driving a mile to the gym, for instance...

mademaz not too young to remember time when cars didnt have car seats (or even seat belts)

my own family car 26 years ago had no seatbelts (well it was obviously my parenst car) but my dad fitted them especially for us, so even 26 years we were strapped in safely!

Infact those 5 point harnessess that strapped us in until we were about 10 (when we got a car that had seat belts fitted) were probably a lot safer then some of the car seats / seat belts fit 10 year olds today cause they were strapped directly to the chassis if the car, and adjusted for us... simialr to what ralley drivers have now...

and back in those days of you were in a crash you were often seriosuly injured etc.... hence they bought in laws for seatbelts to be compulsory to be fitted in cars.... then bought in laws to say seat belts have to be worn in cars...

this law is just the next logical step

and also yes some car seats simply do not offer much protection at all in a crash.. and in recent years the which report has shown many car seats to be dangerouse in a crash and not offer enough protection (why these seats (that do comply with EU regs ) are allowed to be soled is beyond me!) and 1 car seat a few years ago would have actually killed any baby in it in a crash so yes if you choose to use an unsafe car seat them it wont help much...

but there are safe seats out there, and in the event you are in a crash, and your child is sitting in one and both the seat and the child are strapped in properly, the child is likely to have minimul injuries..., and more than likely at least be alive at the end of the crash... and that is what the seat is for.... if you crash (which yes in itself is unlikely... BUT if you do surely you would want you child to be sitting in one?)

the britax ranger is a lightweight high back booster that can be used from 9 months and is what we had for ds1 b4 we got a hi liner. it didn't do particularly well in the which tests but its still our spare if needed as it would only be a short journey if we did use it (iyswim)

You say you ring round taxi companies to find one with a car seat available...do you know whether that seat has been in a crash? that seat could still kill your child if it failed at the crucial point (eemie, it was the adult seat belt that failed not the child seat). And if you are ringing round and going door to door by taxi then there is no reason that you cannot buy an easy to install, fits most cars carseat that is heavier and simply install it using the adult seatbelt ion a taxi

Hmm, more interesting posts. Mum ofmonsters: like any taxi user, I have no more idea of whether the car seat might have been in a crash than whether the taxi drivr is a psychopath or the taxi itself bolted together from crashed cars. Nanny L, perhaps your dad could make himslf a few bob by patenting a strappy-type kid car harness, which would certainly be easier to transport/use than some car seats. Given that you say it might have been safer than some commerically available car seats, then not only is there a possible huge commercial reward for your family, but massive ethical brownie points as well.

I do not object to using car seats in any way, I simply object to a law formulated on the assumption that everyone has a car and/or enough disposable income to buy a new car seat for every car they use - and the theory that somehow using a car seat makes car journeys guaranteed safe.
And now, on to the brick wall of "if you don't use a car seat, you're a murderer" thinking. Firstly, if every car journey carries a 50% or above risk of being involved in an accident, then banning car journeys would seem a logical step - those are not good odds, are they? I'm not a statistician, but the number of car journeys taken versus the number of accidents must come up with better odds than that unless car owners are a lot more stupid than I thought.
Secondly, when studies of car seats improving chances of surviving/reducing injury in accidents are cited, how are they compared with studies/figures of accidents where car seats would have made no difference (car going off road into deep lake and/or exploding in ball of flame) or indeed may have hindered getting out of crashed car?
Finally, what would be a statistical/risk model for the car-free parent who, with no accesible car seat, cannot accept the offer of a lift and walks along an unpaved country road in the dark and pouring rain? Greater or lesser chances of parent and child surviving the journey? State examples and methodology followed....

So is it the 3yo bit that is causing you grief? I can't remember all the details but presumably if your children are over 3 then of course you can accept a lift without needing a childseat? If they are under 3 then the difficulty is that there isn't any method of restraint (within a car) that is shown to be safer than a car seat.

I have said before on this thread and others that this is a badly formulated law, and shouldn't in fact be a law, but I did ask out of curiosity as to what you would have done prior to this law. I am assuming that your answer was sarcastic, but the reason I asked it was to understand exactly what bit of the regs is hurting you at present so that I could either be sympathetic, or share a way round the regs, or give you a recommendation as to which car seat may suit you (given that we travel a far bit so this is a common problem for us, and I have two car seats which fit in a shoulder bag).

If you want to keep a chip on your shoulder then far enough - that's your right too, but some of us are trying to be supportive.

Ladymuck, yeah, my practical and current problem is that DS is 2 - too big for a baby seat that fits onto a buggy and too small for a portable booster cushion. So I'm interested in seats that fit a young toddler and are transportable in a bag, on one's back, etc. Both for the statistically questionable safety difference it might make and because of the law. So any tips as to where and how such things might be acquired will be received with genuine gratitude (asking in Mothercare, etc, has met with blank stares and 'but don't you have a car, then').
ANd it's true I have a general 'problem' with dumb acceptance of 'rules' that are either government idiocy or simply marketing techniques: because I'm in a position where the new law is going to cause me difficulties I'm going to question it. I do wonder a bit if the screaming of some posters on this thread might be due to them never having actually considered before that excessive use of private cars is not really a good thing...

How tall is he, and roughly how much does he weigh?

The law isn't very friendly to people who don't really drive, it's true.

And if one side-effect of the law is to make it easier for everyone to just buy cars, and drive them everywhere, rather than using taxis now and then, as needed, then surely the overal number of deaths will go up, not ^down?

We do have use of a car, and car seats to go with it, but find travel is still a big hassle. We have a flight vest thing, which is only used in emergencies etc, but is nice to have as a backup. No use legally though, obviously. And no, it'd be no use in a 70km crash, but it does tether a kid to my seatbelt, without raising the risk of me crushing him.

You can get very lightweight 2 piece seats which theoretically are ok from stage 1 and are probably better than nothing at all. Like this or this or Argos have similar Maybe you could detach backrest from base and fold flatter to transpost ?

We had an accident a few years back in the country - hit a deer at dusk which almost wrote off the car - and I wouldn't like to think of what might have happened to ds (then 2 1/2) if he hadn't been secured in a harnessed seat.