guilty or not guilty..watch a video of boris johnson driving on the motorway

[zippitippitoes]

on his mobile with his two boys in the front seat next to him..nice lamborghini..have to say looks irresponsible to me

I don't understand what you mean? What commen sense - whose?

Common sense tells me that a seta belt is there fr a reason - one seat = 1 belt = 1 person regardless of who they are.
Common sense also tels me that one person hitting another in the impact of a crash means very serious injuries or death.
Common sense tells me that children are safer restrained in a appropriate seat than when they are not.

I have been in a pretty serious car crash (not driving; was a child). The 3 children in the back of the car were saved from serious injury or death becasuse of their (then non compulsary) car seats and restraints.

I personally will not risk my child's life for the sake of £20 or so, and a bit of inconvenience.

You can get a booster seat for under a tenner in Argos

I suspect he can afford that, if he has a Lambo?

it's so clearly not safe to drive the children in one seat belt- apart from the very real risk of them crushing each other in an accident, if one child is even slightly smaller than the other, the smallest one will slip under the belt in an impact.

What's the point of getting yourself elected to the body of law makers anyhow, if you have such little respect for the law? makes you wonder about why he's there?

"
never forget the poster who said that her blood boiled at the thought of children in the back seat without seat belts "

I never said it but yes, it makes me very angry too. Why would anyone risk the lives of their children in such a way? And their own lives, as it that child hits the front seat passengers they can kill them too.

common sense equals making children safe in the car..the new laws will save approx 2000 children from injury or even death

like i said they can't act for themselves so their carers need to protect them

(oh and I could be completely wrong here but I thought the number of seatbelts dictated how many people were allowed to sit in the car for insurance? Ours is insured five seater because it has 5 belts fitted- so would this be insured as a two seater then?)

ha ha peachy, people like Boris MAKE the laws in England....

off to take my children out now. On rollerblades and scooters without safety helmets tch tch tch.

well, hulababy, you'd better be angry all the time then, because there are thousands of children all over the world in cars without seat belts at this very moment.

fistfull, That was point EXACTLY.

And yes I do make my kids wear helmets on skateboards.

personally i think there's something really horrid about boasting that you don't and that you neglect safety in the car too.

not exactly a fire starter myself, but get a grip woman! these are your kids. theya re precious.

'well, hulababy, you'd better be angry all the time then, because there are thousands of children all over the world in cars without seat belts at this very moment. ' Yes. And there are thousands of kids out ther being beaten by theri parents too, doesn't make it OK. rather worsens it in fact.

Peachy is going or a coffee, to calm down.

I'm glad I brought this subject up because i genuinely didn't realise that people thought children could be safe two in one seat belt

it is such a simple thing to ensure safety in the car, it beggars belief that people ignore it so casually..it's not as if boris doesn't have any alternatives either

Just because people are putting their children in cars unrestrained all the time doesn't make it okay you know! It's irresponsible IMO, and I am amzed at how many people will risk the lives of their children.

I just simply will not do it, and I will not our my little girl at such risk.

As I said - I have been in a nasty accidnet. I have seen how seat belts save children. Two families could have lost their toddlers and children that day. They did not - they survived without injury. Why? Because they had seat belts on
Stupid risk IMO!

I am a bit stunned to be honest that I am having to justify my reasons as to why it is so important to out children in a car seat.

And yesm my daughter also wears a helmet on her bike, scooter and rollerskates I love her dearly. I don't want to lose her. Why not protect her if I can? I will certainly not feel bad for making sure I take sensible precautions.

fistfullofnappies - if you come back to this thread, I suggest you take a look at this website . Seems like you've been misinformed on this subject, so this will tell you all you need to know about reducing the likelihood of injury to your children should you be unfortunate enough to experience a car accident.

I'm shocked as well hula

It wasn't you who had the accident on the motorway when the car overturned was it?

Not sure same person. But when I was 12 or 13 I was in a car accident on a busy road. My auntie braked. her brake cable just wnet with no warning. We careered across the road (luckily hit nothing; how I don't know) and rolled over into someone's garden. There were 3 young toddler/preschoolers in the back in car seats. I was in the front seat with a belt on.

fistful - don't want to appear like this is ganging up but you say your kids (and Boris's) are still alive. without wishing to state the obvious that's because they haven't been in an accident. you also mentioned worrying abuot famine. well if you want to be global about it there is growing realisation that road accidents kill more people than malaria - and most of them in poor countries. I can't now find where I read about this but I know there are emerging campaigns for road safety to be prioritised as a major health issue in developing countries.

im shocked that anyone thinks its ok for 2 kids to share 1 seatbelt, and even more shocked that they would think it was actually safer, as they cant wiggle out????
as for boris, im guessing the lambo isnt the main family car, so these kids are probably taken to school ect in a car with proper car seats/boosters/belts, then he takes this stupid risk in this car, the mans a fool.

Yes the "still alive" boast is surely only meaningful if they are still alive after being in a crash.

I think in fact it is Boris making some sort of ill thought out protest against the EU

as this is his view on the new laws from the daily Telegraph April 2004
" The other day, a Labour transport minister called David Jamieson announced in a nannying New Labourish way that we should all start taking more care of our offspring in the back of the car. It was not enough to put the babies in car seats, he said. Any child under 11 years of age or 150cm in height should be equipped with a kind of platform, a moulded plastic or Styrofoam object that you shove under its bottom, he said. This was presented to the public as a thoughtful government recommendation, to show how much they care. It was just a suggestion, we gathered, a way we might choose to make our little ones safer.

In so far as that was the intended impression, it was grossly misleading. Mr Jamieson was really trying to prepare the British public for the time - May 2006 - when these ludicrous plastic cushions or seatettes will become a legal requirement, and they will be imposed on us not by the parliament in which I now sit, but by Brussels. You may or may not think it right to make these "child restraint systems" mandatory. Myself, I see no reason whatever why parents should not be able to decide which journeys necessitate extra care, and which children need "child restraint systems" in the back, whether or not they have attained 150cm in height.

But even if you are instinctively a bit of a nanny, and you do believe in legal compulsion, I simply refuse to believe that you, or anyone who cares about our system of government, can possibly support the way the measure is about to be imposed. This directive, 2003/20/EC, has been dreamt up by some well-meaning but insatiably interfering official in the EU transport department, no doubt in close cooperation with representatives of the European Association of Plastic Seatettes and Child Restraint Appliance Manufacturers. It has then been knocked through the transport council, where matters can be decided by a majority vote, and there is not a damn thing we can do about it.

I don't just mean there is nothing the public can do about it. Even those whom the public elects are completely impotent. Even if there were a New Labour minister with sufficient intellectual rigour to defend parental choice; even if Mr Jamieson had the guts to speak up in the transport council, and say that these plastic seatettes would amount to a confounded nuisance for millions of motorists already facing unprecedented levels of persecution - even then, his views could have been swept aside. "

not exactly persuasively written is it?

I don't suppose he'll be supporting the intorduction of an increased endorsable penalty for using a hand held mobile either in 2007

and additionally as i am picking holes in him..I suspect that driving a left hand drive vehicle is an additional risk too so making sure the children were safe just in case would be an even better idea

i used to find his bumbley persona quite funny but things like this really rile me..it's not very convincing no

i have just watched the video and i found it quite hard to see how many children there were. also if it was the driver filming surly he has just incriminated himself as well.

Many mners take risks for their children that I personally wouldnt take, and they dont even see them as risks. Yes, its remotely possible that my children could be in an accident and fly into one another and be squashed (hitting the dashboard is a red herring because they are wearing the seatbelt). But the overwhelming probability is that they wont be.
this is a perfectly acceptable solution to cover odd circumstances when you cant fit all children in for one reason or another.

nicnack, that was my thought as well, after I thought what a tosser the guy must be.