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

Fistfull, safety belts are not tested on two children, they are tested on one adult sized person. Unless you have insider information why would you think that they would work effectively on two people?

Unfortunately, it is fairly likely that you will be involved in a car crash. Many countries don't bother with safety belts. Many countries have far higher levels of fatalities as a result of Road traffic accidents. I agree that different people assess risk differently, but why do you think the government produces all those ads about people wearing seat belts in the back seat - to support the seat belt industry?

Anyway, not sure why I bothered with all that - can't believe you haven't heard it all before. However I am genuinely thankful to you for high lighting that in 2006 there are people who think that sharing a seatbelt "is a perfectly acceptable solution to cover odd circumstances when you cant fit all children in for one reason or another"

"fairly likely to be involved in an accident" - nonsense.

I am going to parp myself off this thread now - the mn collective shock and horror at seatbeltless children always irritates me.

If Boris Johnson's wife is ok with this, then I dont see that its anyone elses business. If shes not happy, then I suspect that the Johnson household will be a fairly tense place right now.

I would think it is also the business of the children, who are not old enough to make an assessment of the risk they are being placed under, but have to rely on their parents to behave with a bit of common sense.

I have no clue about statistics relating to seatbelts, but my DH has been to more inquests than he cares to remember where wearing a seatbelt could have made a big difference to the outcome.

I was also in an RTC two years ago when I can only state that I thanked God that my boys were all strapped in their own seatbelts in the backseat.

If an accident occurs, it is not safe to have two children in one seatbelt, not wearing a seatbelt or using incorrectly fitted carseats.

It is, of course, Mr (and Mrs) Johnson's choice whether or not to put their own children at risk.

It doesn't set a very good example though does it?

ffon, as you're so confident about the preciousness of our stance and the sheer common sense of yours, why not ring your local police and fire stations and ask them if they agree that putting 2 children in one belt - anywhere, let alone in the front seat of a LHD convertible - is a cool and intelligent thing to do.

Do you stuff cushions round a single child then, to fill out the seatbelt? It wouldn't restrain either of them in an accident - you might as well not bother at all.

Oh dear. This is possibly the right time to link to this document

At 19 mph, children can sustain injuries which will brain damage or kill them. I wish they'd do a publicity campaign to inform people, this leaflet really shocked me when I saw it.

I'm not normally one for posting on the old controversial threads, but I can't believe that any parent would even consider letting their child sit unrestrained in the car.

The thought of DS in a car without his car seat fills me with horror.

Yes, mn can somtimes become precious about certain parenting issues, but I thought that this was one that we all agree on.

FWIW, I won;t drive the car unless everyone is strapped in properly. This includes my mother, who is old enough to know better, and thinks she's above seatbelts. Have been known to sit in the drivers seat tapping on the steering wheel for 30 mins before waiting. It's just a risk I'm not prepared to take.

What a stupid thing to do.
As I driver I also hate to think that I could accidentally crash into someone (and accidents do happen all the time) and what could have been a harmless little crash becomes someting a lot worse.

Stupid man.
Also stupid person taking the video though i have to say. It appears he was undertaking him and distracting him.

Can't beleive there are people on here tonight saying mumsnetters are precious for not letting their 4 year olds paly in the street alone and sit in cars without belts. Very strange!

thanks for the link caligua, horrible pictures, ill be checking dds car seat tomorrow morning.

I swore off this thread, but am posting again because it occurred to me in the night, that my danger threshold is probably much higher than most of yours.
Its evident from some of the sanctimonious and patronising comments on this thread that you think I am too stupid to understand risk. (that comment about being safe because they fill the seatbelt is when you're driving, btw, not if you have an accident. They're less likely to find 101 interesting things to do with a seatbelt.)
In fact, ex and the boys are so addicted to danger that driving off with the two of them in one seat really seems quite a mild risk in comparison.
I suspect the same is true for Boris Johnson (he does cycle in central London after all). But I can see that if the riskiest thing you ever do is taking your guinea pig for a walk then it would seem horrifically dangerous.

If I posted on here some of the things ex and my children have done, the MN sanctimonious tuttometer would go off the scale. They are just like that, I have long since stopped tearing my hair out.

I think the reason you have had such a strong reaction fistfull is because you have been so rude and combative from the very start on this thread, starting your first post with "ffs", and continuing:

"Its actually safer with 2, becuase they fill out the seatbelt more. get off your soapboxes and start worrying about famine and war instead."

This is not only bollocks, but very patronising and rude. If you had posted something like your last post, explaining why you have made the choices you have, but in a polite way, you might have found we could have a discussion about it instead of a slanging match.

I am not in the slightest touched by other people's comments, franny. And as the words moron, idiot, pillock, buffoon, stunned, reckless, shock, damn, "I want to run over (dangerous drivers)", and a little red face had already been used on the thread, I dont think my first post was any more combative than what had already been posted.
The only difference was that it expressed a minority view, usually a mn crime.

let me make it quite clear...Im not at all worried about the strong reaction, I expected nothing less!

You're right, I have a low danger threshold, that's why I am considering a parachute jump for BIBIC. ?????

How many people have never been involved in a car crash in their lives? I have, my seatbelt failed and I was lucky to geta way with bruising- had it been at a significant speed I would not have. I also did first aid at an accident where the drunk driver hadn't been wearing a seat belt. The speed couldn't have been horrendous, he'd only been driving two minutes from home, but the injuries were awful

I always think the key issue with drivin g isn't how good a driver you are, it's the skill of the chap round the next bend. And there's always a chance he's been on a two day bender, and doesn't have an MOT or decent tyres. You can't know that's not the case. So you do the best to protect those who you love.

Fistfull, when you have a minority opinion you have the chance to debate with and educate people as to why you have chosen your position. Or you have the chance to have a blazing row and make some enemies. There is more than one way to disagree with someone, you know.

Well, I am sure it is illegal to for 2 children to share one seatbelt so the oh so sanctimonious police might stop you.

Tell your addicted-to-danger-ex to go and swim with sharks rather than endanger other peoples lives please!

cant resist...sorry peachy, a controlled parachute jump just isnt in competition with some of the things my ex has done/will no doubt do in the future...not boasting, its just a fact

off to fulfil maternal duties now.

I don't think it is at the moment, but I think it will be under the new laws? I'm pretty sure I read that it will be illeagl to carry more occupants than there are seatbelts for. So if BJ wasn't speeding then he's not broken the law. He's just being a prat, and I wouldn't do it!

Risks are minimal, but why take them? I drove past a huge pile up yesterday - it could have easily have been me.

I thought they said 'I'll have you'. I did wonder who took the video too, as it was clearly taken from the drivers side.

I don't know whether you're too stupid to understand risk or not ffn, but why would you want to take an unnecessary risk with your child's life? Are you aware of the fact that the reason there has been an enormous drop in child fatalities in road accidents, is because on the whole, children are now properly secured? Are you aware that your child could be fatally injured at 19mph if s/he is not strapped in properly?

And do you really think that Mr and Mrs Johnson would be the only people who would grieve for their children if they were killed because of Bozza's acceptance of the risk of death on behalf of his kids and therefore are the only people entitled to have an opinion on his risk-taking behaviour? Presumably they've got grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, all of whom would grieve for the kids and in one way or another be affected by their death. I very much doubt that anyone whose child has actually died in a road accident, looks back and says "it was a risk worth taking and I'd do the same again."

og FFON, you do talk out of your arse

it does say that -

All children up to 135 cms in height MUST use the correct child restraint and therefore you may not carry more children than there are child restraints . However, if a car has 3 seat belts in the rear, and 2 occupied child seats or boosters prevent the fitting of a third, a third child 3 years or over may then use an adult belt in the rear. If there is room, it would be safer for the third child to travel in the front seat and use the correct child seat or booster.

So this would make what BJ did illegal.