PDA

View Full Version : Booster Seats


ShyTorque
20th Sep 2006, 10:12
Now that UK authorities have decided that children under a certain height and age have to sit on a 'booster' seat in a car, are the traffic police going to be issued with tape measures?

Are parents to be required to carry the birth certificates of their children, and those of other children, for example when someone else's child is in the car?

Are drivers responsible for measuring other folk's kids before taking them in the car?

How can someone else give my child a lift home if the booster seat is bolted in my car?

Would it be a reasonable defence in court if it could be proven that the traffic policeman's tape measure hadn't been calibrated that day?

Or is this just another unenforcable law brought in by the Ministry of Silly Ideas?

teeteringhead
20th Sep 2006, 10:20
And what about dwarves and midgets (or whatever the PC terms are now)? Do they not get the same protection of the law?

And certainly where aircrew seating is concerned (sorry for bringing aviation into JB! ;) ) it's not overall height that matters, but sitting height. Long body/short legs or short body/long legs have different ergonomic problems.

Whirlygig
20th Sep 2006, 10:27
I was driving behind one of the Sheringham natives yesterday evening. Poor old dear could hardly see over the steering wheel and couldn't go above 20 mph. I reckon this was because her foot couldn't go any further down on the accelerator!

I wondered then about the booster cushion thing but then she wouldn't be able to reach the accelerator at all!

Cheers

Whirls

Mr Lexx
20th Sep 2006, 10:28
Now that UK authorities have decided that children under a certain height and age have to sit on a 'booster' seat in a car, are the traffic police going to be issued with tape measures?

The police roadside checks WILL have measures

Are parents to be required to carry the birth certificates of their children, and those of other children, for example when someone else's child is in the car?

No, but they might have to prove it in writing after the event

Are drivers responsible for measuring other folk's kids before taking them in the car?

Yes, the driver is responsible for all children in the car


How can someone else give my child a lift home if the booster seat is bolted in my car?

They can only give a lift without a booster seat in exceptional circumstances

Would it be a reasonable defence in court if it could be proven that the traffic policeman's tape measure hadn't been calibrated that day?
:E

Or is this just another unenforcable law brought in by the Ministry of Silly Ideas?

Nope, it is the best piece of leglislation that Noo Labour has introduced. There are hundreds of kids killed each year by "adult" seatbelts.


And what about dwarves and midgets (or whatever the PC terms are now)? Do they not get the same protection of the law?


No, the reason the limits are on age as well as height is that the childs bone density is seen to be storng enough for "adult" seat belts by the time a child is 11


I wish people would get off their soap boxes on this. If the measures save just one childs life, they are worth it. In time, it will be seen as normal practice and there will be no complaining. People are happy not to put their child seat in the front seat with an airbag. There was no hoohar about this, even though there has only been 1 confirmed case of an airbag killing a child in a rear facing child seat whilst in the front.

Whirlygig
20th Sep 2006, 10:33
Bone density also rapidly decreases with age especially in elderly women.

Cheers

Whirls

Mr Lexx
20th Sep 2006, 10:40
I agree Whirls. Lexxi and I were discussing just that fact when talking about the 11yo age limit. This is leglislation designed at protecting children though, not old women, who, if they know they have low bone density, can choose not to travel by car :ok:

phnuff
20th Sep 2006, 10:45
If the measures save just one childs life, they are worth it.

I cant disagree with that, but . . .

They can only give a lift without a booster seat in exceptional circumstances

Define exceptional in this context. For instance would
"I am giving xxx a lift home because their parent has been delayed and I only have one booster seat"
be acceptable and what degree would the person giving the lift have to go in order to prove it? I am afraid it the law will be abused if it does not go down to that level

Stoney X
20th Sep 2006, 10:52
It's just more nanny state rules. And how about this new one where learner drives have to have a year's instruction before they go out alone. Oh dear :sad:

Which reminds me... I saw Harry Redknapp in traffic the other day. Cellphone stuck to his ear, steering and changing gears with the other hand. Isn't that illegal too. Strange I've never seen it being enforced.

Whirlygig
20th Sep 2006, 10:53
I suspect the thing is, is that responsible parents don't need a law to tell them what is appropriate for their child; irresponsible ones will probably flout it anyway.

Same with handheld mobile phones in a car! Safety is more to do with attitude rather than the laying down of the law.

I suspect that the point being raised here is whether legislation is the correct way to educate people about safety issues.

Cheers

Whirls

Stoney X
20th Sep 2006, 10:57
Whirls, my point exactly. You have a gift of words I don't.

waldopepper42
20th Sep 2006, 10:59
If the measures save just one childs life, they are worth it.
I cant disagree with that, but . . .
They can only give a lift without a booster seat in exceptional circumstances
Define exceptional in this context. For instance would


I believe the wording is something like;
Child seats compulsory until children reach 135 cm or the age of 12
Children up to age of 3 must be carried in appropriate seat
Exemption for over-3s in "unexpected necessity"
Exemption if there are three children but only room for two car seats


Now, how does one prove "Unexpected necessity"...?

Capt. Queeg
20th Sep 2006, 11:00
is this just another unenforcable law brought in by the Ministry of Silly Ideas?Possibly but the intent seems to be to save people from themselves. Obviously enough people drive around without their kids properly restrained and end up regretting it (or in some cases, possibly not.....)

The pity is that some people require legislation like this to ensure the safety of their own children when simply switching on their own brains should suffice.

Grainger
20th Sep 2006, 11:02
Safety is more to do with attitude rather than the laying down of the law.Absolutely. You can't legislate safe attitudes and the concept of Safety Through Punishment is just laughable.

The real agenda behind all of this of course has very little to do with safety.

The objective of all these anti-motorist measures - including draconian enforcement of ever-decreasing speed limits, congestion charges and the new restrictions on learners - is quite simply to make motoring as inconvenient and unpleasant as possible.

Forcing people out of their cars is of course not an acceptable substitute for providing a realistic alternative.

phnuff
20th Sep 2006, 11:14
Now, how does one prove "Unexpected necessity"


Well, I guess it is possible to prove it, but its a matter of how long it would take to do it and the cost by both the driver and the police. I am willing to bet the courts will be throwing out stupid cases by over zealous and unlistening police within weeks

I suspect the thing is, is that responsible parents don't need a law to tell them what is appropriate for their child; irresponsible ones will probably flout it anyway

Spot on - what we have here is a difficult to enforce, easily abused and ultimately pointless law

G-CPTN
20th Sep 2006, 11:25
'Proving' can only happen through argument in a Court of Law. As with many 'offences' the arresting Officer uses his/her judgement. The offender either accepts the fixed-penalty or takes the case to court if they disagree. The decision of the Court is 'Justice'.
End of (unless you want to appeal).

frostbite
20th Sep 2006, 11:44
I don't doubt it will be enforced as rigidly as the hand-held phone law by (largely non-existant) traffic police.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
20th Sep 2006, 12:15
And what about dwarves and midgets (or whatever the PC terms are now)? Do they not get the same protection of the law?

No, the reason the limits are on age as well as height is...


What about midget children then? Will they need two?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
20th Sep 2006, 12:19
If the measures save just one childs life, they are worth it.

I cant disagree with that
I can. At some point there has to be an acceptable level of death or injury to be balanced against restrictions created in the name of safety.

For instance, to follow the example above, road accidents kill thousands a year, so therefore those lives would be saved if nobody went anywhere. Would that be worth it to save "even one life"?

Perhaps we should all be forced to chip in fifty quid a year to a anti heart disease fund. That'd probably save at least one life so it should also be worth it.

ShyTorque
20th Sep 2006, 12:27
'I wish people would get off their soap boxes on this. If the measures save just one childs life, they are worth it. In time, it will be seen as normal practice and there will be no complaining. People are happy not to put their child seat in the front seat with an airbag. There was no hoohar about this, even though there has only been 1 confirmed case of an airbag killing a child in a rear facing child seat whilst in the front.'

I'm not on a soapbox, I asked questions, not made statements.

I agree that it is important that it's a parent's duty to make their offspring as as safe as possible whilst travelling by car. My own children were always strapped into the appropriate car safety seat, used at our own discretion and by our own use of common sense.

However, I do object to increasing legislation that tends to turn a parent, using his/her own good judgement, into a potential criminal. This could occur where a child falls just below the height limit on the "official police tape measure".

A nominal height limit is not sufficient. A child above the height might well be unsafe in a car with a softer seat base cushion, whereas a shorter child might well be totally safe in a car with a more firm seat because of the position of the seat belt across the child's body.

Those that enjoy our increasingly 'nanny' state, keep quiet - no need to use any common sense. Our professional rule makers will keep you completely safe, of course.

And before those across the Atlantic state the usual, actually I didn't vote for them and never have, never will. :rolleyes:

ORAC
20th Sep 2006, 12:34
Or is this just another unenforcable law brought in by the Ministry of Silly Ideas? No, as always these days it is being done in accordance with EU legislation. Whilst the government talking heads may pontificate as to their reasons, they are just rubber stamps these days. No power at all....

EU Directive 2003/20/EC (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_115/l_11520030509en00630067.pdf#search=%22Directive%202003%2F20% 2FEC%22)

Pan Pan Splash
20th Sep 2006, 13:30
Whirls - its ok, I can still give you a lift in my car, I've got an old Booster seat of my son's!!!!:p I think its a great law, now when you can sit high enough to see out of the rear windows of the Alfa you might even park properly!!!!:p :O :}


PPS will be wearing foul weather clothing at the gatbash, wet weather expected...... ;) :}

Whirlygig
20th Sep 2006, 14:18
Quite. You asked about dress code. Sou'wester and wellingtons!

Cheers

Whirls

ShyTorque
20th Sep 2006, 14:41
Can you get wellingtons with high heels?

Pan Pan Splash
20th Sep 2006, 14:46
Shy Torque..

I think they'd play havoc with my arthritic ankle ...:rolleyes:




:}

ShyTorque
20th Sep 2006, 15:21
PPS,

Poor old ankle. Is he going to the Gatbash?

Anyway, I always thought Whirls was definitely female and therefore must be your anty?

chadwick
20th Sep 2006, 15:52
I always thought Whirls was definitely female and therefore must be your anty?what? Anty Chri.... :E !

Best thing since sliced bread. Now my sister kids want steering wheels on the dash!

They stick to their seats like glue, or their mum threatens them with the law! :p

Restriction is anyone below 1:40m and under 12 years. But what about the short sh1ts that are older and fit the bill!!!!!

ormus55
20th Sep 2006, 16:00
told my wife that she now has to have a booster seat (she is 4ft 10").
she argued like **** with me, but i still convinced her to goto mothercare and check out the prices!

shes not speaking to me yet.

sheer heaven.
:D

MReyn24050
20th Sep 2006, 18:02
Department of the Environment, Transport booklet VSE 1/96, states that children on organised trips in minibuses and coaches must be provided with forward facing seats with seat belts. In minibuses and coaches first used on or after 1 October 2001, which have seat belts and anchorages that meet the Directive requirements, children may also be provided with rearward facing seats with seat belts.

What happens when a child travels in such a bus or minibus, will they need to take their booster cushions with them?

Davaar
20th Sep 2006, 18:29
And before those across the Atlantic state the usual, actually I didn't vote for them and never have, never will. :rolleyes:

Do not worry. Those booster seats have been mandatory here for the past twenty-odd years. This is just another of Britain's bold steps into the present.

con-pilot
20th Sep 2006, 18:48
Those booster seats have been mandatory here for the past twenty-odd years

Same here in the US. I'm rather surprised that it was not law in the UK before now to be honest. Booster seats (child-seats) have saved thousands of children from death or serious injuries since the law has been passed.

If a family cannot afford a child-seat (booster) they can receive one for free from various agencies and charities.

We are on our third seat for our grandson, the previous two were given to the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (aka the Highway Patrol) for issue to families that need child-seats and cannot afford the cost.

MReyn24050
20th Sep 2006, 19:01
Mike Jenvey
Thanks for your information Mike.

bjcc
20th Sep 2006, 19:50
Me:

"Mrs Smith, I'm sorry, but I have to tell you your son John is dead."

"Nanny state", interesting thought, try having to say those words to a parent after their child, who they thought was safely bolted into thier car, wasn't.

Responsible parents don't need a law to tell them how to safely transport thier kids? Oh yes they do. Time and time again I have seen and stopped and spoken to 'responsible parents', who have thier child, on thier lap in the front, in the back jumping about, or even laying on the pascel shelf.

4 times I have had to say the words above, with different names, to parents who, thought they were responsible.

Oh well, another soap box thread, as we all know, you all know best don't you.

bjcc
20th Sep 2006, 20:17
Mike Jenvey

Even most parents who strap thier kids in don't think about the need for a booster seat. And those who don't bother with seat belts may well do after it's cost them a few times.

Oh and 3 of those who I had to give the news to, were strapped in...the other wasn't.

I'd rather hand out £30 FPN's than give anyone that news!

SXB
20th Sep 2006, 20:27
Absolutely anything that reduces death and serious injury on the roads should be applauded and supported.

The roads in the UK are among the safest in the world, I believe just over 3000 per year are killed on UK roads but it's still too many. Children are still killed or injured because they are not positioned correctly in baby seats or are not using booster seats. I read somewhere that about 80% of baby seats are not correctly installed and if involved in an accident serious injury would occur.

Whirlygig
20th Sep 2006, 20:42
Then the simplest way to avoid any car accidents is to ban cars.

Surely this is a matter of education rather than legislation. There could still be many parents who use a booster seat incorrectly. Legislation will not allow for that.

Cheers

Whirls

ShyTorque
20th Sep 2006, 21:37
"Responsible parents don't need a law to tell them how to safely transport thier kids? Oh yes they do. Time and time again I have seen and stopped and spoken to 'responsible parents', who have thier child, on thier lap in the front, in the back jumping about, or even laying on the pascel shelf."

Bjcc, I wondered how long it would take for you to reply, telling us again how stupid we all are and how clever you are.

I put it to you that the type of parents you describe are not responsible or sensible parents at all. Unfortunately, yes, we do need regulations to protect the terminally hard of understanding but I for one object to being tarred with their brush!

I think that better education would be more appropriate in most cases, but best not achieved by more revenue raising. How will this be enforced, especially bearing in mind today's preference for cameras rather than effective policing? Are drivers to be pulled onto the motorway hard shoulder to measure children? I certainly hope not.

White Bear
20th Sep 2006, 22:08
A well respected American Automotive magazine has recently published an article stating that over the last 3 years 22,000 young drivers between the ages of 16-19 have been killed on the roads in the U.S.

Their point was that parents had failed their own children by not properly training, educating or preparing them to cope with the conditions and dangers of driving.

One could argue legislation of some sort might reduce this, but I think the magazine was right; education, preparation, and training are the answer, not more laws.

Regards,
White Bear.

Interesting comparison, just over 3000 killed on UK roads each year, population 60m
43,000 killed on U.S. roads each year, population 300m
You do the math.

Yak97
20th Sep 2006, 22:22
"They can only give a lift without a booster seat in exceptional circumstances"

Is this the UK law? Because the EU legislation actually says: Article 6 ...grant exemption.....for occasional transport over a short distance...

Is this another case of the UK adding a further tweak to EU law?

Anyway, as was previously mentioned, this is probably going to be as effective as the ban on use of mobiles. Government needs to realise that replacing traffic cops with camera's is not going to work if they are serious about these type of laws. Every law that is passed and not properly applied makes people less bothered about following the rules.

You only have to watch these police chase shows on TV and watch what they let people get away with. But don't even think about wearing a t-shirt saying b******s to Blair, boy will you be in trouble!!

Whirlygig
20th Sep 2006, 22:41
Interesting comparison, just over 3000 killed on UK roads each year, population 60m
43,000 killed on U.S. roads each year, population 300m
You do the math.
Just did! However, it would be interesting to know the statistic per road miles as well!

Cheers

Whirls

White Bear
20th Sep 2006, 23:22
Whist trying to find some information for Whirls, I came across the following in Wikipedia:

Motorcyclist deaths within England and Wales stand at 53% of the annual road death statistics.

Scooters/mopeds up to 50cc only account for 3% of those deaths.

2% of the scooter deaths were 16-19 year olds who had not taken CBT (Compulsory Basic Training).

Studies show that the #1 cause of car accidents in North America is automobiles.

I was surprised at the first statement, but simply stunned at at erudite thinking behind the last one.
Anyone care to edit?
Regards,
White Bear.

Whirlygig
20th Sep 2006, 23:33
Eh? 2% of 3% of 53%. That's not really very many. I would have thought that the 2% referred to the 53%?

Therefore, that's 1,590 motorcycle deaths per annum of which 90 are mopeds and of those 90, 2 are 16-19 year olds? In that case, sadly, I know of both of them.

Cheers

Whirls

G-CPTN
20th Sep 2006, 23:56
From 18 September, seated passengers aged 14 years and above will have to use seat belts where they are fitted in all buses and coaches.

IS THIS TRUE?
Have we been told?

spork
21st Sep 2006, 00:01
Responsible parents don't need a law to tell them how to safely transport thier kids? Oh yes they do. Time and time again I have seen and stopped and spoken to 'responsible parents', who have thier child, on thier lap in the front, in the back jumping about, or even laying on the pascel shelf. Oh no they don’t. You are actually talking about irresponsible parents.

Oh well, another soap box thread, as we all know, you all know best don't you. Well actually, yes. Two kids now grown to 19 and 22, who were never ever allowed any leeway on safety in the car. Child seats, booster cushions, you name it, we had it. They were quite happy to be restrained as they never knew no different matey. Funny how YOU always know best… If this thread annoys you so much, you do not have to read it and contribute.

How come you’re in “Air Traffic” and have to “hand out £30 FPN's”? How does that work then?

Absolutely anything that reduces death and serious injury on the roads should be applauded and supported. So build a wall across every road in England then, that should prevent a lot of accidents. Oh no, hang on a minute…

bjcc
21st Sep 2006, 05:38
Ah, nice to see I was right, you do all know better.

How many responsible parents had booster seats before this peice of legislation? Erm, not many. What is this peice of legislation about? Booster seats, not strapping kids in.

Whats the reason for it? Seat belts are not designed for use by children (or adults) under a particular hight.

This peice of legislationhas nicely advertised a problem that has been ignored, or not known about by responsible parents as well as those who don't give a toss. Those who are responsible having had it identified ,have the opportunity to do something about it. Those that don't, well, they now know what they risk.

Out of interest, why do some of you assume that traffic police are the only ones who enforce traffic law?

Spork

I am not you 'matey'.

I wont be handing out FPN's, I said I would rather hand them out than do death messages. Do that once and you would understand why.

How does it work? Years of Policing, then a career change, simple really.

I'm suprsied that you object to something that saves lives.

Whirlygig
21st Sep 2006, 06:19
It's not that anyone objects to something that saves lives but that legislation has been passed to make it mandatory.

Firstly, the passing of Bills of Parliament into Acts is expensive. Couldn't the money have been better spent in education? Or grants for those who can't afford the cushions?

Secondly, is takes away discretion of parents and guardians and places it with the State rather than the individual. The limits are arbitrary and don't focus on others who could also be in danger from being short!

I think quite a lot of parents had booster seats before this legislation was passed; the responsible ones anyway. So for bjcc to say "not many" is spurious. Where is your evidence for that? Given you are no longer a traffic policeman?

The objection here by many, is not the cushions but the mandating of their use by a Government who apparently knows better.

Cheers

Whirls

ORAC
21st Sep 2006, 07:05
Well if some people are stupid enough not to fit the necessary safety equipment voluntarily, at least it removes their DNA from the gene pool.... :E

teeteringhead
21st Sep 2006, 07:59
There are hundreds of kids killed each year by "adult" seatbelts...Mr Lexx, one hates to bring facts into such a lively discussion but .......

Number of Children Aged 8-11 Killed on UK Roads

1981-85 average 18

1994-98 average 12

2002 total of 11

2004 total of 4

.... don't know what proportion, if any, "killed by "adult" seatbelts"........

under exposed (below) my figures are for those in cars and restricted to 8-11. Your total figures include (the majority sadly) who were not in cars, and also those 0-7 and 12-15. Furthermore, a recent Government written answer suggests that "up to 1.5" children's lives per year "may be saved" by these measures.

under_exposed
21st Sep 2006, 08:05
Where did those facts come from?

http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/statistics.htm suggests 166 children killed in 2004.

Windy Militant
21st Sep 2006, 08:11
Recently the guy I share an office with took the day off "Doing Anything interesting I quipped" "They're dedicating a memorial garden to ****** and his friends" was the reply. The lad in question was his grandson. He and his friends were killed when they were thrown from a car last year. The case was given a lot of media coverage as the vehicle was overloaded and a number of youngsters were killed.
Having seen the effect that this has had on their family, anything that stops this sort of thing happening has got to be a good thing.

Burnt Fishtrousers
21st Sep 2006, 12:13
...It does nothing for the increased congestion and pollution based on the fact that mothers wont be able to car share and take others kids to school anymore. My other half takes our daughter and two other friends to school, one of which is below the height required. She can no longer get a lift. This has already started friction between my other half and the childs mother.

It would be far easier if manufacturers were forced to put in height adjustable seat belts for kids. As far as im concerned if manufacturers can put all the current technology in cars then they can put in height adjustable seatbelts. I wonder how much the CEOs of Britax and all the other seat manufacturers gave AHEM! loaned to the Labour Party:E

G-CPTN
21st Sep 2006, 13:42
He and his friends were killed when they were thrown from a car last year. The case was given a lot of media coverage as the vehicle was overloaded and a number of youngsters were killed.
Would new legislation have made any difference to this incident? As stated, the vehicle was 'overloaded'. Do we require laws regulating that? Does it require Government to state the obvious? Weren't some of the youngsters crowded into 'the boot'? Such activities are 'safe' until the vehicle deviates from normal forward travel. Millions of motorcycle pillion passengers ride without seat belts (or booster cushions). Should that activity be proscribed?
I don't believe that there is a specific law requiring passengers riding on the ROOF of a vehicle to wear an approved restraint either.

This might SOUND flippant, but parents are the guardians of children (whether their own or others') and whether carrying them on stairs or in a vehicle. The casualty figures of vehicle crashes would be totally unacceptable if related to any other activity (including guns!), but we blindly 'accept' them as the price that civilisation pays for freedom of movement. Many deaths daily are caused by thoughtless actions (very few, if any, are 'accidents'). Most have a human cause.

Mr Lexx
21st Sep 2006, 14:34
As stated, the vehicle was 'overloaded'. Do we require laws regulating that?


We already have one, carrying more passengers than there are seats (up to 9 people in the car) is a 3 point £60 fine offence. If there are injuries after a crash and the car was overloaded it then moves into the Careless driving bracket. If one of the passengers dies, it is then causing death by careless driving

bjcc
21st Sep 2006, 18:16
mr Lex

I don't know where you get that idea from?

Whirls,
I never was a traffic Policeman, never wanted to be, I had the wrong attitude. That means I didn't want to shove everyone in the book. Unlike some who have a 'romantic' memory of pre enforcement cameras, I remember seeing how traf pol acted.

As for saying not many is spurious, no not really, years of perfecting the art of knowing whats going on around me while I walk, or drive, or sit on a bus, means I notice things.

I would go as far as to say that 2 of the most reponsible parents I know, both single mothers don't use booster seats for thier kids, all of who are under 12.

One of those is the mother of my daughter. The other, is probably the best driver I have ever met. No, shes not Police trained, but safer than most Police and certainly a lot better than any other driver I know.

The reason why they've not used booster seats? Simple, they didn't think it was needed.

The point you make about education is a good one, I'm sure if prompted a number would have gone out and brougt them. Sure, not all.

On the expense point, have you any idea hoe much a fatal, or even serious accident costs? In terms of Police, possibly fire service, ambulance, Hospital time?

Whirlygig
21st Sep 2006, 18:27
My apologies bjcc, I had always assumed you were an ex-traffic policeman from the way you wrote.

Basically, I disagree that legislation is the way to educate whereas others here think it is. I believe in "carrot" rather than "stick".

Cheers

Whirls

bjcc
21st Sep 2006, 18:44
Whirlygig

Again, I didn't say that I think legislation is the best way to educate.

Although experience has shown that education doesn't always cure. Seat belts, for instance, were not worn by a huge number of people pre the legislation. Drink driving has reduced, but not died out, in spite of both education and legislation.

Of course we could do nothing at all, and let a few more kids die, or in some respects worse, allow them to be horribly injured. Or we could do something.

I wonder what the parents of the kids I had to give the news too would have rather? Emotive yes, too bloody right it is, like I said do that once in your life, you will NEVER forget it.

lexxity
21st Sep 2006, 19:48
Firstly, the passing of Bills of Parliament into Acts is expensive. Couldn't the money have been better spent in education? Or grants for those who can't afford the cushions?

1.) My Mum works for SureStart in Oldham and they do talks on child car safety for parents and she may as well bang her head against a brickwall for all the good it does. She still sees the same parents out and about with their children rattling around the back of the car. So no, education obviously doesn't work.

2.) Booster seats cost from as little as £15. That's not expensive in terms of your childs life.

The other thing that really annoyed me about this was those who claimed that it hadn't been well publicised. On one day, I saw the new law advertised in 5 different places, including the TV and in a national newspaper. :suspect: :hmm:

ormus55
21st Sep 2006, 20:14
morrisons were doing the child boosters for 10 quid today.

mind you that is 2 pkts of rothmans, i suppose.

Whirlygig
21st Sep 2006, 20:41
So no, education obviously doesn't work.
But, in those cases, would legislation?

I initially postulated that there were two types of parent; the responsible ones who would do it anyway and the irresponsible would will flout the law anyway. There has since been anecdotal evidence to suggest that there are some responsible parents out there who just didn't know. The education of which I spoke was aimed at them.

Cheers

Whirls

spork
21st Sep 2006, 23:04
Hear hear Whirlygig!

Now let’s be honest bj, you were writing about irresponsible parents, but calling them responsible for some strange reason only you know.

How come YOU are allowed to “know best” over us all? Exactly what position in life do you hold?

As I said quite clearly, two kids now grown to 19 and 22, who were never ever allowed any leeway on safety in the car. Child seats, booster cushions, you name it, we had it. Which bit of that responsible parenting don’t you understand? By all means attack the fools who do not cherish their children, but don’t say it’s everyone who does this. You must know it isn’t, so why be inflammatory and say it?

Your repetitive sarcasm like: “Ah, nice to see I was right, you do all know better” also does you no favours. Try detailing your argument instead.

How many responsible parents had booster seats before this peice of legislation? All of them. (think about your question)

I am not you 'matey'. Assuming you actually mean your, “they never knew no different matey” refers to the kids, not you. I would not dream of calling you matey. Oh no. Quite the opposite.

How does it work? Years of Policing, then a career change, simple really. Career change to what exactly?

I'm suprsied that you object to something that saves lives. I didn’t say I did. Quite the opposite. My post supports your stance on the legislation completely, and yet you still attack me.

I still don’t understand how you’re in “Air Traffic” and yet do all these police duties you claim on PPRuNe.

I’ll say it again bj, if this thread annoys you so much, you do not have to read it and contribute.

I must say I totally agree with G-CPTN, that “parents are the guardians of children (whether their own or others')”

jumpseater
21st Sep 2006, 23:12
It certainly wasn't well publicised until about two weeks before it came into force. I only knew about it as the wife had heard a radio article on it.
I have no doubt that it caught many unawares, my daughters school hadn't even considered the implications of transporting kids to external events. If the school can't afford the boosters, does that mean only the tall kids get to play for the school? Do I as a parent have to leave a car seat at school each day?, if so who ensures that the car seat is fitted securely? It's an insurance claimants golden hello!

The real problem I have with it is it is unfair to parents. I have no issue with the safety argument whatsoever.

What incenses me is that I could get stopped for running my kids a few miles to the grandparents without a booster seat, yet I can put them in a taxi from lands end to john 'o'groats, and the taxi driver is exempt! Booster seats aren't big and only cost a tenner or so, why shouldn't the taxi have one as minimum equipment? or alternatively forbid children from being carried in taxi's!

When the policeman stops the car and measures the child, does the child have to take its shoes off? My eldest can lose or gain 5cm on whether she wants to adopt a slouch, or stand bolt upright. How many appeals will there be because Bloggs jr couldn't be bothered to stand up straight to be measured and how long before the first policeman is accused of assaulting a child during a measuring incident?

lexxity
22nd Sep 2006, 07:58
The real problem I have with it is it is unfair to parents.

How is it unfair to the parents? Is it not more unfair to the child who's parent can't be bothered to look after their welfare properly?

Why would you be running your child a few miles to grannys in your car without a booster seat. Do you not own one? And the example of john o'groats to landsend in a taxi? Do grow up.

Oh and it was well publicised, the new law was originally slated to come into effect in May and as such this has been advertised for about a year. Exactly how much time do you need to go out and buy a booster seat? It'll take you about 1/2hr to do that.

spork
22nd Sep 2006, 08:19
Well, I have to admit I knew about it months ago. Haven’t got kids any more though. Do I have to get some now?

Is it like that old LT sign in the underground: “Dogs Must Be Carried On The Escalator”?

green granite
22nd Sep 2006, 08:54
The real problem are the useless seat belts fitted to cars, if proper adjustable full harnesses were fitted to the rear seats then there would be no need for all this nonsense.

spork you should know by now that a policeman is allways right even when he's wrong. :hmm::rolleyes:

If the police are as dilligent in enforcing this law as they are about the one of not obscuring the rear number plate/lights with bicycles then no-one need worry anyway.

jumpseater
22nd Sep 2006, 10:17
How is it unfair to the parents

Because they can be penalised, and a taxi driver can't, is that too hard to understand?
Am I not allowed to use an extreme example? This is jetblast, get used to it. The fact remains the same, distance is irrelevant, you need to mature a bit if you can't see that.:ugh: The taxi driver who is being paid to provide a transportion service for the public, has a less onerous safety requirement, than the general public themselves. If you can't see the illogical nature of that, then indeed you have some growing up to do, not me.

My quote 'I have no issue with the safety argument whatsoever.'
So lexxity, what makes you think my children haven't got sufficient protection in any of my vehicles under normal circumstances? Don't judge me by your standards:=
To buy a seat, 'It'll take you about 1/2hr to do that.' Will it? so everyone in the UK is 30 minutes away from a perveyor of booster seats.....do you know where I live? and who has them in stock? Why do I need to buy one?
As you so eloquently put it 'Do grow up'

Why I might run my kid somewhere without a seat? Kid gets dropped off in the morning at granny who takes them to school. Granny goes out shopping. School callls me to tell me kid is ill come and get her. Granny is uncontactable by phone, the booster seat is in her car. The other booster seat is 130 miles away in another relatives car. Do I have to buy another one before I can take my child home? Or leave the child in distress at school until Granny or someone else who has a car seat who's available can go and get her? Is that simple enough for you........luv?

And no I wasn't aware of it, I rarely buy a newspapaer and the TV hasn't given it significant coverage until a week or so ago. It certainly was not hitting the headlines like it should have done earlier. The fact that all of a sudden there has been a mass panic to purchase boosters, from parents and schools alike, and comments at the school gate also indicates that it could have been better publicised. Or we're all irresponsible parents.

lexxity
22nd Sep 2006, 10:42
For your information Jumpseater we have THREE child seats for my ONE son. One in my car, one in my husbands car and one in Grandmas car. So luv, is that good enough for you?

Did you also miss the point about exceptional circumstances? Although picking your own child up from school in your own car would probably not count as you would be expected to have an appropriate restraint in your car.

When I said 1/2hr to buy one I meant picking the appropriate size and actually buying it from the shop. Alternatively there is a clever thing called the internet, you can access such sites as britax and it will tell you which restraint is appropriate for your vehicle, which you can then order from an independant site and have delivered to your door. Very often, these sites are cheaper than the likes of mothercare, etc. Clever eh? Failing that if you are purchasing a booster seat you can pick one up from the supermarket when you do your shopping.

I will not "get used" to extreme examples if they are daft. When was the last time anyone on here took a taxi several hundred miles.

I also got the impression you didn't have the appropriate restraint from this quote:

What incenses me is that I could get stopped for running my kids a few miles to the grandparents without a booster seat

If you rarely buy a newspaper or watch TV how, exactly, do you expect to find out about chages to the law? Would you like his Toneyness to come and knock on your door? This has been well publicised and as Spork syas, he knew about it and he doesn't have children. Ignorance is no defence.

It is not unfair to parents at all, they should be responsible enough to provide adequate protection for their children. I would like to see child restraints provided in taxis, but I doubt it is likely to happen. If a parent is presecuted for not having the appropriate seat, then it is their own stupid fault.

One last thing, Don't judge me by your standards would you care to explain that?

jumpseater
22nd Sep 2006, 11:33
How many seats you have is of no interest to me.

No I didn't miss the point about exceptional circumstances.

Yes I know where to buy car seats and how to fit them properly, ta awfully.

Extreme example or not it made the point about distance. If you still dont understand it try this:
A parent goes to town in their car, no seat they can get booked.
They order a taxi to take the child and them to town, the taxi driver doesn't need to provide one, neither does the parent.
Therefore the law is unfair on parents:ooh:


'I will not "get used" to extreme examples ' Like I said this is Jet blast, theres a red warning, go back and read it. Telling people to grow up in your first exchange with them may not endear them to offer any significant coeurtesy to you either:D

'When was the last time anyone on here took a taxi several hundred miles.' Ooh I think a few professional aircrew just might have.

Where I currently live there are taxi firms providing 'airport cars'. I'm assuming that they may just be advertising the facility to take people to an airport. Heathrow is 150 miles from here, Luton/Stansted and Gatwick are on the tariff too. The return price is comparable to the parking fees and in some cases cheaper. I don't imagine these services are advertised just to take up copy space, therefore I think there are taxi companies which are offering to take people hundreds of miles, and not legally required to provide the minimum safety precautions that I as a parent have to. Do you think thats a reasonable assesment of the available facts.

'I would like to see child restraints provided in taxis, but I doubt it is likely to happen' And why shouldnt it? Why wasn't it included? What possible excuse does a taxi have for not providing a booster seat

'I also got the impression you didn't have the appropriate restraint from this quote' Quite, try reading the sentence above though and if you'd applied a bit of common sense which sometimes comes with growing up, you might just have twigged that someone who has no issue with the safety arguement whatsoever, may just have sufficient car seats for normal circumstances. So you judged me and made assumptions about me by 'your standards' which in my opinion don't amount to much......luv.

phoenix son
22nd Sep 2006, 12:34
It certainly wasn't well publicised until about two weeks before it came into force.

Bollocks...Utter, utter bollocks...Just because it wasn't worked into the storyline of Emmerdale/Eastenders/Coronation Street or whatever, doesn't mean that we can all bury our heads in the sand and pretend it won't happen to us...

For those of you that are remotely interested, my "other" job involves dealing with the aftermath of the last moments of peoples mortality...If you have ever seen ANYONE, adult or child, that has died as a result of a Road Traffic Accident, you would have NO doubt whatsoever that the cost of "just another" safety feature in your car is justified, whether it costs £10, £100 or £100000...

As a parent of 2 young children (the first is 2 years old and the second is not yet 1), the legislation as such does not yet affect me, although of course they are both seated in child seats in both mine and my wifes' car...When they reach an age where a booster seat is required, rest assured they WILL be in one, regardless of the cost...

lexxity
22nd Sep 2006, 13:50
If you think I have low standards, Jumpseat, that is your perogative. You are totally wrong of course, as any of the many people who actually know me on this board will tell you.

If you have the appropriate seat why are you whinging? I told you I agee that taxis should have the appropriate seats too. But equally if I was travelling so far in a taxi with my child I would provide my own seat and if I didn't need it on holiday leave it in left luggage. I also try to never travel in a taxi with my son as I do think it is too dangerous if there is an accident. If you think taxis should be subject to the same resctrictions why not write to your MP and raise the point?

And by the by, how many aircrew are 12 or under or are less than 135cm?:confused:

ShyTorque
22nd Sep 2006, 14:24
Phew! What a pandora's box I've opened with this thread... good discussion in parts but some people are well on their way to hypertension.

Surely some of the argument here for/against the compulsory use of booster seats is being entwined with the argument about children/people in general using seat belts or not?

In all my 34 years of motoring I have never read anything in the media along the lines of:

"If only poor little Johnny, who was a week under 12 years old and only 133 cms high had been using the correctly British standard kite marked / sized child car seat fitted by a pimply faced youth at Halfords rather than just using the normal car seat and adult seat belt, he would be alive today".

However... any day now?

jumpseater
22nd Sep 2006, 17:02
Phoenix I still stand by my comment re the publicity, from the comments at the school gate I've heard this week, (the school had arranged a trip using parents cars), the impending legislation was not well know about in advance. If as you work in an area dealing with accidents then you are probably more likely to be aware of this type of legislation too I would think. I have seen the results of not wearing a seat belt years ago before it was compulsory with a family friend, model to monster in the blink of an eye. At school I was a passenger in a car that had an accident, again before compulsion. We all wore seatbelts, had we not I doubt if some of us would be here.

I have no problem with compulsory wearing of seatbelts or the use of booster seats.
That there is a section which involves public transport providors being exempt from the minimum, that I as a member of the public has to provide in the same mode of transport, is just plain idiocy. I can see at a sensus check for example a policeman giving a ticket to a motorist who hasn't got a booster seat, and letting a taxi driver go because this stupid section of legislation allows that discrepancy. That to me seems a bit senseless.

Lexity you asked who travels hundreds of miles by taxi? I gave you two examples. The height of the aircrew has nothing to do with it, but those people who choose to travel to an airport by taxi, with children, do. How you use taxis is, with resect, irrelevant. What about the family who does not have a car? If they have to use a taxi, this legislation potentially affords less protection for their children, ....why?

Shy Torque re your last point I think you're right. I have only come across one competant child seat advisor in the past few years, she worked for mothercare.

lexxity
22nd Sep 2006, 17:43
Jumpseater, you are right about the people from Mothercare, they are great and certainly know what they are doing.

Interesting point about using taxis if you have no car, would it not make more sense to have your own booster seat for use in just such a situation? But that brings us back to the point of they should be made to carry one.

GearDown&Locked
22nd Sep 2006, 18:36
The responsible parent’s paradox.

The ones giving bjcc a hard time never had a serious car accident (fortunately I might add). My father is an excellent driver, only had one serious car accident in more than 50 years, and always as been very strict regarding safety. 30 years ago very few cars had them on the back seats, but if the car had seat-belts we had to use them.

One day we were returning home and a truck coming on the incoming lane crossed over to ours on a road bend; Dad had to avoid the truck going off the road. The front right tire blows up after hitting a rock. Dad got the car back on the road but when he tried to stop the car, it swerved violently, going off the road again, clipping a small tree. Suddenly we were upside down rolling down a field.

The car had only front seatbelts. We were 4, my parents, me and my sister (I was 10 at the time, my sister 4). My parents didn't got a scratch, apart from the shock. I've got several bruises on my head, arms and legs from being thrown around inside the car. My sister who was lying on the back seat sleeping was also without a scratch, miraculously!, as she was bumped around like me.

I have never forgot that only misfortune in decades of car traveling. We also have that law recently implemented down here (about a year ago), but for me it's irrelevant because I will always use every safety measure available in the market just to protect everyone aboard, specially the kids.

So give bjcc a break.

Drive safe.

GD&L

ShyTorque
22nd Sep 2006, 19:40
Use of them is optional on Beemers, just like indicators. ;)

Davaar
22nd Sep 2006, 19:48
I disagree that legislation is the way to educate whereas others here think it is. Cheers

Whirls

Still, I do believe education is at most if at all a secondary purpose of the (proposed?) legislation. The purpose is to make people do something, under penalty for failure or refusal, that they do not now do.

Grainger
22nd Sep 2006, 21:05
Sounds more like coercion than education to me.

Davaar
22nd Sep 2006, 21:13
He's got it! By George, I think he's got it!

Grainger
22nd Sep 2006, 21:17
From the horse's mouth. Police state, anyone ?

Whirlygig
22nd Sep 2006, 21:19
Police state v Nanny state.

Discuss :ok:

Cheers

Whirls

Davaar
22nd Sep 2006, 21:50
From the horse's mouth. Police state, anyone ?

I think not, but in any event you are used to it:

"It is ordained that all lauchfull exceptiones of the Law be admitted in Judgement, and all frivolous and fraudful exceptiones be repelled, and not be admitted by na Judge swa that the causes litigious and pleyes be not wrangeouslie prolonged in skaith and prejudice of the partie, and in fraud of the Law"

Third Parliament of King James the First, 11 March 1425, Chapter 55. Much more there to the same effect, as positive as and more burdensome than safety measures for children.

D'vay
22nd Sep 2006, 22:00
Can't we all just assume that it's a load of old bollocks and get on with our lives as we see fit until the point that some t**t in a yellow hat comes along to tell us that we are being naughty; and then just work it out from there?

bjcc
22nd Sep 2006, 22:11
Spork

I'm not going to repeat myself, as you only read what you want.

Although if you agree with the legislation, why argue so much about it?

I'm relieved you don't regard me as your 'matey', makes me feel so much better.

Unlike some, I've had 2 careers. Is there a problem with that?

No, I am not discribing irresponsible parents, I am discribing the vast majority who don't, or have not thought. Just as they (and I) often have not in the past.

What you, and I expect most other people here probably don't know is that there is a list of offennces, complied by ACPO of offences that should be dealt with by warning, those that should be dealt with by FPN and those that should be dealt with by sunmmons. While that list is not mandatory, it is followed fairly closely, and guess which catagory this offence falls into.

Can does not mean will, and the possibility of punishment is also a way of educating.

spork
23rd Sep 2006, 16:31
“get on with our lives as we see fit until the point that some t**t in a yellow hat comes along to tell us that we are being naughty” Not sure about the current hat colour, but I think he’s already here.

“if you agree with the legislation, why argue so much about it?” I am NOT arguing about the legislation bj, only your persistent thoughtless attacks on posters who are ON YOUR SIDE. I suggest you re-read all posts and engage your brain. Demonstrate to me precisely where I have criticised the legislation, unless of course you’re only into pontificating not reading.

How you’ve got the gall to write “you only read what you want” I will never know. A common factor to your oh so many posts on PPRuNe is other posters trying to get you to spell correctly and read properly. Although the spelling is irritating, it’s not key to the post, but the reading is. Have you ever wondered why the criticism and frustration of posters follows YOU around and not others?

I'm not going to repeat myself, as you only read what you want. Not reading properly

Although if you agree with the legislation, why argue so much about it? Not reading properly

I'm relieved you don't regard me as your 'matey', makes me feel so much better. Not reading properly

Unlike some, I've had 2 careers. Is there a problem with that? Not reading properly

No, I am not discribing irresponsible parents, I am discribing the vast majority who don't, or have not thought. Just as they (and I) often have not in the past. Not reading properly

Pontificate verb, intr pontificated, pontificating To pronounce one's opinion pompously and arrogantly. hth

Bronx
24th Sep 2006, 19:10
Have you ever wondered why the criticism and frustration of posters follows YOU around and not others?


Fair point and good question.
Folks get more frustrated trying to have a sensible discussion with bjcc than anyone else on Pprune. Some of them give up trying in the end even if they start off patient with him.

bjcc
24th Sep 2006, 19:35
Spork

A shame you post without thinking.

Quote:

"Responsible parents don't need a law to tell them how to safely transport thier kids? Oh yes they do. Time and time again I have seen and stopped and spoken to 'responsible parents', who have thier child, on thier lap in the front, in the back jumping about, or even laying on the pascel shelf. "

Please note the first bit. Repsonsible parents don't need a law to tell them'...etc.

A quote from a previous post.

My words, "Oh yes they do."

Bassed on experience, not what I THINK. there is a vast difference.

What you may, or I may think of as responsible is not what others do.

For example, this legislation has brought to the attention of a large number of people something they didn't know, or hadn't realised. Most of those are perfectly responsible. And again, most of those didn't use car booster seats. Again, that is based on experience. You say they do, what expereince do you base that on? Your own? Fine, that makes you responsible. You possibly are. It does not make the opposite apply to others.

Not knowing does not make parents iresponsible, it means they didn't know. That is all.

Ok, I grant you it is arguable if this was needed, or, if education would have been a better way. While I would side with education, legislation means that those that chose to ignore advice can be at least warned, if they continue to ignore it, then there is a way of forcing the issue.

That is far better than the alternative.



How come you’re in “Air Traffic” and have to “hand out £30 FPN's”? How does that work then?

I said "I'd rather hand out £30 FPN's than give anyone that news!" where in that did I say I had to hand out FPN's?

Not reading? Pot calling kettle?

Quote:

"They were quite happy to be restrained as they never knew no different matey"

Read what you wrote.

Bronx

Have you ever had an idea of your own?

spork
24th Sep 2006, 21:53
Okay bj.

You have to be right, so there's no point contributing any more.

This thread is completely wrecked now.

I suggest you go and plague some other posters now. We all know how they'll react to you in advance.

bjcc
24th Sep 2006, 22:02
spork

A childish attitude, you asked for answers to your points, you have them, if they are not as you want, hard luck, you get days like that.

If you want to make a point out of right and wrong, carry on. What you fail to realise is that for every view there are opposing ones. I'm sorry you can't appriciate that, or accept it.

Loose rivets
24th Sep 2006, 22:11
I haven't kept up the total thread, so forgive if it has been mentioned.

They just do not think.

I'm mindful of a mother with children in the back, that filled three BUCKETS with petrol during the fuel crisis. It was en estate car......oh, I know I shouldn't joke, but can't resist....It was an estate car to-boot.:ugh:

spork
25th Sep 2006, 01:29
bj

Extracting just a few words from a post is deliberate misinterpretation.

Knowing when to give up with a troll is not childish, it's just common sense. You've ruined a very good thread on an important topic, just to boost your ego.

You've missed some beautiful opportunities to challenge errant posters on PPRuNe (on this thread and many others) in order to pursue your personal vendettas. Good luck!

AcroChik
25th Sep 2006, 03:50
2.) Booster seats cost from as little as £15. That's not expensive in terms of your childs life.


You're not being a good nanny state until you're giving them away, or using a tiered pricing scheme: the less time you've been in the country the cheaper it is, all to one design, in only one color.

Shame on parliament for not going all the way!

In a state in which there is to be only one class of people, and every aspect of life's vaguaries is legislated either for or against, one thinks the result is classless people who can't care for themselves... or the Soviet Union. Either way, it doesn't seem to work. And there's surely been lots of complaint about this in many other threads ~ including the hideous, rights-abridging, totalitarian behavior of courts when one is faced with battling an improperly assessed (unjust) statutory fine.

spork
25th Sep 2006, 10:34
Going back a while, No.1 daughter (now 22) travelled in a baby seat initially, followed by a child seat followed by a booster cushion. They were all freely available and advertised in the same manner all high street stuff is. The main difference was appearance, which was much cruder, but then they were also a lot cheaper. (ah those were the days…)

Looking in Argos today similar items are available, seats around £25 and cushions around £15. I cannot recall any of the legislation for 1984 onwards, but it would never have influenced the fact that I didn’t want my precious cargo floating around in the car. Our attitude was that when the first item was outgrown, you move onto the next “keep safe” item that was available.

It is not difficult today to spot adults driving without a seat belt and even on the phone at the same time. (hand held to ear that is) So it’s obvious that people take unnecessary risks. Taking them with your babies is madness. Judging by the uproar over this legislation being introduced, it would seem fair to say that a lot of parents were unaware of it, but surely anyone who has ever picked up and cuddled their tiny offspring surely does not need to be told to look after it?

Mr Lexx
25th Sep 2006, 10:38
Spork,

I agree with most points, but I have seen on numerous occasions, children who are not properly secured. Thursday last week, a BMW 3 series convertible pulled up next to me. Mother driving, 4-7 year old girl in passenger seat, without a booster seat or even wearing a seatbelt. The mother cannot claim that she did not realize (offspring was in the seat next to her), so one just has to assume that the mother did not care, and does have to be told to take care of her child.

spork
26th Sep 2006, 08:48
Yup. I’m not saying that all parents are responsible. I know some are not.

I’m also not saying that this legislation is not necessary. Like a lot of other motoring legislation, I have my doubts that it will be effectively applied, but at least it’s there to be used when it can be.

That mother was flaunting not just this latest legislation, but also legislation that’s been in place for many years.

I’m just saying that the “technology” has been around for at least 20 years IF a parent wants to look after their offspring.

Curious Pax
26th Sep 2006, 10:31
OK - if you think that booster seats for kids shouldn't be mandatory, and should rely on the responsibility of the parents towards their children where do you draw the line? Responsible drivers won't drive too fast in inappropriate conditions so we shouldn't have speed limits? They won't drink drive so no need to have legislation about that? Similar complaints we heard when adult seatbelts became compulsory, but most people now accept that this had a positive effect on the injury/fatality statistics.

For me it is very telling that the US, which prides itself on minimizing the amount of legislation already has this law in place.

I'm dubious that some of the people complaining about the inconvenience that the imposition of a booster seat brings have much experience of such things. Those for smaller kids (<5 probably) only take a minute to fit the adult seat belt around; the 'seats only' ones for bigger kids don't even take that as they don't attach to anything.

At least things have moved since I was small (late 60s) - my (extremely) responsible parents had a child seat for me in their car - it was a seat that had 2 hooks over the back seat, but wasn't attached to anything. They are now mortified that they ever used such a dangerous thing (sudden stop = child plus seat rocketing forward at a great speed) but in those days it wasn't an issue. Times change - get used to it!

spork
26th Sep 2006, 17:38
The anti-legislation posters will need to answer most of that Curious Pax.

The baby and child seats we used (britax) took about 15 mins initial fitting, and then NO additional time compared to belting up.

The booster cushions (can't remember brand) took about 5 secs extra time compared to belting up.

I think a major part of the "stressed parent" problem with this introduction is that they failed to strap them in on every occasion from the very beginning.

Going back to the 50s/60s, my dad had a very strange contraption, a plank across the car (an Austin 8) with three "mini seat shapes" made from wood! Luckily that car couldn't get up much speed. I well remember being overtaken on Bagshot Hill by a slow moving old gentleman on a bicycle. Dad was not impressed!

rab-k
26th Sep 2006, 18:06
If you're thinking of replacing your motor anytime soon and have a need for such devices, both Volvo and VW do 'Integrated Child Booster Seats' that pop up when you need then recess back down into the seat when you don't.:ok:

None of this fighting with awkward bloody plastic hulks that have to live in the boot/trunk when not in use. :mad:

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/images/volvo_childseat-1.jpg

Don't know who else does them but there may be a few other manufacturers out there doing something similar.