About the new carseat laws

[Tomataheeed]

Willman, I think your post has cleared my question.

 

'2) if the child is travelling on a short distance for reason of unexpected necessity;'

 

The key word here being 'necessity'. Very occasionally I have picked up my husband's 9-year-old neice up from the odd birthday party or such, usually when her father or grandmother has been unavailable to do so. I don't 'need' to do this, there are other options available (like a booster-set-less minicab, for instance), and it's happens so rarely it's not worth having a seat, costing money, taking up space (as Cyclone says) 'just in case'.

 

Looks like I'm off the hook from now on!

 

I think "unexpected necessity" would be for a trip to A&E, not a collection from a party. I guess we'll find out when the first daft case gets in the papers.

[willman]

unexpected necessity would depend on your explanation to the officer.

being in a position where there is no other "suitable" alternative would be a justifiable case.

 

i.e you got a call 5minutes before the child was due to be collected due to an unforseen predicament of the usual responsible adult.

[Olive]

I think you're right Willman.

 

So basically, if you've got a good enough excuse you get let off - seems completely unmanagable to me. Also, in genuine cases how do the police know who is telling the truth ('honestly officer, this isn't my child etc etc') without investigating each case?

 

Like Cyclone says, an educational / promotional campaign would have been more useful.

[Darbees]

It's one thing trying to circumvent the law when caught by a speed camera or something but why are people trying to do it so as not to need to fit or use child seats to protect their most precious kids ffs?

[Cyclone]

because the real risk of injury is negligable and parents are the ones in the best position to make decisions regarding the welfare of their own children, not government.

 

 

Laws with such subjective phrases such as "unexpected necessity" are unenforceable, unclear and pointless.

Just because I consider something a necessity doesn't mean that someone else will agree, so who's judgement do we go by, well as the person having to make the call at the time, it can only be the person who is accused of breaking the stupid law. So the prosecution fails in every case where the prosecuted person has half a brain.

[Darbees]

because the real risk of injury is negligable and parents are the ones in the best position to make decisions regarding the welfare of their own children, not government.

 

 

Do you mean it's negligable in that you're unlikely to have an accident? In that case why wear them at all and why have insurance etc? Have you seen the injuries caused by seatbelt in an accident? I know someone who was passenger in a head on crash and belt stopped him going through window, he did however have a big cut on his shoulder but that was acceptable to him. had he been a small child that would have been round his neck.

 

I argue against all sorts of driving legislation but not this one, there are some idiots about who need to look at some pics of the consequences of accidents and unrestrained children. I can direct you to some if you like but you won't like it.

[Cyclone]

There have been many many children in cars during accidents. They certainly didn't all get their throats cut.

So it must only happen in a certain combination of factors. And given the complete lack of media stories on the events, it must be bloody rare.

I didn't suggest anything about unrestrained children, so i'm not interested in any pictures of what happens in that situation.

[Darbees]

There have been many many children in cars during accidents. They certainly didn't all get their throats cut.

So it must only happen in a certain combination of factors.

Some did and I don't suppose they expected it beforehand. Your risk but I wouldn't risk it and I wouldn't risk being smacked over the head by my own flying kids either.

[beckelina]

The government quotes about 2,000 incidents a year where children are injured/killed in exactly this sort of scenario.

 

Thats about five every day.

 

Worth spending the equivalent of half a tank of petrol on? I think so.

[Darbees]

One thing that does occur to me about some of these new seats is that they are attached to the car when the kid is in it with the belt on, but when the kid isn't in the car the seat is loose and that is a hazard in itself if that flies through the car in an accident. I think the belt should be fastened across the empty seat or store it in the boot. Dunno if it says that on the instructions. There was a guy on the radio recently who was crippled by a flying dog in his car, incidentally.