I thought we were supposed to love our kids...........

[scotth_uk]

No probs, I probably misunderstood your comment and mistakenly read it as a "soap box" comment.

/bows in apology.

 

[glojo]

Hi Pammy,
I'm with you on this issue, children are our most prized belonging and it saddens me to see this type of behaviour.

I dread to think of the consequences of being hit in the eye by any of the flying insects that like to head butt the front of our vehicles?

John

 

[Flash]

I can once remember when I was kid (about 6 years old) sitting in the back of the car on the motorway and I had decided to stick my head right out of the window by pressing on the electric window switch... My Dad went "mad" and it was more than enough to stop me from ever pulling a stunt like that ever again...

 

[Geordiemark1]

I stick to the mind my own business school of thought. I wouldn't let my kids do that, but they aren't my kids in the picture so its got sod all to do with me.

But if it was my kids I'd certainly tell the interferring busybody who had no rights to intervene to "go away" and mind thier own bloody business.

 

[MikeL]

I stick to the mind my own business school of thought. I wouldn't let my kids do that, but they aren't my kids in the picture so its got sod all to do with me.

But if it was my kids I'd certainly tell the interferring busybody who had no rights to intervene to "go away" and mind thier own bloody business.

I disagree. This is different - the sort of behaviour exhibited could cause an accident that impacts on others, not just the car occupants. Not a case of interfering, just plain common sense.

I once “interfered”, advised a woman not to let her toddler stand close to the filler cap while topping up at a petrol station, she didn’t know it was dangerous and thanked me.

Mike

 

[guydewdney]

Darwin

 

[wallingd]

I still can't get over the fact it's red.

 

[andy_k]

c'mon guys (and girls) we spend half our lives moaning about the '"nanny state" yet complain about kids not wearing seat belts - surely this is a little hypocritical.

I'm old enough to have been brought up in an age where climbing trees was fun, riding in cars with no seatbelts was the norm (I even remember when they became compulsory for drivers and front seat passengers). Eating food with no "sell by date" was fine. Kids got smacked for misbehaving, school teachers had some authority and where the EU or the government didn't interfere with every decision we made.

I'm still alive as are many other people who were brought up by parents with similar standards but i'm sure half the things we were allowed to do as kids would have the current generation of interfering busy bodies phoning the various athorities to have our parents locked up

Andy

 

[219]

I can once remember when I was kid (about 6 years old) sitting in the back of the car on the motorway and I had decided to stick my head right out of the window by pressing on the electric window switch... My Dad went "mad" and it was more than enough to stop me from ever pulling a stunt like that ever again...

When I was a kid cars just didn't have electric windows (even my dad's Mercedes) or seatbelts for that matter . Sticking heads out the window wasn't an issue then (early 1960s) either , so I do agree with the comments that some things previously considered OK are now looked upon totally differently .

Whilst I have always worn seatbelts where available - even before the law made their use compulsory (and can even say that I owe my life to one after a head-on collision with a drunk driver who came round a bend alongside a lorry leaving me nowhere to go) I do still believe very strongly in freedom of choice and for that reason I tend to fall into the MYOB camp .

The biggest difference these days probably is the level of traffic on our roads and that average speeds probably are higher , so I do accept that risks may be different .

I would imagine that the parents of the children pictured above normally do ensure that they are properly strapped in but on this occasion - a drive in the country on a nice summer's day - let their kids have a bit of fun for a little while .

It will be a sad world when fun is outlawed or just becomes non-pc .

 

[BearFace]

c'mon guys (and girls) we spend half our lives moaning about the '"nanny state" yet complain about kids not wearing seat belts - surely this is a little hypocritical

Hmm.......I disagree.

There's a difference between moaning about the government trying to pass legislation controlling how and when we wipe our own a*ses, but supporting the seatbelt law (especially in the context of children) is hardly hypocritical.

Seatbelts save lives - it's a fact. Many people (children included) are killed each year simply because they weren't wearing seatbelts. Any adult today who allows their kids to roam free in the car (let alone stick their heads out of the sunroof...) while it is moving is endangering the lives of those children and should be treated accordingly.

I'm 37 and when I was a kid, we didn't have seatbelts in the back at all, but what you've failed to mention is the fact that when people crashed fairly hard back then, kids, dogs and anything loose were thrown towards the direction of impact at high speed, which often resulted in serious injury or death. I think you'll find that the rear seatbelt law was introduced precisely for that reason...

I have two children of my own, and although I've been guilty of driving faster than I should when they've been on board, I could never bring myself to allow them to sit there without seatbelts (let alone to wander around or stand up...),so however short or slow the journey might be, they have to wear them.

I'm just curious as to how many of those who expressed indifference to the OP's pics and the practice of allowing children to travel unrestrained in moving cars actually have children of their own. Lets assume for a moment that the Merc in the pics was travelling at a sedate 30MPH and was either forced to brake dramatically for an errant pedestrian or worse, that it actually hit another car which had inadvertently pulled out.........what would happen to those kids?

Fun can be had in so many ways, but allowing your kids to do something which you know is likely to injure or kill them if something goes wrong..........well, it's inexcusable.

 

[COUPE FREAK]

this is what happens when you stray that far up north

the levels of sophistication fall to life threatening levels

cheeky ,,,

 

[david55amg]

this is what happens when you stray that far up north

the levels of sophistication fall to life threatening levels

but at least we have been able to defer a hose pipe ban this year.......again!
anyone fancy a water fight?

 

[andy_k]

Bearface, I really want to agree with you but I'm sorry I think that most of your post could have been taken from a government safety web site

but what you've failed to mention is the fact that when people crashed fairly hard back then, kids, dogs and anything loose were thrown towards the direction of impact at high speed, which often resulted in serious injury or death

Do you have any figures to back up just how many lives rear seat belts have saved and if they are such a life saver why is there new legislation for kids seats yet nothing for dogs?

Most modern car's seat belts will neither protect or save kids so unless they are sitting in booster seats with 4 point harnesses let's not kid ourselves we are protecting them

Before you ask, yes we have kids (8 and 10 years old) and do our best t keep them restrained but that wasn't the case when we were kids.

I'll also say that whilst the kids are in the car I genuinely abide by speed limits and most of the time drive a little more defensively than I do when they are not there.

at the end of the day I'm failing to see any issue here - nobody was harmed or injured in any way and they were doing nothing that several generations of kids, dogs and other pets have done without being prosecuted.


We can spend our whole lives debating what could have happened but at the end of the day nothing did - apart from a few interfering do gooder busybodies geting involved with something that has nothing to do with them.


Andy

 

[BonzoDog]

I am for safety and to say that this is not dangerous is less than sensible. On the other hand I can quite understand hassled parents letting their kids do a fun thing and transform a journey. If I had been the passing copper and if it would have been easy to stop them I would have just give them a friendly word. N.B. I am not a copper, friendly or otherwise.

 

[pammy]

Some very interesting views on this one, sonme which surprise me I have to say. Kids don't always know what's good for them or safe and so as parents/adults that's our job. The fact is any form of hard braking would have caused potentially fatal injury to one or both of those kids. The fact it didn't is a miracle.

There are low hanging branches on that road - imagine the damage they could do.

People do have the right of choice but not where it endangers others and that act endangered other road users too.

There are lots of things we were able to do in times gone by that we can't now - usually for good reason, and this is one of them. Seatbelts save lives!

 

[scotth_uk]

Sadly the only time some people will learn from this behaviour is when they crash and kill their own child. No doubt they'll be looking to blame the driver of the other vehicle, rather than their own shortcomings.

 

[219]

Just for the record , I have a daughter too - now grown up.

When she was little , I did ensure she was properly restrained if the vehicle had seat belts . Some of the cars I had were equipped with only front belts and in that case I used to feel she was safer restrained in the front than unrestrained in the back.

I have also had a number of classic cars with no belts at all (1961 Hillman Minx , 1963 Triumph Herald Convertible and my 1957 219) which I had no wish to modify by fitting aftermarket belts .

My daughter used to love going out on Classic runs , to car shows etc in these cars , but I suppose some of you would think it wrong that a family with a pre 1964 Classic Car can still - legally - go out without wearing belts (and many do) .

Don't get me wrong , I am all in favour of seatbelts , and I would not have let my daughter stand out of the sunroof on that particular road as it was too busy ( the low hanging branches argument does not hold up as they would be broken off by taller vehicles ; buses , lorries , large vans) , but I agree that something unexpected happening could have had disastrous consequences . Under different circumstances though , I just might .... a clear road with good visibility through a quiet Highland Glen where you can go for miles without seeing another car ... just maybe .

Another point , how many of you out there with children , and who quite rightly never let them travel unrestrained in a car , would let them ride on a bus to school or elsewhere that has no belts and possibly hard metal bars or rails scattered around its interior ? Where are the cries of outrage about buses and trains not having belts ? These vehicles have crashes too . Or protests that buses and trains are still allowed to carry so many passengers standing up when all the seats are full ? There has perhaps been no time to bring in such legislation after devoting time to prohibiting things like smoking on public transport or annoying others by using 'walkmans' on certain coaches.

 

[MikeL]

Double Standards

I don't remember anyone defending Michael Jackson for dangling his kid over a balcony - yet it is OK to have children hanging out of a sun roof

At least the building was stationary !


Mike

 

[Benzowner]

If that was a motorcycle and side car, there is no problem. Not sure what rules apply to three wheelers. I agree it could be dangerous, but walking accross the road can be equally as dangerous. I personally would leave it "look at that stupid.........." and move on. Its obviously causing a great concern to some, not to me and I think several others.

 

[BearFace]

Bearface, I really want to agree with you but I'm sorry I think that most of your post could have been taken from a government safety web site

Then I'd ask you to adopt a slightly more mature approach to your thinking. If you genuinely don't believe that children wearing seatbelts (correctly, of course - my youngest sits on a booster because she's eight, while my eldest is big enough to allow the restraint to work normally) are less likely to be seriously injured or killed - either as a result of being projected into something at great speed upon impact or by being ejected from the car (a very common occurance in accidents), then you're naive at best...

Do you have any figures to back up just how many lives rear seat belts have saved and if they are such a life saver why is there new legislation for kids seats yet nothing for dogs?

Facts and figures? Absolutely tons of them, Andy. Start by Googling for seatbelt statisitics and spend days reading through the information gathered by insurance companies and medical experts if you don't want to believe what our government says. It's shocking stuff, but most of us don't have to read it as fortunately we can see why correctly fitted belts will save our children...

At uni I studied engineering, of which a large part was physics and I can assure you then when a moving vehicle stops (or is stopped) dead in it's tracks, any unchecked items (including children and dogs...) within it continue to move ; which in the case of a car is likely to be at a speed of 20, 30, 40 mph or more. More worryingly, the weight plays a great part in the velocity of the projectiles which ultimately is significant to the force with which they make their impact, so you can (hopefully) imagine what a typical 30MPH collision would do to a child's head if it came into contact with mum's or dad's head in the front, or a tree, or another car, or whatever. That is an immutable fact, and the very reason why my kids and my dog are restrained when travelling in cars.

Most modern car's seat belts will neither protect or save kids so unless they are sitting in booster seats with 4 point harnesses let's not kid ourselves we are protecting them

You're having a laugh. Children need to be restrained according to their ages and sizes (ie with boosters or specifically-designed seats), but the suggestion that seatbelts won't protect those children who don't need four-point harnesses is a joke.

Before you ask, yes we have kids (8 and 10 years old) and do our best t keep them restrained but that wasn't the case when we were kids.

I already asked. I'm glad you do your best, although personally I think most parents go one further and just make damned sure their kids are belted in. As for when we were kids, well we didn't have seatbelts in the back, but then I don't recall the potential for road accidents being what it is today, either...

I'll also say that whilst the kids are in the car I genuinely abide by speed limits and most of the time drive a little more defensively than I do when they are not there.

That's commendable, but if someone pulled out on you as you drove defensively at 30MPH and your kids weren't strapped in, the consequences would be unpleasant at best. That's been my point from the outset and the one which you seem to have a problem with.

at the end of the day I'm failing to see any issue here - nobody was harmed or injured in any way and they were doing nothing that several generations of kids, dogs and other pets have done without being prosecuted.

Nobody was harmed in this case, but are you seriously so naive (I'm choosing my words carefully here...) as to think that accidents don't occur when kids are unrestrained, or hanging out of the car as in this case. If someone took your kids out and allowed them to hang out of the sunroof and an accident ensued, injuring (or worse) your children, would you still be failing to see the issue? It's not about what actually happened, it's about avoiding these deeply unpleasant and distressing occurences in the first place. Using a forum to discuss (and apparently educate) people about seatbelts is arguably a great way to remind ourselves how much danger we are capable of putting innocent children in. After all, most of them have no idea what might happen if the car they're in suddenly crashes...

Not a single toddler has ever drowned in a pond they didn't fall into. Think about it.