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

[BonzoDog]

You are either safety conscious or you are not and kids are not a special case. As I said in an earlier post, I can possibly understand why the parents did it but i don't condone it.
If the accident rate in the UK is 1 then it is 2.5 in this country (Luxembourg), France and Belgium. Besides the standard of driving being low, there is widescale flouting of the seat belt laws and children are rarely belted into the back. It partly explains the higher death rate. In a large number of accidents where death occurs, the occupants were not wearing seat belts. Other factors include an excess of alcohol and an excess of speed.
The point is seat belts and other safety factors save lives. It is also a matter of choice whether or not you follow the law and a matter of common sense if you take your life seriously. I suspect most people here beleive in freedom but I do not see this as an issue of freedom. Freedom implies responsibility. Freedom is not a ridiculous macho act to risk your own life, other lives, cause problems for other people, at an enormous economic cost and an emotional cost that can never be paid.
So, do not confuse this with freedom.

 

[glojo]

Perhaps everyone involved in this virtual lynch mob will apply the standards mentioned here to themselves and report each and every time they stray over the speed limit to the authorities - after all, it is illegal and the results could be catastrophic.

Hi Andy,
At the risk of applying your own standards here...... I do not think anyone is even pretending to be whiter than white. You are simply assuming that?

I personally do not believe that exceeding certain speed limits is not compareable to this incident, but........ Would I exceed the speed limit outside a school during the school day NO, definitely NO and no again. Would I sometimes park on double yellow lines? Maybe. Would I park on the zig zag line markings that are there to protect the public NO and NO again. There are some laws that I will not break, others I will contravene as and when.

What I believe the majority of us are simply saying is there are some things in life that we find unacceptable, or perhaps wrong? Endangering the lives of children must surely be wrong??

What I find strange is how some people are defending this action. Surely that says more about those individuals, than it does about those of us that think it wrong.

Therefore I think its best in such circumstances to mind your own business and leave the enforcement of law to those we pay to do it.

Again I disagree, and find this remark to be quite sad. If you were to see someone 'keying' your car, would you just sit back and say that? Or is that 'circumstance' different. Where do you draw the line with this remark? If you witnessed a woman being raped, would you still sit back in your arm chair criticising anyone that interefered? Or do you object to this, but it is acceptable to endanger the life of a child? Making flippant remarks is easy, but I would like to think you did not really mean them?

I would respect Pammy if she reported the driver, but fully understand if she never. I for one am certainly not a person that is forever reporting people to the Police, but there are certain standards which I set and there is a line that I stand by.

As a child I sometimes enjoyed travelling in the bodywork of my fathers tipper lorry, and thought it great fun, there are lots of things we have all done in our past, but times change, we become adults, parents and hopefully we learn?

John

 

[Benzowner]

Again I disagree, and find this remark to be quite sad. If you were to see someone 'keying' your car, would you just sit back and say that?
John

If you were to see someone keying someone elses car what would you do, surely is nearer the point.
The actions shown in this thread are actions taken by others that some find unacceptable. Should it be reported to the authorities, imo no. If you see someone speeding, say 90 or 100mph on the motorway with three kids in the back, would you report them? If, as it is now the holiday season, you see a caravan being towed at 70mph with bikes on the top of the car and kids inside the car, would you report that? At some time or another, we do things that, retrospectively, we should not have done, that may have had dire consequences. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. When you let your kids go out to play, and are out of sight, we do not know what they get up to or what dangers they face. I agree that we should look after them, but reporting incidents as shown here, again IMO no.

 

[Ashley]

I personally push my kids to limits all the time to drum out fear, ball gets stuck up a tree guess what go up and get it. Anyone who may know about P-Company will know more and more are failing because of fears drummed into them since kids. I went to Blackpool last week with the kids and one cried out off going on the big one so I told her that if she did not no more money for the arcades, she went on it and loved it in the end. Somethings in life are risky but they are also fun at the same time. I think a lot of adults wrap their kids up to much in cotton wool we have to let them develop fear free. BTW sunroof I would not allow that simply because to many factors would be outside my control and wife would kill me.

 

[Rose Chap]

There are lots of individual points I could respond to on this, but that would ultimately get personal, and that's something I'd hope to avoid, therefore I'll pick up on a few to illustrate my perspective here.

When I looked at the pictures that Pammy posted and thought "look at those silly parents", not once did it cross my mind to report them as its none of my concern - I didn't see this as a flagrant endangering of thier lives, any more than I see doing 130 mph down a quiet motorway as inherently dangerous.

It's easy on internet forums like this to take arguments to extremes in order to make a point. To counter the point about would I report a woman being raped, yes I would. Would I report a women being attacked? Yes. Would I report a woman and a dangerous looking man having a full blown screaming argument? No. Would I report a man who I don't like the look of lingering around? No.

Likewise, would I report the driver of a car who's children hanging from the sunroof were bleeding from their eyes following numerous sparrow collisions at 90 mph? Yes. Would I report the same driver for relatively low speed moment of irresponsibility on a sunny day? No, This doesn't mean I approve, I just don't see it as my business and whilst I may not do such a thing with my (hypthetical) children I don't believe I'm qualified to tell other people what to do with theirs.

People clearly draw different lines at what they think is acceptable and what isnt.

I don't expect to change the mind of those who disagree with me on this, but I feel obligated to defend my point of view.

Thanks,

Andy

 

[glojo]

I don't expect to change the mind of those who disagree with me on this, but I feel obligated to defend my point of view.

Totally agree with ALL your points in this post.

The joy of this forum is we hopefully do not get 'bitchy' and reasoned debate will sometimes prevail.

Regards,
John

 

[SilverSaloon]

it comes down to common sense. everyone breaks the rules of the road, some more often than others, myself included. whether its speeding, parking illegally etc. i believe that if u speed around a school it is unacceptable but 80 on the motorway is ok. same as parking on yellow lines at the side of a road for 5 mins is ok, but aslong as u dont block an entrance way etc that could be used for ambulance etc etc - its all down to common sence, which by the looks of things, the merc driver in the pictures posted by Pammy, lacks a great deal of.

its complete stupidity to allow kids to not wear seat belts, sit on laps, not to have belts on etc, or anyone else in the car for that matter.

i think driving along blackpool illuminations at 5 mph with your head out the sunroof is ok as the road is closed to faster traffic and all cars are doing 5mph so there isnt going to be any accident. worse case scenario is a touch of the bumper, which wouldnt cause any harm to the occupants. But not at any faster speeds than that... the incident pammy have photo'd should be reported to the police. however i doubt they will do anything.

its not only the child's life that is lost if another driver caused an accident. the poor driver who would have caused just a relatively minor crash for whatever reason now has the life of 2 kids on his conciounce instead of thinking "oh sh1t i crashed into a merc"

no doubt the parent(s) would blame everyone but themselves.

i often see kids whisked into cars on their mum's lap and driven off, and i cant stand it. i wouldnt even consider not strapping my 19 month old into his car seat if i am going 10 miles or 100 metres down the road. i think its crazy that some other parent's dont love their kids enough to keep them safe as much as they can. I also always check that the seat is fastened in regually. Not having him strapped in at all would just never cross my mind.

ok, i think thats my 2p worth done

driver of R898 LFV - if you are on this forum you are an absolute disgrace, buck your ideas up you complete ar$ehole.

 

[del320]

I'm beginning to lose the point of this thread...

Britain has one of the lowest death rates on the roads in the Western world - around 3k, of whom approx. half were car occupants.

Compare that with 50 years ago when the death rate was over three times higher despite there being only a quarter of the vehicles on the road. Very few of these could even exceed todays' national speed limit.

Yes - I ate worms.
Yes - I played with knives as a boy (see - scars!)
Yes - I hung out of the sunroof.
Yes - I drove about in the old man's car when I was 14.
Yes - I drove when I was pissed.

I might even have done all five at the same time...

Great days!

Hands up, all those who want their return!

 

[SilverSaloon]

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.

OK, so the kids are hassiling you to open the roof so they can look out, or they are winging on, or whatever - there are much better ways to control kids than let them run riot. I remember on long journeys as a kid we used to play "eye spy" and other such games. If you would rather not, get them a PSP or a DVD player to keep them occupied... if they are not happy to sit in their seats belted in then its time to turn round and drive back the way you came; ie if u are going to the beach one day and they wont behave on the way there to this extreem, turn the car round and the day will be spent at home. They would sure be well behaved next time u go anywhere. Give them a warning and promise what u will do, if it continues then do it - no backing down. next time it will be fine.

if i was a copper i would throw as much as i could at them (legal wise, not stones - although that could also be a good way to teach them how to look after their kids properly).

 

[glojo]

I'm beginning to lose the point of this thread...

Britain has one of the lowest death rates on the roads in the Western world - around 3k, of whom approx. half were car occupants.

Hi Del,
You clearly are missing the point. Could these figures possibly be simply because we are more aware of the very relevant safety issues that can save lives, or should we go back to no seat belts, no air bags and all the other countless aids htat have helped reduce the fatalities.

We read about fatal road traffic incidents and do not give them a second thought. When it directly effects us though that is a completely different kettle of fish.

If only I had not travelled so fast!

If only I had insisted they wore a seat belt!

I never want to be in that position and IF it means being Mr Nasty for insisting that any one that travels in my vehicle wears a seat belt, then so be it.

What is wrong in wanting to make travelling safer?

John

 

[andy_k]

I love the way these threads develop, from this we learn that although several members would happily report some drivers for offences they see them committing they themselves are happy to disregard the law where it suits them or where they think it doesn't need to apply to them.

Here's an example and remember this whole thread has been about "What ifs"

it's ok to park on double yellow lines for a few minutes if you are in a hurry, well, what if a child stepped out from behind your car and was hit by an oncoming vehicle - would you feel responsible? will you do it again? and will you report yourself if you do it?

it's OK to "stretch" speed limits but not outside schools so next time you are exceeding the legal limit along a country road because you think the speed limit doesn't apply to you. What if something pulls out of a farm gate or drive? Would you feel responsible?

Perhaps it would be better if every time you broke the law no matter how tiny the infringement you reported yourself to the local Police or better still, post the details of your offences on here and everyone else can report them for you .

We all appreciate the safety stuff, it goes without saying but just once in a while can't we just let other people get on with doing things their way?

Just out of interest Pammy - are you sure that you were driving at a safe stopping distance considering the speed of the vehicles mentioned earlier in the thread - perhaps someone should consider reporting that ?

OK, this was a light hearted post before everyone starts defending themselves

Andy

 

[Sp!ke]

One thing I did notice is that both photos were clearly taken from the drivers seat whilst the car was in motion...

An act that had the potential of putting those children in further danger.

Just playing devils advocate

 

[andy_k]

.... And before anyone jumps to conculsions - I was in the passenger seat taking the pic's

nooooooooo BAAAAAAAD Sp!ke - Pammy definitely said she was a passenger

Andy

 

[BearFace]

you know I'd really believe all of this righteous indigntation at one person's behaviour if ALL of the people concerned were whiter than white and had never done anything that endangered anybody else's life.

It seems to me that in the absence of a substantial argument to counter what is essentially a group of people who think that childrens' lives come before anything else, you're resorting to random sniping and previously-published nostalgia to keep your name in the thread. I'm not speaking for anyone else here, but I'm totally unimpressed.

The wearing of seatbelts (or appropriate restraining devices) by children is far safer than if they travel unrestrained - FACT. You even challenged me on that point a couple of days back (as clearly the physics side of the argument isn't obvious enough for you), and yet when I suggested that you look up the several thousand, widely available sources of data which back this up, you then switched tack and began criticising anyone who chooses not to ignore parents who clearly disregard their kids' safety.

The pics in the original thread show some children who by some blessing, were hopefully not decapitated by a low branch (or another random, low-hanging object)...or that the car didn't crash, or have to make an emergency stop while they all travelled at speeds probably no less than 30MPH. And yet for some reason, you seem to think that the widely-expressed disgust is unjustified, to the extent that you're now introducing dubious and highly irrelevant scenarios into the mix, despite that the fact that your previous arguments were unsustainable.

Nobody's whiter than white Andy, but then there's a world of difference between making silly parental errors of judgement and putting your children at such levels of risk that only something serious would result from even the slightest of accidents. And ironically, the parents would probably walk away unscathed to wonder why such tragedy had befallen them...

 

[andy_k]

. You even challenged me on that point a couple of days back

no I didn't - I asked a perfectly reasonable question which you chose to misinterpret but hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

what I actuially said was

. 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?

there is no legislation regarding dogs being restrained or any other potentially lethal heavy object carried in the rear of cars only advice - why do you think that is?

Andy

 

[Sp!ke]

nooooooooo BAAAAAAAD Sp!ke - Pammy definitely said she was a passenger

Andy

She didnt unless either the car was a left hooker or straddling the white line...

 

[glojo]

there is no legislation regarding dogs being restrained or any other potentially lethal heavy object carried in the rear of cars only advice - why do you think that is?

I think your grasping at straws. Of course there are laws about heavy objects or indeed dogs. However just like your other post about parking on double yellow lines. It is a question of degree.

Our dog travels in the rear of our estate car. No bars, no restraints and he simply gets in and lays down. He might stand up to turn around, or shift his position, but in general he is ALWAYS laying down. Now if we had a dog that jumps over seats, and jumps from one window to the next barking at whatever it can see there is an offence of insecure 'load', or driving without due care and attention if the dog is on the drivers lap and obstructing the view or stopping the driver from having full control of the motor vehicle. I would like to think no one would EVER be reported for simply carrying an unrestrained, but passive dog???

Boxes piled high and not secured, would also be a dangerous or insecure load. Provided we are careful and do not have boxes jammed from floor to roof then surely we are being sensible?

Talking about 'what if' will perhaps be misinterpreted?? I am guilty of this, but with Pammy's picture, there is no 'what if'. The adults in charge of that motor vehicle are out of order. I have never said I would report them, (nor that I would not ) I have however stated I would understand why someone would, and good luck to them.

I gaurantee that if you or I parked on the highway and a child stepped out in front of our parked vehicle and got run over, we would forever be saying "If only I had not parked there" I would say this even if there was NOT any yellow line markings, so yes I do disagree with your 'what if' suggestion.

We ought to vote on:

Would you allow children to travel standing up in a motor vehicle, unrestrained looking out of a sun roof at speeds of up to 50mph?

That is all we are discussing and the various other issues are going away from the nitty gritty.

John

 

[andy_k]

I wasn't grasping at straws John but it's a ludicrous situation where it's perfectly legal (and in the eyes of the law perfectly safe) to carry an unrestrained dog in the rear seats if the car is a saloon there is no area for dogs (as an aside we always have our dog guard up) - now considering this dog could be something the size of a St Bernard you can just imagine if the "basic physics" which most of understand (univerity degree in engineering or not ) things could get pretty messy if there was an accident.

Same for parcels and heavy objects, it's not stuffed packed to the ceiling that could be the problem, it's the odd heavy object that you place on the back seat or in the rear of an estate - in a big accident these things are potentially lethal yet there is no real legislation saying we must secure anything that we carry in the back of a car.

If we voted on whether or not we'd let our kids travel like that and looking out of the sunroof then I am willing to bet that the answer would be 100% "NO" but I think there is more of an issue here that has developed and maybe we should have a poll on

either

"If you knew someone had broken the law, no matter how trivial the offence and whether or not it had any adverse effect on you would you report them?"

"If you did something that in your mind was perfectly justified but in the eyes of the law illegal and your friend/neighbour/passing busy body reported you would you feel as though their action was justified?"

Andy

 

[BearFace]

no I didn't - I asked a perfectly reasonable question which you chose to misinterpret but hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

I see. Your "perfectly reasonable question" was:

"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?"

Your question wasn't even remotely misinterpreted; by the very nature of the question you asked, you were challenging (or trying to...), the notion that rear seatbelts saved lives. In response, I discreetly questioned the intelligence of anyone who couldn't see how rear seatbelts saved lives, but in the interests of fairness I suggested that you seek out the vast quantities of evidence available on the internet. None of which demonstrates that I misinterpreted your question...

there is no legislation regarding dogs being restrained or any other potentially lethal heavy object carried in the rear of cars only advice - why do you think that is?

I'd be guessing if I made any attempt to speculate as to what motivates legislation in general, but in the case of dogs vs kids, or loads vs. kids, I'd assume that "they" consider the lives of kids to be of the greatest importance. That said, I'm pretty sure that anyone who travels with dogs (I have a 120lb German Shepherd), or unchecked heavy loads......... knows that if an accident ensues, the dog/load is going to continue moving in the direction of the impact when the car stops; I mean, it's hardly rocket science, is it Andy..?

You might want to consider cutting out the rhetoric. This is a civilised exchange of views in which considered arguments are the key to making your point. As far as I'm concerned, you're not making a point at all.

 

[glojo]

I wasn't grasping at straws John but it's a ludicrous situation where it's perfectly legal (and in the eyes of the law perfectly safe) to carry an unrestrained dog in the rear seats if the car is a saloon there is no area for dogs (as an aside we always have our dog guard up) - now considering this dog could be something the size of a St Bernard you can just imagine if the "basic physics" which most of understand (univerity degree in engineering or not ) things could get pretty messy if there was an accident.

Hi Andy,
Once again I feel it is down to common sense, and unfortunately I might be upsetting a few folks here.

We have an estate car solely because we own a largish dog. In my opinion the estate car offers the maximum protection for both the animal, and the passengers. I have heard about dog rfestraints, but have never seen one so perhaps they are a good idea?

Putting heavy objects on a parcel shelf. Again surely it is common sense, not to do it?

How many of us have seen saloon cars with long planks\carpets\ladders etc sticking out of opened windows\doors etc? There is no end to the ways car owners can be irresponsible, and that to me is what we are discussing, not who is going to tittle tattle on whoever, for whatever.

Has anyone on this thread actually said they would definitely report the car driver? I would not criticise them, I am merely curious because some folks appear to want to drag it in that direction? Even you are now suggesting that it is wrong to allow these children to do what they are doing?

If we voted on whether or not we'd let our kids travel like that and looking out of the sunroof then I am willing to bet that the answer would be 100% "NO"

John