Parents who let their kids in cars with no restraint.

causal

But those figures tell us only that in absolute number less kids died than adults.

They don't take into account:
- the number of people in each age group
- the number of hours spent on the road for each age group
- the number of miles spent on the road for each age group
- the days of the week spent on the road for each age group
- the time of the day spent on the road for each age group etc.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.
btw can you include the 10-17 age groups, if you have them.

causal

dewsbury

Some good points about lies, damn, lies etc.

Here are the full stats. for 1999 (as per CSO).

0-5 years - 7 deaths
6-9 years - 8
10-14 years - 8 deaths
15-17 years - 15 deaths
18-20 years - 56
21-24 years - 45
25-34 years - 80
35-44 years - 43
45-54 years - 37

Perhaps none of those children in the zero to 9 ages bracket actually died because they were not strapped in. I.e. the child may not have been in a car at all - perhaps the child was a pedestrian. Or the child may have been strapped in but the crash was at high speed??. The CSO does not specify this level of detail.

So consider it perfectly possible that ZERO children were actually killed due to not being strapped in . Compare this to the older groups.

....perspective..perspective...perspective

MrPudding

dewsbury wrote:

So consider it perfectly possible that ZERO children were actually killed due to not being strapped in....

So what? Nobody has ever tried to murder me. Does murder really have to be illegal?

The figures you show are from 1999, even back then there was a huge push to have kids restrained.

I remember when I was young, I was rarely restrained, I did manage to survive but as someone pointed out there was a lot less traffic and probably a lot less accidents compared to now.

I think I remember you from an earlier discussion on the Motors board. I appreciate that you are pretty much anti-seatbelt full stop and do not see the point. Fair enough. If you don't want to wear a seatbelt I don't care, you are an adult and you have made, in your opinion, an informed decision.

Children are not in a position to make that choice themselves. Their parents or guardians need to make that choice for them, and they have to understand that they may be wrong.

I do not understand how anyone could think that having a child unrestrained in a car could not be dangerous. I would guess that the chance of an unrestrained child surviving any crash over 20MPH woul dbe aproximately 0.

MrP

MrPudding

dewsbury wrote:

So consider it perfectly possible that ZERO children were actually killed due to not being strapped in . Compare this to the older groups.

....perspective..perspective...perspective

Actually this reminds me of something else. Remember the All the trouble we were supposed to have when the year changed from 1999 to 2000. There was going to be chaos. Planes falling from the SKY, knashing of teeth and all that. Companies spent millions sorting stuff out. 2000 came and....... nothing. Nada, no trouble at all. Immediately people shouting about how it was all bullsh1t and a waste of money. They never actually considered that the reason there was no trouble was because of all the money spent and the work carried out.

Did you ever consider that there are so few deaths of children in car crashes *because* such a big deal is made out of it?

MrP

RainyDay

dewsbury wrote:

Some good points about lies, damn, lies etc.

Here are the full stats. for 1999 (as per CSO).

0-5 years - 7 deaths
6-9 years - 8
10-14 years - 8 deaths
15-17 years - 15 deaths
18-20 years - 56
21-24 years - 45
25-34 years - 80
35-44 years - 43
45-54 years - 37

Perhaps none of those children in the zero to 9 ages bracket actually died because they were not strapped in. I.e. the child may not have been in a car at all - perhaps the child was a pedestrian. Or the child may have been strapped in but the crash was at high speed??. The CSO does not specify this level of detail.

So consider it perfectly possible that ZERO children were actually killed due to not being strapped in . Compare this to the older groups.

....perspective..perspective...perspective

So is 7 child deaths a year acceptable to you? or 10? or 50? Why did you omit the 'injured' statistics from your comments? Are the 274 children under 5 injured in road accidents in 2000 of any concern to you? Or the 247 children from 6-9 injured in 2000? Have you given any serious thought to the devastating impact that the death of a child will have on a family? This will almost certainly ruin the lives of both parents, or at very least, ruin the couple of years immediately following the accident and cast a gloomy, dark shadow over the rest of their lives.

Given that all it takes to save lives and reduce injury is to secure the child in an appropriately sized car seat or seat belt, the call for perspective sounds fairly hollow to me.

Kernel32

I would be interested to know how many in the 15+ range were wearing seatbelts. Its not just about protecting children, its about building good habits for later on in life. Children learn just about everything from their parents and care givers. If you make a point of strapping them in and explaining why being belted up is important then it seems more likely to me they will wear seatbelts when they start to drive. The end result is that all the numbers come down.

causal

dewsbury wrote:

Some good points about lies, damn, lies etc.
<snip>
So consider it perfectly possible that ZERO children were actually killed due to not being strapped in . Compare this to the older groups.

....perspective..perspective...perspective

By your own logic, we could equally say:
So consider it perfectly possible that ALL 38 children were actually killed due to not being strapped in . Compare this to the older groups where it is perfectly possible that ZERO adults were actually killed due to not being strapped in .
- while all that is possible, it's improbable. And the point is - Don't play percentages with childrens safety.

causal

gubby

God ye are all wonderful.. big swing. I hope ye all realize there is more to parenting than keeping kids safe in a car. and to the person who tells the kids that the car wont start till they are tied in... I would love to know what you will do when they start telling you lies!!!
I hate lies.
I just tell my granddaughter that I wont start the care till she is safe!!

causal

*spots chip on gubbys shoulder*

causal

Shabadu

gubby wrote:

God ye are all wonderful.. big swing. I hope ye all realize there is more to parenting than keeping kids safe in a car. and to the person who tells the kids that the car wont start till they are tied in... I would love to know what you will do when they start telling you lies!!!
I hate lies.
I just tell my granddaughter that I wont start the care till she is safe!!

So you didn't have Santa for your kids then?

MrPudding

gubby wrote:

God ye are all wonderful.. big swing. I hope ye all realize there is more to parenting than keeping kids safe in a car.

OK, let me see if I get your point. You are saying there is more to parenting than keeping kids safe in a car. As a parent I would have to agree with you there. There is a lot more to it. That is kind of where I lose your point. Are you saying that because there is more to parenting than keeping kids safe in cars that we should ignore keeping them safe in cars and work on the other stuff?

What do you suggest? Concentrate on the other stuff, forget about restraining them in the car and just squeeze out another one if the one you have ends up flying through the windscreen?

We can't keep our kids safe all the time. At lot of the dangers they will face are beyond out control. Having them properly restrained in a car is one that we can control so why not control it?

MrP

Ozzie

Glad my post caused such a discussion. very shocked at some peoples excuses for letting kids sit unrestrained. doesnt fool me, only excuse is bad parenting, wise up. once picked up bits of a childs brain from the scene of an accident. i didnt cry till later, anger was my immediate reaction.

Please dont play semantics on this issue

Be safe, keep your kids safer.

Yavvy

I see no chip .. I see perfect logic... There is a hell of a lot more to parenting but saftey must be a major concern.

I have a question.. about child saftey in a car. you know those attachment seat belts they have for mothers laps on planes.. have they ever been accepted in cars. what about a baby harnessess they must be as safe as a child seat when the parent is secure ?

im just thinking are there options for younger children 1-10 months say , when i had a car I really didnt like the britax graco baby seat we had.. eventually got rid of the car but im getting another car and another Baby !! so just thinking about options .

causal

Alany wrote:

what about a baby harnessess they must be as safe as a child seat when the parent is secure ?

What do you mean by baby harness? The harness that a parent straps on to hold a child (like a rucksack)? If so, it's like asking if a wet paper bag is suitable for base jumping !

Best child seat is ISOFIX
Available for Newborns " Birth to 13kg (Birth to approximately 9 to 12 months)"
and 8 months to 4 years .

They're about €300, but imho well worth it

causal

Hobbes

Shabadu wrote:

Please tell me you're joking- I seriously feel like crying after reading this.

I can't believe someone would actually do that.

Kernel32

Alany wrote:

I see no chip .. I see perfect logic... There is a hell of a lot more to parenting but saftey must be a major concern.

I have a question.. about child saftey in a car. you know those attachment seat belts they have for mothers laps on planes.. have they ever been accepted in cars. what about a baby harnessess they must be as safe as a child seat when the parent is secure ?

im just thinking are there options for younger children 1-10 months say , when i had a car I really didnt like the britax graco baby seat we had.. eventually got rid of the car but im getting another car and another Baby !! so just thinking about options .

There is a lot more to parenting than simple safety in the car but does ensuring your child is secured really mean that other areas of parenting will suffer? I can't really think of any reason why it would. I would be interested in hearing of an example of how other areas of parenting would suffer due to ensuring car safety.

The attachment lap belt in an airplane is not a safe alternative. It was introduced many years ago by airlines to entice people to travel with young children and weren't ready to pay for a seat. We did that with our son several times before he was two, I regret it now. Travelling also became easier once I bit the bullet and got him his own seat and brought the car seat on board.

For the first three months when our son was born he screamed his head off in the car seat. It was very stressful. We were 45minutes from anywhere so every journey was a long journey. We couldn't understand it as we thought babies love the car. Eventually it stopped and he did a complete U-turn and would fall asleep within minutes of getting in the car seat. He is 2 and a half now and climbs into the backseat and pops himself in the car seat waiting to be buckled in. A short while back my wife was in a hurry picking him up from pre-school and forgot to buckle him up. Just as she was pulling away he let her know he wasn't strapped in. I thought it was great he did that. Just the routine of it makes him feel comfortable in the car. I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't use a car seat.

causal

Just came across this document on the National Safety Council website, which people who carry kids in cars might find informative:

Child Safety in Cars

It can be downloaded in .pdf format, and you can order a hardcopy by post.

arrive alive
causal

Cabaal

causal wrote:

Just came across this document on the National Safety Council website, which people who carry kids in cars might find informative:

Child Safety in Cars

It can be downloaded in .pdf format, and you can order a hardcopy by post.

Converted to html here
http://pdf2html.pootwerdie.com/pdf2html.php?url=http://www.nsc.ie/RoadSafety/Publications/File1,913,en.pdf&ID=98760
and Google html cached version
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:http://www.nsc.ie/RoadSafety/Publications/File1,913,en.pdf

IANOC

Ozzie wrote:

some kids just are difficult and i agree they should be worn but some times if they fightin and you two minutes from home your shoutin they cryin some would tend to let it go.

I dont want to offend anyone but some kids are difficult and want to put their hands in the fire do we let that go? its time we recognised what we are "THE PARENTS"!
i am realistic enough to realise that some kids will try it on but you know as well as i do that some are habitual reoffenders. i find a firm " put it on or we will turn back" works. i am willing to do that regardless of where we are on our journey. im not perfect just not willing to risk their lives never mind a fine.

good one about the car not working without belts on!

sums it up for me
top man

Sleipnir

My Gf used to work in Mama's and Papa's (posh baby store for those who don't know)
The amount of people who used to buy car seats which were dangerously inappropriate for the child was unbelievable.
GF used to say "this seat is not for a baby of that age"
and the customer would say
"but it goes with the interior of my car so I'll take it"

One woman was off to France with her 3 month old baby so she got rid of the car seat and bought a booster seat (which is for a kid of around 11) because
"it will leave more space for luggage"
Using a booster seat for a baby which can't even sit up on their own? Utter stupidity.

I'm also still disgusted that the Buy & Sell still permit ads selling 2nd hand car seats.

IANOC

Sleipnir wrote:

I'm also still disgusted that the Buy & Sell still permit ads selling 2nd hand car seats.

ditto :mad:

Guy:Incognito

Alany wrote:

im just thinking are there options for younger children 1-10 months say , when i had a car I really didnt like the britax graco baby seat we had.. eventually got rid of the car but im getting another car and another Baby !! so just thinking about options .

Seatbelts on planes, other than to prevent you getting sucked out if a hole is ripped in the fuselage, are pretty much a placebo. If the plane plummets into the ground at a couple of hundred miles an hour, no amount of seatbelts will save you. In a car however they are very effective. Those lap belts, like the ones that used to be in the middle rear of cars are pretty crap. There was a program on a few years back about people getting snapped in half and paralised form the thrust forward and just having a belt accross their laps. So a temporary lap belt in a car would probably do more damage.

Bottom line, EVERYONE should have and use a car seat. From my own experience, i you use it from the start and stick with it, the child gets used to it and it doesnt become an issue.

Sleipnir wrote:

I'm also still disgusted that the Buy & Sell still permit ads selling 2nd hand car seats.

I'm fairly sure they dont give a crap whats sold through their magazine as long as it generates business.

RainyDay

Stekelly wrote:

Seatbelts on planes, other than to prevent you getting sucked out if a hole is ripped in the fuselage, are pretty much a placebo. If the plane plummets into the ground at a couple of hundred miles an hour, no amount of seatbelts will save you.

Off-topic, but isn't that a bit harsh - The lap-belts on planes will also help you if fastened when the plane hits turbulence or an air-pocket and drops vertically by a couple of hundred feet. With no seat belt, your head will hit the overhead bins. The lap belt if fastened will keep you in your seat.

dahamsta

My ex lets my 9yo and his 6yo sister sit in the front of the car. If I had money I'd sue the bitch. If I didn't think it'd affect my visitation rights, I'd give her a slap, because there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed, and putting your children at risk is one of them. Children are just plain fashion accessories to some people, it's disgusting.

"Look at my kid, he matches my couch." --Denis Leary

Letting children look out the sunroof while moving is one that drives me utterly insane. If I could stop these people, I'd say to them: "You do know that if someone crashed into you, your child would be decapitated, right?"

I'll personally do everything in my power to get these people first against the wall come the revolution.

adam

causal

dahamsta wrote:

Letting children look out the sunroof while moving is one that drives me utterly insane. If I could stop these people, I'd say to them: "You do know that if someone crashed into you, your child would be decapitated, right?"

A few years ago I was stopped at a set of traffic lights, and coming from my left joining the road I was on was Daddy Cool in his open top car with his 3 kids. 2 of them were kneeling on the back seat looking out the back at the cars behind and the third kid was doing similar on the passenger seat. Daddy cool of course was rapt in conversation on his mobile phone. I couldn't believe my eyes, it's fair to say I was fuming :mad:

Anyway, my lights turned green and I proceeded - hoping to catch up but not rushing because I was fuming. Sure enough thanks to crappy city traffic the next lights were red and he was at the front of the queue. I was on the bike so I filtered outside the traffic and stopped right beside him.

I flipped up my visor and leaned over towards him. His expression quickly turned from 'hi nice bike' to 'oh sh1t what does this guy want'. It was one of those moments when your anger makes you say the weirdest things I said "You know you're going to lose them" while pointing at the kids one by one. Now he looked frightened (actually so did the kids), and dropped his phone in his lap and in a panicky fashion told the kids to sit down and put on their belts while saying sorry to me.

I don't know whether he thought I was a psycho about to kill his kids, or a Garda or what - but it had the desired effect. Hopefully he, and his kids, learned a lesson for the future.

causal

Cabaal

causal wrote:

I flipped up my visor and leaned over towards him. His expression quickly turned from 'hi nice bike' to 'oh sh1t what does this guy want'. It was one of those moments when your anger makes you say the weirdest things I said "You know you're going to lose them" while pointing at the kids one by one. Now he looked frightened (actually so did the kids), and dropped his phone in his lap and in a panicky fashion told the kids to sit down and put on their belts while saying sorry to me.

I don't know whether he thought I was a psycho about to kill his kids, or a Garda or what - but it had the desired effect. Hopefully he, and his kids, learned a lesson for the future.

causal

If thats all you said he properly thought you were a psycho
Still atleast he sorted them out

RainyDay

dahamsta wrote:

My ex lets my 9yo and his 6yo sister sit in the front of the car. If I had money I'd sue the bitch. If I didn't think it'd affect my visitation rights, I'd give her a slap, because there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed, and putting your children at risk is one of them.

That's terrible - Would it be an option to report her to the Gardai?

dahamsta

RainyDay wrote:

That's terrible - Would it be an option to report her to the Gardai?

I would be the prime suspect if that happened. I have enough trouble with access as it is.

KdjaCL

dahamsta wrote:

I would be the prime suspect if that happened. I have enough trouble with access as it is.

PM me name address and reg number


kdjac

McGinty

There are some things in life that are non-negotiable, and being belted up are one of them, the minute I get in a car I put my belt on, my mother installed this into me many years ago and its stayed with me ever since, I always ensure my son is belted up, and now like me, it is pure habit to put his belt on. When it comes to safety, you cannot let children win no matter how much they whinge, they only do it to get their own way. There is no option to this, even if the journey is five minutes long, it only takes seconds.