Such a thoughtful and caring parent...

[Cletus Van Damme]

How the heck did we ever make it through our childhood, no seatbelts, child seats, air bags, drink driving limits for dad or speed limits.

We were probably never involved in a serious accident back then. I would guess that plenty of kids back then did get killed or injured that may of been avoided if proper child seats were available. Plus there is a way higher volume of traffic on the roads now and the cars are much faster.

I am a bit indifferent to what the guy in this thread is doing, not something that I would do mainly because it is such a public place. I am guilty of putting my 3 year old on my knee and letting her pretend to drive the car when we are a few hundred yards from the house, I also drive around the Rugby club car park that is behind our house like that. My daughter loves it, but if plod turns up or somebody sinks me I will probably end up deeply regretting it.

 

[swee'pea99]

I read somewhere recently that more than half of of kids are now not allowed to climb trees. Great.

 

[Night Train]

So one person knew someone who knew someone...

I know far more people who have been injured on bikes than in cars, I know someone who is a quadriplegic after hitting a tree root wrongly, I know three who have died on motorbikes, I know two who have been hospitalised through alcohol, the only time I've been in hospital was after paintballing, and I know two others hospitalised through that.

My son remembers each time he's been on the back of my motorbike, but he would have forgotten this mornings run in the car by the time he walked through the gates. Riding in the back of a Land Rover with my (then 11 year old) son driving has a huge risk, but I'll take that any day and so will he and screw the H&S yellowcoats.

Which is the point. All this stuff is risky (especially paint-balling, I met Mrs Norm doing that!) but it's all the good bits in life. It's all, as swee'pea says, the stuff that we remember. We could pass another Friday night in front of the TV or out on our bikes. However much we might not like it, cycling has a higher risk but we still do it.

I don't get your response.

It sounds like you are saying injuries only happen to people you know, doing things you do but they don't happen when they happen to other people and people they know.

So I guess that as my brother died in a car crash, but presumably yours didn't, then my brother didn't actually die and the other driver didn't actually drive badly running my brother off the road then.

I also don't think you understand the concept of risk.

I don't think it is worth following up as you really don't seem to consider other people very well. And that is really something when an Aspie tells you that.

 

[Fnaar]

I read somewhere recently that more than half of of kids are now not allowed to climb trees. Great.

If it takes one kid one morning to climb a tree, how long does it take half a kid to climb half a tree?

 

[swee'pea99]

I don't get your response.

It sounds like you are saying injuries only happen to people you know, doing things you do but they don't happen when they happen to other people and people they know.

So I guess that as my brother died in a car crash, but presumably yours didn't, then my brother didn't actually die and the other driver didn't actually drive badly running my brother off the road then.

I also don't think you understand the concept of risk.

I don't think it is worth following up as you really don't seem to consider other people very well. And that is really something when an Aspie tells you that.

No, I think what Norm's saying is yes, there's a risk, but we can't eliminate all risk from life, which is an inherently risky business, and that attempts to do so all too often squeeze out all its flavour, and leave it safe but drab and boring. To conclude that he 'doesn't consider other people very well' strikes me as gratuitously insulting. Norm's position may not be one you share, but it's a perfectly valid one. And it doesn't indicate in any way that he holds others' interests in any lower regard than you do.

 

[Glow worm]

This happened in Kwazulu Natal, South Africa:

Was that in a white neighbourhood?
IGMC

 

[Night Train]

No, I think what Norm's saying is yes, there's a risk, but we can't eliminate all risk from life, which is an inherently risky business, and that attempts to do so all too often squeeze out all its flavour, and leave it safe but drab and boring. To conclude that he 'doesn't consider other people very well' strikes me as gratuitously insulting. Norm's position may not be one you share, but it's a perfectly valid one. And it doesn't indicate in any way that he holds others' interests in any lower regard than you do.

No, not an insult to him personally, that is why I say I don't get his response.

I agree that we have become more risk averse and spend too much time preventing people, of all ages, learning about and understanding risk and making a fair judgment on which risks are worth taking and which are not.*

However, his response was to disrespect one persons anecdotal evidence as not being of value and then immediately state anecdotal evidence of his own.
If one persons anecdote holds no weight with him then why should his hold any weight in his argument.
It comes across as 'What you say doesn't matter but what I say matters more'. Maybe he didn't mean it that way but that is how it reads an that is where it comes across as a lack of consideration for others [views and experiences].

That is why I didn't get his response.

Also risk of something happening is different from something actually happening and I don't agree with all of his opinion on it.


*In my workshop I have safety guards on my machines. Sometimes I keep the guards in place, sometimes I remove them to make a process easier to carry out. I make that call on the basis of understanding the risks and not putting myself close to sharp spinny things and taking additional precautions. However, when there is an increase of risk, others in the workshop, an awkward process, etc. I keep all guards in place and tighten up the safety procedures further.
When I am demonstrating a process I keep all safety guards in place so as not to encourage a relaxed attitude to safety.

 

[TonyEnjoyD]

There again, there is a whole generation of children who risk adult obesity because their parents believe that the world is such a horrendously dangerous place that they are safest staying in doors in front of the telly.

Risk, and the ability to judge it, is an important part of childhood; and of the adulthood that that childhood creates. You cannot eliminate all risk, nor should you even if you could.

ASC1951 I agree with the latter part of your response.
The former part I feel is completely off kilter in my opinion.

In addition to the latter part, there must be and always will be levels of risk in life, however, until a child can personally realise and assess that risk and balance any action against the potential for realization of any potential harm, that we as adults and parent must make them aware, protect them to a reasonable level and at times override how they may want to behave.
My children have bumps and bruises and cuts and abrasions, however, as much as they may be inured to minor "playground" injuries, I would not let my 5 & 6 yr old walk the 1/5th mile to school alone as it involves crossing two roads as they do not as yet have sufficient knowwledge and awareness of the road risks or able to just traffic.

Tony

 

[tyred]

I have to agree with Norm on this. Yes, there is risk, but to try and remove risk from life makes it all rather boring.

After work I will be travelling on a vehicle at speeds in excess of 20mph and that vehicle is fundamentally unstable as it's only got two wheels, has no seat belt, no collapsable steering column, no air bags, no crumble zones, and no roll over protection and I know there is a risk involved but it's fun.

As a kid, I always travelled un-restrained in cars, in the back of vans, even in pickup trucks, tractor trailers, lorry trailers, on top of loads of hay and straw and yes, it is probably dangerous but I'm glad I spent my childhood having fun in the open rather than getting fat and unfit in front of Playstation or similar.

 

[classic33]

Trains tend to break considerably less quickly though, and besides, I thought they had these things called points, signals and TPWS, I didn't realise that you could get SMIDSYs, Train Rage, small collisions, and drivers trying to get each other's insurance details......

This being Thames Valley, are the drivers of HSTs like BMW and Audi drivers? Do they think they are 'it' and bully the drivers of all the other trains to get out of their way, especially those horrible freight trains getting in everyone's road? Do they?

Trains with steering wheels anyone?

I always thought that freight train drivers were the top of the tree, respect wise, with the HST a poor second cousin.

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

I always thought that freight train drivers were the top of the tree, respect wise, with the HST a poor second cousin.

Yes, but those arrogant HST drivers think they are IT!

 

[Arch]

Interesting that so many people here seem to think it's a choice between letting your child travel unrestrained sticking out of the top of a car, and having them become morbidly obese doing nothing but watch telly. Strangely, my nephews are always belted in (and live in a house with a childproof lock on the kitchen knife drawer, stairgates etc), but both fit active healthy little boys, who walk or toddlebike to school or nursery, and go camping with Dad etc.

I see people having to brake sharply because of the actions of others most days when I'm out and about working (sometimes it's me, and I'm driving a vehicle with a top speed of about 10 mph, so it has to be pretty crap driving to cause me to brake hard). So I'd assume it was a fairly likely scenario, in retail park, with roundabouts, where most people are thinking more about finding a parking space, or getting their takeaway, than actual driving.

 

[subaqua]

most of the legislation introduced for "elfen sayfertee" was introduced as somebody or several somebodies did something/s that lots of people thought nobody would be stupid enough to do.

back to the topic of the original post - what does the law say about having unrestrained children in a car ? yes thats right children shouldn't be unrestrained , they need to be in an approved child seat up to a certain age/weight/height why? to protect them from injury/death in the event of an "incident" . or is this another one of them where the law doesn't apply to you??

are there laws preventing kids climbing trees? not as far as i am aware , laws against scrumping maybe but not against climbing the trees to scrump the apples ( which was one of the main reason for learning how to climb trees for me )

 

[lordloveaduck]

Back in my day, the petrol stations were lined with children who's parents had to dash back home to get money.

 

[Norm]

This could take some time, as there are some monumental misreadings here.

Norm, in my opinion, if you are unable to see the inherent level of risk in a small child standing unsecrured in a 1.5 tonne vehicle travelling at 20 mph with her upper third of her body out of the sunroof then no amount af rationalisation will sway you.
You have and will retain your opinion regardless of any rationale that me or others would give, and you are entitled to those opinions.

You have no idea what inherent level of risk I see, just as I have no idea why you consider the actions to be risky enough to froth about. However, I've tried and failed (don't worry, I won't ask again) to get you to explain your position, rather than just making assumptions. If you feel it better to jump to conclusions about my viewpoint rather than try to understand others, you carry on. I'd suggest you won't learn much from such a blinkered approach, though.

I don't get your response.

It sounds like you are saying injuries only happen to people you know, doing things you do but they don't happen when they happen to other people and people they know.

You almost got it, but at the same time, completely failed. Firstly, I didn't discount Colin's experience, just that it was one person's experience. Then, by offering my own experiences, I validated Colin's, showing the value in an anecdote, completely contrary to your understanding.

I also know plenty about risk, which is why I was hoping for some attempt at rationaliisation from the OP. I remain, sadly, thwarted in that aspiration.