Mud-club
Chat & Social => The Bar - General Chat => Topic started by: Thrasher on June 25, 2006, 11:38:57
-
http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/childcarseats/childcarseats.htm#02
I can't beleive I've got to get my kids baby seats again.....some moneyspinner there I fear!
-
The way I have read it elsewhere is children between 3 and 12 must use the seat belt if an appropriate child seat is unavailable.
If I don't buy one then it's unavailable :wink:
I always make sure they wear seat belts anyway.
http://forums.mud-club.com/viewtopic.php?t=25002
-
Yep ... that's one interpretation :-) Have you seen the fines :(
-
£30 fine and about as much chance of being stopped by the police as someone using a mobile phone. Whats the point in introducing new laws if they cant/wont be enforced?
-
So kids up to 13 years old now have to sit in 'baby seats', I can see that happening.
Wouldn't be necessary if people didn't keep crashing :roll:
-
what if (i have) you have a 7 seat disco 2. The rear seats are more for "kids" than adults. Will i still need to get booster/child seats for them :?
-
Both my kids 7 and 9 are over the 135cms so no problem carry on as usual :D
-
So kids up to 13 years old now have to sit in 'baby seats', I can see that happening.
Wouldn't be necessary if people didn't keep crashing :roll:
No its kids up to 12 and only if they are under 135cm in height. So i think it means if your child is under 12 but over 3 and over 135 cm tall they can just wear a seat belt.
Personally doesnt affect me as both mine are over 13 but that is a heck of a stupid set of rules.
-
I have adjustable seatbelts at the rear of Bagheera (as in height adjustments) - are these taken into account I wonder?
-
this still hasnt been through parliament tho'
-
I have adjustable seatbelts at the rear of Bagheera (as in height adjustments) - are these taken into account I wonder?
They are, but they don't change the issue. It is the horizontal element that creates the problem, not the diagonal (at least the worst of the problems).
As much as I disagree with the idea of the State governing how we go on our daily lifes, in this case, and speaking as someone who spent a lot of time doing emergency work, both as a volunteer and as an army medic, and had to attend countless RTAs, I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the law.
In many a time we have seen children killed because they were not wearing the seatbelt, or the seatbelt was not fitted properly (i.e. without a booster).
At the end of the day, it is your offspring lifes at risk, are you willing to gamble them??
-
Don't get me wrong, but it's a strange one. Try getting a 10 year old who thinks she's 20 sit on a booster :(
Excuses from "the plastic is hard and uncomfortable" to "but you get the comfy seats!" .... we've been told about the law today, and today the kids were sat on boosters - that's how serious we are. Trouble is .... go to Mothercare or TRU and they point you at the £100+ products......
Someone, somewhere is making money. Why have they not designed seatbelts to cope with kids????? We have isofix now, why not an adaptable belt?
-
this still hasnt been through parliament tho'
New regulations governing the use of child car seats are due to come into force in September 2006.
That line comes from the website below:
http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/childcarseats/childcarseats.htm
Maybe I'm having a blonde moment but,I understood that to mean it's already been through parliament :? :?
-
In many a time we have seen children killed because they were not wearing the seatbelt, or the seatbelt was not fitted properly (i.e. without a booster).
At the end of the day, it is your offspring lifes at risk, are you willing to gamble them??
Sider i totally agree. Its really is not pleasant.
As far as my two girls safety goes money is no object
Thats my two penny worth :wink:
-
4. When will the regulations come into force?
Regulations will be laid for the approval of Parliament as soon as possible. Subject to that, we aim for them to come into force during September 2006.
so no, it hasnt gone through parliament yet.
-
Ok. Blonde moment it was :oops: :oops: (I'm sure i'm allowed at least one moment a week!!)
Hadn't read it all :(stoopid):
I used to use these to make seatbelts more comfortable for my kids when they seemed too big for kiddie seats. but not quite big enough to use the seatbelts on their own.
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/0381097/Trail/C%24cip%3D36581.DIY%2C%2Bgarden%2Band%2Bcar%3EC%24cip%3D36582.Car%2Bequipment%3EC%24cip%3D36588.Car%2Bsecurity%2Band%2Bsafety.htm
Not regarded as a Safety Device though...... But at least it kept the belt in the right place :)
-
£30 fine and about as much chance of being stopped by the police as someone using a mobile phone. Whats the point in introducing new laws if they cant/wont be enforced?
NERC
Darren
-
SWMBO is smaller than my 12 year old daughter.... does that mean I have to get her a baby seat? :?
-
Unless you get a Taxi sign on your motor of course. :wink:
So - you are safe to bundle your kids in a motor of dubious safety driven by someone of dubious origin who may or may not have passed a UK Driving test, without any correct child restraint (other than the standard seatbelt)
However - it will be illegal for you do drive with your family if your children are not restrained properly in your own vehicle.
They did the hunting. The did the lanes. They're working on smoking. Now they're working on what/how/where we drive. Which part of this government is NOT a dictatorship?
At least the height has been dropped from 150 to 135cm. My 6 year old is 120cm, so he should be okay when he's older.
Safety First - but as parents surely we don't need a Law to enforce what should be common sense?
-
Is a dog crate suitable ? :lol:
I have no back seats and black rear windows anyway
(then again I have no kids) :wink:
-
Safety First - but as parents surely we don't need a Law to enforce what should be common sense?
Saturday - saw 1 small child in front seat of BMW and 4 small children in back, not strapped in at all, what common sense?
We love our kids and want to keep them safe but not in probably the most dangerous place because it doesnt suit or we cant be bothered or were only going round the corner. I dont agree with the nanny state but Christ why cant some parents be more responsible with their kids?
Rant over
Andrew
-
Safety First - but as parents surely we don't need a Law to enforce what should be common sense?
Saturday - saw 1 small child in front seat of BMW and 4 small children in back, not strapped in at all, what common sense?
We love our kids and want to keep them safe but not in probably the most dangerous place because it doesnt suit or we cant be bothered or were only going round the corner. I dont agree with the nanny state but Christ why cant some parents be more responsible with their kids?
Rant over
Andrew
Which is why the government see the need for the law. To protect people who should win the Darwin award by acclamation. To protect them from themselves that is. :D
-
My "safety first" first line was quoting Horness's message, my feeings start from the second paragraph!
Andrew
-
My "safety first" first line was quoting Horness's message, my feeings start from the second paragraph!
Andrew
I know you did, Andrew, I just used your example as the anchor point. Should have redacted a tad better, me thinks :D