My family and I were waiting for a bus to take us home on Friday night from a council organised bonfire. As we were waiting, I saw a family of at least 3 adults and 3 children get into a modified H reg XR3i. The children were all sitting on adults laps in the back and were clearly not secured.
As the car was waiting to pull out, the driver started to talk to at least 2 local policemen who were walking around the area. To my amazement, they said nothing to the driver about the number of passengers or their lack of suitable restraint, despite the conversation going on for at least 10 minutes. I was only about 8 foot away. The police even moved the bus queue to help the car get out!
This seems an amazing paradox that many of us will get a fine and points for'unsafe' driving as determined by a safety camera, but a clear case of unsafe practice where the lives of inncocent children are at stake is literally ignored.
Could there be any reasonable explanation as to why at least two police officers thought such a practice was safe?
One couldn't make it up....
TT
--
Top Turkey - the fastest hands in Brum
|
Sorry to say this doesn't surprise me. Even if the officers didn't 'book' the driver you would have thought that a 'quiet word' would suffice. However, I wonder what would have happened -- 6 bums into max 5 seats don't go so would they have left one (presumably adult) to wait or make their own way home?
Funny though, last year I went to an organised firework display and when driving out of the event in a queue, an officer deemed it necessary to signal me to pull over and then gave me a 'lecture' about having fog lights on when there was no fog. Against the law, I know but hardly a danger to anyone!
So I suppose it's down to how the officers feel at the time -- after all they are only human. I think there is too much reliance on the 'automated' process of law enforcement.
|
I refused to take a friend in the back of our V70 the other day on the grounds that she had her 18 month old child with her and no child seat.
Friend didn't see the problem of sitting in the back, belted in with the child on her lap until I pointed out that (a) seat belts are designed to restrain one occupant and (b) in any collision she was going to squash her loved one with extreme force between herself and the belt.
At this she gave way but I got the feeling that I was still Mr Bad Boy overdramatising things ("You are a safe driver so you won't have an accident anyway" and "It's only in to town" Hmmm!)
|
|
I think i would applaud Plod,obviously believes in Darwinism,taking the long view it will mean less work for Plod in the future.
|
I have to disagree. If the adults wanted to take the risk, then so bit it - if the risk doen't pay off it is the adult who gets it and I'd loose no sleep. But to take the risk with the children is just not on. I'd bet almost anything that the adults were belted in and the children were sitting freely on their laps.
Human projectile anyone?
TT
--
Top Turkey - the fastest hands in Brum
|
No- they shouldn't be able to "take the risk".
If they are killed or seriously injured, when belts would have prevented that outcome, they (a) leave the children they would claim to love, parentless; (b) occupy the health service and emergency services that I subscribe to; (c) push up my insurance premiums .
In a civilised society exercising "liberty" for some , impinges on the "liberty " of others.
Offical stats say 90% of people belt up, not borne out by my observation. I have even more contemptfor people who are responsible for children who don't know the risks, but who through laziness or arrogance do nothing for them.
I know someone who foams at the mouth at the risk he thinks his children run from paedophiles ( absolutely minute risk, and the great majority of children abused are abused by a family member or friend ) but who will happily let his kids travel unrestrained in the car.
|
|
|
|
Fog lights are a nightmare! At times they can be very dazzling. I have had real problems with them recently. ...and I think we'll end it there, shall we - lest you make yourself out to be a plonker!
Here is your yellow card - if you insist on flinging any more stupid insults at other BR members or trying to start arguements then your account will be disabled.
Hugo - BR moderator
|
Speaking of unsecured children and Darwin, below is an excerpt from a recent news report from the New Zealand Herald:
The young driver of a car that crashed into a tree near Ruatoria, killing all six occupants, did everything wrong after an all-night party.(Woman's name removed), 23, was drunk, stoned on cannabis and tired when she piled into her small car with friends, cousins and her 2-year-old son on May 28. Not one of them put on a seatbelt, and there was no child restraint for the little boy. They set off along State Highway 35 from Te Puia Springs to Ruatoria, 16km away, but just five minutes short of their destination the driver failed to take a gentle bend at Hiruharama. She drove without braking into a tree in early morning fog. All six in the Honda Integra died instantly.
I've put this in, just in case anyone thought that 'it doesn't happpen'. A tragic situation, and one that would be very hard to prevent. All regulations rely on the person to obey them to be effective.
|
Just to add to my post above, the coroner commenting on the case made some interesting remarks. The link to the full Herald story is:
tinyurl.com/aat4k
PM
|
|
|
|
|
![2021 Nissan Qashqai 1.3 DiG-T 160 [157] Acenta Premium 5dr DCT](http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/assets.heycar.co.uk/t_default-export/f_auto/application_assets/vehicles/pictures/da990225dbcac5ecfadc85d8ad4e2654/690936625217cd1efba5c9cdd4bc42f1.jpg)
