New Child Seat Law

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

A new law comes into effect on Monday passed by the British government on the instructions of the European Federation in EU Directive 2003/20/EC.  The law will make it an offence to have a child in your car without a car seat.

There are exceptions – if it’s an emergency, if a third seat won’t fit in the middle of the back seat or if you’re in a taxi.  It will also only apply to children under 11 years of age or 4’6″.

The European Federation says that the ruling has been made to reduce the number of child injuries in car accidents because if a child is sitting in a child seat or on a booster cushion the seatbelt will be in a safer position on the childs body if there were a crash and that would reduce the risk of damaging organs.

Now, I’m all for improving safety, especially where children are involved.  However, I see a problem with this argument and it’s a pretty major flaw.  I don’t know if there’s is that much genetic difference between English kids and kids from the continent but, you see, English kids grow as they get older.  That means that the seatbelt will be in a different place on the childs body throught the 11 years the child will be required to sit in the seat.  I am therefore at a complete loss as to which part of the childs body is “safer”.

2 comments

  1. Something Borrowed (1 comments) says:

    It’s to protect the neck. When the child is further down in the seat, the belt does not cross from the shoulder to the opposing hip. Instead it can be above their head and therefore renders the verticle belt pointless in some cases and very dangerous in others.

    To see what I mean, slouch down in your seat until the seat belt doesn’t cross from your shoulder to your hip…then imagine being pushes forward against the belt that is now across your face, across your neck and not in the correct position over the rib cage where it can offer the most protection.

    I have no problem with the law, because it does make sense, but what would be better is if vehicle manufacturers made seat belts fully adjustable so that they fit right. But of course, we have many old cars on the road and even some of those don’t have to have seat belts in the rear.

    I know what it’s like to have a seat belt rubbing across your neck as I experienced it a lot as a kid in a Range Rover.

  2. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Well, prior to this new law – and still now – we used these things that clasp over the seatbelts to make them fit the kids properly. They can be adjusted so the belt fits properly whereas with the car seats, the seatbelts are still in a fixed position.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.