Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By PH
Following on from another thread, I find it incredible that people beleive the mandatory use of car seats for kids of a certain heght to be more interference by the 'nanny state'.
I would agree that sometimes headlines give the impression that we do have a problem, but typically they don't tell the whole story. Surely health and safety is largely about interpretation and implementation of 'rules' designed to keep people safe. If we continually moan about the 'nanny state' are we not questioning our own role?
The people who disagree with the new 'rules', do they also think we should not wear seat belts, observe speed limits, take driving tests etc. After all these are all 'rules' put in place to keep us safe.
Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
There ARE people on here who think that EVERY piece of legislation is another symptom of the "nanny state"
Including H&S legislation !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By sagalout
How about the old adage " the best rules are for the guidance of wise folk and the control of idiots". (chuckle, chuckle.)
Being a H&S person does not take away your right to question the wisdom and worth of anything does it? As long as you comply with a legal duty whilst it is there, you have every right to challenge its worth.
Perumph!! I feel better now, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian Hagyard
Personally I find this type of legislation hard to swallow. If car seat belts are not designed for people under 4 ft 5inches (hope I have got the height correct) why are they suddenly ok if you are over 12 years old?
Brian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Eastbourne
I may be completely wrong but I heard that after the age of 12, the bones are stronger and more able to take the strain as it were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Zaphod
Every time new legislation comes out, people whinge. Then a few years later accept it as the norm and would feel unsafe without it. Just think back to compulsory front seat belts and motorcycle crash helmets - all sorts of protests against at the time. The tabloid cliche 'Nanny state' hadn't been firmly imprinted on the Sun readers at that stage but the attitude was the same.
I remember once reading a behavioural safety statement that: "you cannot change attitude - only behaviour. Change behaviour and then that leads to a change of attitude." - which seems to fit seat belt issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian P
You aren't wrong Mark, bone structure formation is the reason I heard as well. I don't know the physiological reasons why a 12 year old has an "adult bone structure" and an 11 year old doesn't but I suppose they have to set an age limit or very short adults would have to use them. Then again the reasoning for the law is to prevent injuries caused to the neck and to stop children below 4'5" slipping from under an adults seat belt in a collision, that would happen whether bone structure was fully formed or not wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
Whatever happened to the hierarchy of control then?
If seatbelts are unsafe to children under twelve, under such a height, why not make the manufacturers fit properly adjustable belts or seats?
If we can have over shoulder restraints on the big dipper, why not the car? With a bit of imagination and good design, they could be loose fitting and tensioned only when needed...
I for one probably break more laws than you can shake a stick at - purely on the basis that I cannot possibly know all of them or how to comply with them. Life is becoming very complex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stupendous Man
If we mandated that NO child should wear a seat belt, we may see an improvement in driving standards, and less use of the car for the 'school run'.
Again, we are introducing a measure that, although laudable in promoting the safety of children in cars, will simply reinforce the growing attitude amongst drivers that they can drive however they want as neither they, nor their children, will get injured if there is a crash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Zaphod
'Risk compensation theory?' Stupendous Man.
Risk compensation theory may be a factor - increased controls resulting in more dangerous behaviour. However, I do not believe that there is an equal traid-off whereby for every risk reduction gained in introducing controls results in an equal risk increase. If that were true, then we might as well all give up providing any form of health &safety engineering controls?
Regarding the 12 year old debate. Isn't the case that a lot of safety legislative requirements are brought in piecemeal - "softly sofly catch a Monkey". Who knows, in a few years time, that age limit may be increased?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stupendous Man
Zaphod - you are right to suggest that there is some need for balance, the view I gave was polarised in order to make a point. Having said that, I do believe that it is closer to the truth than a lot of people would believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.