Skip to main content

Where did this one come from?

The government have been saying that the new law about Booster seats will reduce child casualties by 2,000.

The link is to "Child Car Seats". That gives deaths in 2004 of passengers at 24. The number seriously injured is 371. About 7,000 are "slightly injured".

Now we are told that all children under 135 cm (my children are generally quite large) need to have booster seats.

Anyone, whatever seat they are in, even if they are wearing a seatbelt, is likely to be deemed "slightly injured" in a crash.

I really cannot believe the figures we are being told. Furthermore I did not spot this law going through. I would think as an MP who reads the main issues that I should have spotted it. I wonder which loophole it crept through.

To me it just shows me how dishonest a lot of public lobbying is. Clearly the claims of the Department of Transport are complete rubbish. However, they get away with it.

Obligatory declaration of interest: My 10 month old baby daugher uses a car seat and will do for some time, my 13 and 16 year old children are both over 5 foot 10. With a bit of luck they will not have to sit in booster seats. My 6 year old is not small, but may have to have one of these booster seats. No-one has actually given a good reason for one. I accept that wearing a seat belt is a good idea. That should be the priority rather than booster seats.

This is a BBC link where the DfT talk nonsense

Comments

rkjfyoung said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Hemming said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
PoliticalHackUK said…
And there is research to support the change to the 1993 Regs - which is in any case as a result of implementing a European directive.

What's wrong with protecting our children? This measure could save lives and help to reduce injury - not even you could object to that.

Yet again, you are wrong.
John Hemming said…
I have looked at the links on your blog and they do not show evidence of this claim.

I am quite happy to consider such changes to the law when there is valid evidence. However, it is not the case that evidence has been provided. The DfT claim is clearly not true.

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.