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 said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
PoliticalHack 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 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

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…