or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › UGH-SOME PEOPLE (vent!)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

UGH-SOME PEOPLE (vent!) - Page 6

post #101 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by dewlady
even if i get slack for it, here goes...

juniperjoy...i agree with you totally..
me too..

I am only on page 2 of this discussion, but I cant believe the limited tunnel these arguments apply to. a parent can make an educated descision about vax, discipline, childbirth, play time, vacations, travel, medical care...etc..but not the car? thats where the line gets drawn at MDC?

I would never pull up to someone, roll down my window and yell at them...THAT would be dangerous by possibly causing an accident, or creating a stressed out mom friving a child around. I like the idea about calling that number so they can send the parents an informational packet, in case they really dont know about care safety.

But this isnt a drunk driver, who could kill anyone he passes, this is a parent who is making a judgement call for their family, whether I agree with it or not....and we still have a right to do that, in this country (although give it time )

dont want to cause trouble, just felt like others were being attacked unnessesarily
post #102 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miny20
My husband and I have a saving... 'Don't try to stop them, their stupidity will clear their lines out of the gene pool.'

Amen, I say. Let that woman kill herself AND her child with her own stupidity, then, perhaps we won't have to deal with her genes being passed on.

Concrete proof that Darwin was on to something.
while i agree with this statement, in this case its arrogance is amusing...especially as the Consumer Products Safety commission is reading this and saying 'wow, we should FURTHER stress the safety issue of cribs, or bouncy seats..maybe we will sell more brand new -cuz you can pass them along, as they keep getting 'dangerous' and you need a new, safer one each year-products to these people)

i do put my dd in a carseat, always...but its my choice and i wont call someone else a bad parent for not doing it. i would merely let them know the options, and maybe some stats...the same i would if they were planning a c-sec or to vax their child....things i think are also very dangerous to go into blindly.
post #103 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelMel
this is a parent who is making a judgement call for their family, whether I agree with it or not....and we still have a right to do that, in this country
Not in this case we don't. The law doesn't say, "Make a judgement call about putting your child in a car seat." The law says, "You must put your child in a car seat."

Also, taking your child to the mall is not an inherently risky thing to do in terms of how likely they are to get abducted. Parents can generally safely look after their child AND concentrate on their business at the mall. That's not as likely when it comes to supervising an unrestrained child AND driving. The law is in place to protect the child, certainly, but also the driver and other drivers/pedestrians.

Also, carseats are not intended to protect children while they are riding in a car. They are intended to protect children when they involved in a motor vehicle collision. And they do a d*mn fine job of it. So I can't imagine why someone would say they don't need to put their children in a carseat because they know how to calculate statistical risk and avoid accidents. Carseats are the most effective and beneficial when you're involved in an accident, not when you're not.

Btw, someone ran a red light and hit us last Thursday. Our car spun 3 times and hit a light pole. We were all restrained. None of us were hurt. That's my anecdotal evidence that carseats are important.

Wilma
post #104 of 123
100% of stranger abductions would be prevented if children were in harnesses attatched to their parents. Does that mean it should be a law? (I reworded it for ya Eilonwy )
I can't paste quotes b/c my computer is screwy but anyway my argument is perfectly logical. Did you hear about the boy who was lured away from his mother while she was shopping and the little boy was tortured at a train station beofre being murdered. If that boy was on a harness this would not have happend. Shopping is distracting, crowded circuses are distracting...life is distracting. People here are constantly teling stories of "my child ran off..in the supermarket..in the park etc. Kids are always hiding under those clothes racks. Just because somehting is against the law doesn't automatically make it logical law. Here in NJ it is illegal to start your car and not be in it...so warming up your car on a bitter cold morning beofre you put your infant in the car to go the doctor is against the law. Haven't you ever gotten those emails with silly laws from your state listed in them? While those laws aren't enforced they are still laws and some cop somehwere could enforce it.
So the "it's the law argument " doesn't work.
Is it safer to have your child in car seat? It sure is. Should the government be teliing you what risks you want to take as parent...NO WAY!! (Not in the US anway...that is the form of government that I am referring to...other countries have differnt rules so Ican not speak for them)
post #105 of 123
[QUOTE=hipumpkins]100% of stranger abductions would be prevented if children were in harnesses attatched to their parents. Does that mean it should be a law? (I reworded it for ya Eilonwy )


100 percent???? There are several well known cases of kids being taken from their own homes. (Polly Klass for instance!) Or those taken during carjacking. There was a child where I lived who was taken out of his mothers arms at knifepoint. I don't think the person who did that would have hesitated to cut the harness.
post #106 of 123
I don't think that just because you can make similar statements about two situations that the situations are therefore analogous.

"100% of stranger abductions could be prevented by harnessing children to their parents" (supposing this were a true statement)

and

"100% of child fatalities could be prevented by restraining children in car seats" (supposing this were a true statement)

don't make the two situations comparable.

Wilma
post #107 of 123
I suppose one reason why such laws are enacted is to try and reduce the cost involved in dealing with such accidents. I suppose if you don't want to use a carseat, perhaps you should pay out-of-pocket for the emergency personnel who have to come to your accident site, pry your kids out of the car, take them to the ER, then those who use all the life-saving procedures they can to pull your kids from the brink of death, and if you are lucky they live and are in hospital for some time.

I'm guessing that if you worked in the field of emergency response, you'd feel that reducing the number of preventable injury/deaths just might make some sense economically.

I don't really know the numbers off-hand, but seems to me that certain safety laws (bike helmets, carseats) get enacted when emergency personnel report that a significant amount of resources gets devoted to things that are preventable. Perhaps someone in the ER field can comment.
post #108 of 123
In response to the original post, I've been known to give one of those "looks that could kill" but I've never actually said anything. Our local highways now have signs that say to call 911 to report impaired drivers. IMO, if there is an unrestrained child in that car- the driver is impaired.

I have always said that IMO it's sad that it needs to be the law that children have to be restrained. There's programs that give carseats if you don't have money for one. The local hospitals will give you a carseat or bill one on your insurance. There's no reason you can't get a carseat, and if you don't even have a carseat to get you somewhere to get a new one, I would call the police and explain your dilemma.

This is one thing, I can't even drive down my mom's long gravel driveway without my seatbelt because I feel very uncomfortable.

I didn't like it, but as a kid I was required to brush my teeth twice a day (no cavities until after two pregnancies!) and I had to wear my seatbelt.

When I was 16, I was hit by a drunk driver (who had been arrested for DWI etc over eight times ) at 5:00 in the afternoon. I was wearing my seatbelt and my big old truck was totaled. I've been in two other carseats from which I came away with only whiplash- because I was belted in.

My 70yo MIL doesn't wear her seatbelt and I told her I won't be scraping her off the road. She gets into my car and I don't drive until she buckles her seatbelt.

I guess I think if a parent wants to risk it, their insurance (health and car) should not be held liable and all expenses should be their responsibility. Their irresponsibility costs everyone else money in insurance premiums, healthcare, emergency personal, etc.

BTW- the bus isn't really an option for me. There is a small bus service and no taxis here. I walk to some places close by, but I have to go to the next town for organics etc.
post #109 of 123
I will definetly agre that instad of it being a law the people who choose to use safer options should have their insurance reduced. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I have no problems with incentives..I have big problems with laws in a free country.
I really don't see how anyone can want the government in their lives to the degree that it is.
I stand by my opnion that in a free country you should get to choose how to protect or not protect your own children. Whenther by vaccinating, not vaccinating, wearing helmets, seatbelts and otherwise...Go ahead and judge the parent but just don't make it a law. You can nit pick the harness example (BTW I am pretty sure Polly Klass was older than 5)but then again I could nit pick about children who do die in car seats...and it does hapen. I don't get the bus thing either...I am always hearing about busses turning over...maybe that's mostly here in NJ.
So for the OP I would not have confronted the people at all and truthfully I would have been scared for the kid when I saw that but I would know it wasn't my business. If it were my family member I would handle it differently.
post #110 of 123
Hipumpkins, I see what you're saying about the government not intruding too far into our lives, but then I wonder, where do we draw the line? Does the government have any right/responsibility to protect children whose parents aren't doing it? If so, how much intrusion is enough and how much is too much?

Wilma
post #111 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by BunnysMomma
Hipumpkins, I see what you're saying about the government not intruding too far into our lives, but then I wonder, where do we draw the line? Does the government have any right/responsibility to protect children whose parents aren't doing it? If so, how much intrusion is enough and how much is too much?

Wilma
The thing is: who in the government decides what is right and wrong? I have heard of parents getting in trouble for nursing a 1yo or 2yo even though they are well within the WHO suggestion of AT LEAST two years and beyong as long as desired.
post #112 of 123
edited because I posted after reading the first page, not realizing there were five more pages...

...so just pretend this post isn't here...
post #113 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piglet68
I suppose one reason why such laws are enacted is to try and reduce the cost involved in dealing with such accidents. I suppose if you don't want to use a carseat, perhaps you should pay out-of-pocket for the emergency personnel who have to come to your accident site, pry your kids out of the car, take them to the ER, then those who use all the life-saving procedures they can to pull your kids from the brink of death, and if you are lucky they live and are in hospital for some time.

I'm guessing that if you worked in the field of emergency response, you'd feel that reducing the number of preventable injury/deaths just might make some sense economically.

I don't really know the numbers off-hand, but seems to me that certain safety laws (bike helmets, carseats) get enacted when emergency personnel report that a significant amount of resources gets devoted to things that are preventable. Perhaps someone in the ER field can comment.


This thread has gotten interesting.

The safest place in the car is the middle back seat; in the future will we have laws saying that no one can sit in the front passenger seat unless the back seat is full? It would save lives and ER money etc.

I am not against childseat laws or even seatbelt laws, but we do have to recognize that there is no endpoint to these kinds of laws.

And people do die because of seatbelts, and they do die in carseats. Airlines are considering a rule about infant seats (meaning parents would have to purchace an airplane ticket for children under 2 so they can be strapped in to a seat) but they are worried that parents wouldn't fly as much (too expensive to buy another ticket), which would cause child deaths to increase since cars children (and adults) are way more likely to be injured in a car than a plane.

To be really safe, you wouldn't put you kid in a car . . .
post #114 of 123
To Hi pumpkin. I totally agree with you and government intrusion in our private lives at least to an extent. As far as care seats are concerned I am for them and always strapped my kids. To Juniper. Try gambling at the casino not with your kid. So what if the kid cries when in. Get him used to it for his own good. If he were to run into the street and a car was coming, you would practically pull his arm out getting him out the way. What is this notion that kids can't cry or be allowed any kind of stress or discipline. He has to do what is safe not what he wants. Pull over and console him when he cries and then back into the seat he goes. Desentitize him. If it can't be done , he does not ride period. Let him learn consequences for behaviors. What are you smoking anyways??? I can't believe what I heard. My son was 11 when he was in a car accident. He was supposed to have his seat belt on. He took it off. My brother who does not have kids really checked on him. WEll my s on went through the window in the accident and by the Grace of God is still alive and in his right mind. He looked like a monster and had passed out. He gets terrible migraines now from it. All because my brother who was naive to discipline did not tell him he better buckle up or the car does not move. BTW my brother eats himself up with guilt to this day on this one.
post #115 of 123
OOPs typo. I meant that my brother did not check on him.
post #116 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickyshot
To Juniper...What are you smoking anyways???
There's no need for rudeness.

Please let's keep this discussion respectful. Bashing someone for an opinion you don't share is not cool.

mamawanabe: you raise some good points. I assume the line is drawn based on risk. For example, the risks of not being in a carseat versus being in one may be much higher than the risks of being the middle versus being in the side/front. but since i don't know the exact stats I can't say for sure.
post #117 of 123
I draw the line somewhere between beating and spanking. To me physical and emotional outright abuse is where the law can step in. If a child needs to be protected FROM his parents..not from what might happen if Ihe or she doesn't strap in, vaccinate, wear this foam rubber suit and helmet everytime a kid goes to school.

BTW..I have also put DD in her car seat and absentmindedly forgotten to strap it. Anyone ever do that?
post #118 of 123
To Piglet and Juniper sorry for the smoking comment. I really felt strong about this one.
post #119 of 123
Melda, just wanted to let you know something important...on the homepage it says that your Britax Marathon car seat was recalled...there were also some other versions so some of you may need to check it out too.
post #120 of 123
Just wanted to add that the other versions of the Britax are Husky and Wizard.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › UGH-SOME PEOPLE (vent!)