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

UGH-SOME PEOPLE (vent!) - Page 2

post #21 of 123
Take the picture to the police department. They may be able to mail them a ticket, just like a picture at a stop light.


-Heather
post #22 of 123
I'd much rather spend 45 minutes in a Turkey Hill parking lot than consider letting either of my children in the car without a carseat. We take some long trips, and Rivkah often needs to nurse at some point even if I nurse her just before we leave. I don't let either of my kids cry in the carseat, but they both know that if they're in the car and it's moving that they're going to be strapped in. My son's life has already been saved by a carseat once this year. I can't imagine driving without him strapped in, and I don't think he could, either.
post #23 of 123
I would have called the police in a heartbeat. There is no situation in these parents lives that justifies allowing their child to stand in the car, they didn't even try to use a regular seat belt. If money is an issue, free or discounted car seats are available from your local hospitals and other resources. There is no excuse for not protecting your child. Automobile accidents are the number one cause of death and disability in children over the age of one who are improperly restrained—that's a fact.
post #24 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by greymama
I would have called the police in a heartbeat. There is no situation in these parents lives that justifies allowing their child to stand in the car, they didn't even try to use a regular seat belt. If money is an issue, free or discounted car seats are available from your local hospitals and other resources. There is no excuse for not protecting your child. Automobile accidents are the number one cause of death and disability in children over the age of one who are improperly restrained—that's a fact.
So, why not mention the free/reduced car seats to the mama, in a nice way, instead of instantly assuming the worst? Being snarky/mean/judgemental/involving authorities often causes people to be resentful. It doesn't change their behavior.

When I approach a parent, I always assume that they love their kids and want the best for them, and try to frame the discussion that way. To do otherwise is disrespectful, and, more importantly, unproductive. It also becomes easier to evaluate the real situation when people aren't being completely defensive. I realize that this was a seconds-long interaction, but calling someone a bad mother is almost never going to help anyone--especially the child.

How would you feel if someone called CPS because they saw you nursing your toddler, and equated it with sexual abuse? (I am not equating riding unrestrained with nursing a toddler, just pointing out that many parenting practices endorsed by MDC are considered strange and damaging by others)

A little respect, kindness, and communication between parents would do more to help children than all the calls to CPS in the world.

--Deirdre
post #25 of 123
Well, MilkFairy, I admire your passion. I would probably WANT to say what you did, but I don't have the guts. I think I would have been sorely tempted to call the police, and I could care less what their "story" is. That child's life is worth more than whatever excuse they have for putting it at risk.

As for JJ's point, all I can say is noboby is forcing you to drive a car. If your kids are that miserable in their seats, take the darned bus. I get tired of hearing about those who "need" their cars, when millions of people in this country manage to get by without one.

IMO, it is not worth putting your child at risk: and I'm not appealing to "emotion" here either, the facts speak for themselves - the risks are tremendous, and if you spent a few weeks in an ER (like sweetbaby has) you would see the real picture. God help your conscience if anything ever happened to your children when you thought the risks were low enough. I agree with your basic message that sometimes paranoia outweighs reason...but do not think this applies to car seat safety. Countries without seatbelt laws do not have the same sort of traffic dynamics we do here in North America, so I hardly think they are comparable.
post #26 of 123
As we are all so fond of quoting in reference to "but all my neghbor's kids are formula fed and they started on three-course steak dinners at 4 weeks old and they're perfectly healthy"...

*the plural of anecdote is not data*.

Just because I or anyone else has never witnessed a child in a car accident unrestrained doesn't mean the risk is not great and that a very simple solution should not be taken advantage of.
post #27 of 123
I can't believe someone would be so irresposible to not put their child in a car seat (That goes for Juniper Joy too). Most accidents occur within 10 minutes of home. Don't believe it? When my daughter was 5 months and my son was 2 yrs 4 months there was a freak snow storm in April and I was in an accident 3 minutes from home. We spun around 3 times and slid down an embankment and smashed into a fence. I had severe whiplash. My babies were okay ONLY BECAUSE THEY WERE IN CAR SEATS. Can you imagine what would have happened to them if they hadn't been? They would likely have been killed. Shame on you.
post #28 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperJoy
Nope. Never witnessed a child ejected from a car. Not after living more than five years in countries where not one single child was ever restrained.

Emotional appeals are fun, but don't represent the facts.
I have seen a baby ejected from a car (under 1) and 1 whose parent was holding it smashed into the dash board...it is a terrible terrible thing. Had those babies been in car seats they both would be alive (the one that was smashed into the dash board was only in an accident involving 2 cars going less then 10 miles/hour each in a praking lot.) The parents in both situations were beyond consolation b/c they knew their actions had caused their babies to die. Just b/c you never saw it happen doesn't mean it doesn't. Also the fact that car seats have reduced deaths by 71% is a fact, not an emotional appeal.
post #29 of 123
Juniper Joy - I most sincerely and fervently hope that you never ever have to eat your blase and naive words. I hope that you never have a car accident with an unrestrained child in it. But i do hope that if you do practice this reprehensible behavior that you get caught for it.

In this case, the risks are hardly 'minor'.
post #30 of 123
[QUOTE=Mrs Dimples]

*the plural of anecdote is not data*.

QUOTE]

T But this phrase is quickly becoming my pet peve. Try using it in the vaccine forum . . . (it is also commonly used against mamas trying to refuse vitimin K shots and antibiotic eye cream because of stories thier heard or becuase of prior experiences, stories and expereinces not backed up by "scientific data") We can't pick and choose when anecdotes are and aren't valuable based on which argument has stats and science behind it; if life expereince is a valuable POV in the vaccine forum than it is valuable in other discussions also. In fact, many posters are arguing based on what they have seen and experienced - dead babies etc.

OK back to your conversation
post #31 of 123
Quote:
*the plural of anecdote is not data*....this phrase is quickly becoming my pet peeve...
Oh my. Well that quote is from my signature a while back. I read it in a book and liked it...I was a bit flattered that it seems to be making its way around the board.

Personally, I would hope that people deciding not to vax are basing it on scientific studies and not anecdotal evidence. There is data out there supporting both a pro- and anti-vax POV...the jury isn't "in" on that issue yet, so parents must perform their own critical review of the literature, and not everybody will come to the same conclusion. However, things like car safety, smoking, and the benefits of breastfeeding are now considered unequivocal, because the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of those issues. But even if they are going just on "life experience", refusing vaccines is not illegal. Having an unrestrained child is. IMO, the argument presented by JJ is no different than that presented by people who drive without insurance....in both cases I say again: you can't deal with the rules? Ride the bus.

Quote:
In fact, many posters are arguing based on what they have seen and experienced - dead babies.etc.
True. And I agree even those stories are anecdotal in nature. But they are being used to illustrate that which is already known to be factual, as opposed to being used in the absense of data...
post #32 of 123
In Florida, they have a hotline you can call if ou see a child not in a car seat. I think it is run by the sheriffs office. They will send the family an info pack on the hazards of not car seating, the fines involved, etc.
While I dont think you sould assume the worst, I also dont think many parents are going to get a comment like that, and say "OMG you are right!! Thank you!! I had no idea!! I will run right our and get a car seat!!" It might help if it came from an official person.
post #33 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by mollykatsmom
I realize that this was a seconds-long interaction, but calling someone a bad mother is almost never going to help anyone--especially the child.
--Deirdre
Dollars to donuts - when that woman put her head on her pillow that night, she was thinking about that comment. Sure she was angry and indignant for a while, but when it comes down to it, she was thinking.....

Not that I agree with attacking people or making assumptions, IME, kindness and education work better. But sheesh, when you see somebody acting that way, it's irritating! My sister yells comments out the window like that. When she sees someone with a kid in their lap, she always walks up; is very sweet and acts very interested, and her in best, most considerate voice, says "I just LOVE your airbag." The people are usually smiling until the words sink in. It's funny :

I don't confront. I just call the police. In general conversation, I educate. This coming from the woman who has a 10 year old in a booster....
post #34 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by lab
When she sees someone with a kid in their lap, she always walks up; is very sweet and acts very interested, and her in best, most considerate voice, says "I just LOVE your airbag." The people are usually smiling until the words sink in. It's funny :
OMG! I don't know whether to laugh or :Puke.. that's really awful!
post #35 of 123
Quote:
In Florida, they have a hotline you can call if ou see a child not in a car seat. I think it is run by the sheriffs office. They will send the family an info pack on the hazards of not car seating, the fines involved, etc.
Ditto in AZ.
post #36 of 123
I understand the argument that we don't know what is going on in that family's life, but I can't fathom a scenario where the child should be punished by being injured or killed in a collision because of it. I mean, even if the mom were running from an abusive partner right at that moment, the people in the back didn't have to stand the kid in the middle, KWIM?

WakeUpMama - ditto what you said. Thanks.

T lab - I've never heard "dollars to donuts." I like the way it sounds but what does it mean?
post #37 of 123
Quote:
In fact, many posters are arguing based on what they have seen and experienced - dead babies
So because someone hasn't seen a dead baby nor cared for a critically injured child, that means that its OK to not buckle? Only nurses, doctors, trauma surgeons and paramedics buckle their kids up?

To refer to piglets last post, my experience directly correlates to data, therefore supporting it.

If you do not buckle your child and get into an accident, your child's chances of dying or being critically injured are greatly increased. period. why anyone would risk it, then tie CIO into it, is ridiculous.

And yes, *I* have cared for dead and mangled kids. Yup, I've zipped the bag of an unrestrained child ejected in a rollover. Dad walked away without a scratch, and the car had little damage, but the child was gone. Just like that. in an instant. And if anyone here has a problem with me stating that, let me know.
post #38 of 123
I have to agree with OceanBaby.

While I strongly enforce the carseat rules and laws in our family, I can see reasons why the child might not be in her car seat.

Remember that most of our parents were never in car seats. In fact, both of Moo's grandmothers were commenting on how it's good that the kids are safer, but they hate that they can't comfort the children the way they did in their day.


BTW- the reason why most accidents occur near the home is because most the the driving is done near the home... (Think about it)

And depraved indifference would apply to the people in the car who were not the driver. It does not apply to a person who saw it and didn't report it to the police..
post #39 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetbaby3
So because someone hasn't seen a dead baby nor cared for a critically injured child, that means that its OK to not buckle? Only nurses, doctors, trauma surgeons and paramedics buckle their kids up?

To refer to piglets last post, my experience directly correlates to data, therefore supporting it.

If you do not buckle your child and get into an accident, your child's chances of dying or being critically injured are greatly increased. period. why anyone would risk it, then tie CIO into it, is ridiculous.

And yes, *I* have cared for dead and mangled kids. Yup, I've zipped the bag of an unrestrained child ejected in a rollover. Dad walked away without a scratch, and the car had little damage, but the child was gone. Just like that. in an instant. And if anyone here has a problem with me stating that, let me know.
Read my friggin' post please. I was saying that if you feel ancedotal evidence is valid support for an argument (and this board is full of acedotal arguments) you then can't dismiss someone else's ancedotal evidence with a pithy phrase ("the plural of ancedote is not data").

And no, I don't have a problem with your dead baby ancedotes; in fact, I am a big fan of ancedotal evidence and think much truth is discovered in lived experience and narrative. I think BOTH someone's experience living in a counrties without car seat laws AND someone experience trying to save babies thrown from cars is valid and useful in a discussion of what to do when you see a mom driving with a kid not in a car seat.

Again, ALL I was saying is that you can't selectively allow ancedotal evidence in - allowing it in where it suits your purpose (in our stuggles to forego scientifically supported medical procedures like vacs and eye ointment) and dismiss it where it doesn't.
post #40 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetbaby3

To refer to piglets last post, my experience directly correlates to data, therefore supporting it.
I first heard that pithy little line when it was used against me in a vax debate. The preponderance of scientific data supports the safety of vaccines. The experinces in the vax forum (vaccines and autism) or in pregnancy forum (i.e. Vitimin K and jaundice) does NOT "directly correlate" most of the scientific data that is out there.

My point is not that ancedotal reasoning is bad, just that it is hypocritical to cite it when it helps make your case against the "data" out there but then turn around and shoot someone down (with a cutsie line) for doing the same.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › UGH-SOME PEOPLE (vent!)