Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Andy B on 17 December 2014, 20:12:58
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30513439
unless we have smoke & kids detectors at the side of the road how's this going to be enforced? Use of hand held phones is also banned but it still happens ........ see it al the time, and kids roaming around in the back of cars without a seat belt is the same ....... but again I see it frequently - usually in the back of a big 4x4
-
What a daft idea by the do-gooders.
I'm all for banning drivers from smoking, in the same way I'm not allowed to scoff a pie whilst driving. But "to protect the children", what a bunch of namby pamby, trailer trash mongrels we're turning into >:(
-
What a daft idea by the do-gooders.
I'm all for banning drivers from smoking, in the same way I'm not allowed to scoff a pie whilst driving. But "to protect the children", what a bunch of namby pamby, trailer trash mongrels we're turning into >:(
eloquently put ........ as usual ;) ;)
-
So doesnt matter that you can smoke like a train in a closed room with your kids at home, but a car is a no no. Just another way to get money from the motorist :(
I remember when smoking in a van was introduced, I dont think I know of one van driver that has been done.
-
What a daft idea by the do-gooders.
I'm all for banning drivers from smoking, in the same way I'm not allowed to scoff a pie whilst driving. But "to protect the children", what a bunch of namby pamby, trailer trash mongrels we're turning into >:(
Really? when there is good evidence that early exposure (in childhood) to cigarette smoke is linked with a variety of respiratory illness in adult life. Evidence that passive smoke inhalation increases the use of healthcare by children? When the fact that smoking in a closed tiny environment like a car can expose innocent children to thousands of toxins at very high concentration levels (that they havent asked to inhale)? Children who cannot defend themselves against this evil?
-
.....
I remember when smoking in a van was introduced, I dont think I know of one van driver that has been done.
Yes, that was anther thought through law. In theory you're breaking the law if you smoke in your own vehicle even when you're a one man band ???
-
I hate the sight of a you g mum puffing on a fag with her kids in the back..but guess what....I used to do it. Along with a hundred other things that are now considered wrong.
When I feel the need to pass comment on certain behaviours today, I try to think back to when I was young and I realise that I probably did exactly the same things.
I'm not condoning them, just sayin like......
-
What a daft idea by the do-gooders.
I'm all for banning drivers from smoking, in the same way I'm not allowed to scoff a pie whilst driving. But "to protect the children", what a bunch of namby pamby, trailer trash mongrels we're turning into >:(
Really? when there is good evidence that early exposure (in childhood) to cigarette smoke is linked with a variety of respiratory illness in adult life. Evidence that passive smoke inhalation increases the use of healthcare by children? When the fact that smoking in a closed tiny environment like a car can expose innocent children to thousands of toxins at very high concentration levels (that they havent asked to inhale)? Children who cannot defend themselves against this evil?
Then you would have to ban smoking in the family home, to protect children, and how is that going to be Policed?
We can't even stop people using their phones in cars, or even drink driving, and with less and less Police available it is just foolish imo............. ;) ;)
-
What a daft idea by the do-gooders.
I'm all for banning drivers from smoking, in the same way I'm not allowed to scoff a pie whilst driving. But "to protect the children", what a bunch of namby pamby, trailer trash mongrels we're turning into >:(
Really? when there is good evidence that early exposure (in childhood) to cigarette smoke is linked with a variety of respiratory illness in adult life. Evidence that passive smoke inhalation increases the use of healthcare by children? When the fact that smoking in a closed tiny environment like a car can expose innocent children to thousands of toxins at very high concentration levels (that they havent asked to inhale)? Children who cannot defend themselves against this evil?
But I can sit little Johnny on my knee at home and blow smoke in his face.
And as the proposal is for "children" up to the age of 18, its a load of guff. Its not just for (alleged) susceptical toddlers.
I'm not a smoker - thanks to one of my brothers, I gave that shit up when I was about 5 - so I'm not a big fan of fags, the smell and the smoke. But I do not believe such things should be legislated.
For example, although pubs and restuarants are nicer places now, I am against the law of banning smoking in indoor public places.
-
I hate the sight of a you g mum puffing on a fag with her kids in the back..but guess what....I used to do it. Along with a hundred other things that are now considered wrong.
When I feel the need to pass comment on certain behaviours today, I try to think back to when I was young and I realise that I probably did exactly the same things.
I'm not condoning them, just sayin like......
We have all done it......... :o :o I remember driving buses, full of kids, and smoking away at the wheel, would never think about it today............. :y :y
-
I hate the sight of a you g mum puffing on a fag with her kids in the back..but guess what....I used to do it. Along with a hundred other things that are now considered wrong.
When I feel the need to pass comment on certain behaviours today, I try to think back to when I was young and I realise that I probably did exactly the same things.
I'm not condoning them, just sayin like......
What? You mean no silly child seats and booster cushions for your little ones :o. No seat belts :o. Not cotton wool and bubble wrap to protect them so they can't learn whats likely to hurt and what isn't :o
Christ, your kids must have turn out normal in the end :y
-
What a daft idea by the do-gooders.
I'm all for banning drivers from smoking, in the same way I'm not allowed to scoff a pie whilst driving. But "to protect the children", what a bunch of namby pamby, trailer trash mongrels we're turning into >:(
Really? when there is good evidence that early exposure (in childhood) to cigarette smoke is linked with a variety of respiratory illness in adult life. Evidence that passive smoke inhalation increases the use of healthcare by children? When the fact that smoking in a closed tiny environment like a car can expose innocent children to thousands of toxins at very high concentration levels (that they havent asked to inhale)? Children who cannot defend themselves against this evil?
Put yourself in the role of enforcement of this particular piece of legislation.
Join it in with all the other bits of legislation you need to look out for.
Add a smidge of assault, wife/hubby beating, drug dealing, shop lifting, Facebook trolling and a Miriam of other minutae on the legal scale and requirements thereof and give a reviewed assessment.
Yes, smoking in the confines of a car is bad. not denying that in any way. Just needs thinking through so as to get best results all round - and that's not just from a kids medical viewpoint. :)
-
Agree entirely, Broocie. The wife, as a headteacher, is being asked to, more or less, take over all of the parenting skills which the kids usually get at home. Every thing from sex education to female genital mutilation, to child brides to brushing their teeth. Not forgetting child protection issues.
Police can't police properly with dwindling resources and growing workload, just as teachers can't teach when they are trying to look after every aspect of social welfare.
-
...
What? You mean no silly child seats and booster cushions for your little ones :o. ....
another stupid bit of legislation. You drop your kids off at swimming/football/etc & you can't get back for what ever reason. You ask your mate if he/she will pick them up for you ...... no booster seat - unless Little Johnny always carries his booster seat with him - and is a booster actually needed in the front passenger seat of an Omega where the seat lifts up & the belt slides down the B post?
-
Agree entirely, Broocie. The wife, as a headteacher, is being asked to, more or less, take over all of the parenting skills which the kids usually get at home. Every thing from sex education to female genital mutilation, to child brides to brushing their teeth. Not forgetting child protection issues.
Police can't police properly with dwindling resources and growing workload, just as teachers can't teach when they are trying to look after every aspect of social welfare.
Same in my household. Wife is in nursery and daughter primary. This year, she is primary one/two for the first time in poss 8 years qualified. It's an eye opener to her in many ways. Fek knows how the hard of thinking get by as its challenge enough for someone with both brains and feelings.....
-
...
What? You mean no silly child seats and booster cushions for your little ones :o. ....
another stupid bit of legislation. You drop your kids off at swimming/football/etc & you can't get back for what ever reason. You ask your mate if he/she will pick them up for you ...... no booster seat - unless Little Johnny always carries his booster seat with him - and is a booster actually needed in the front passenger seat of an Omega where the seat lifts up & the belt slides down the B post?
In certain circumstances I am exempt from using baby / booster seats............ ;) :-X
But Yes Andy, it was a pain when Miss Vamps was little and a parent may take 2 or 3 to an activity and another parent pick them up, we used to have to call round to swap them over.......... ::) ::)
-
Wife is in nursery and daughter primary.
I had them both down as a little bit older, B :P
-
As a child, it was always said that I suffered from extreme car sickness. I'd throw up even on quite short car journeys. Years later I realized that it wasn't car sickness, it was my dad puffing on his pipe and my mum smoking fags with the windows closed.
We all know about unenforced/unenforcable legislation, seat belts, phone use etc, but surely the very exisitence of legislation must to some extent act as a deterent ? At least the option is there to prosecute ? At least it will raise awareness of the problem ? Or is it better not to have this legislation and simply do nothing at all ?
I ache with pity whenever I see miserable kids in the back of a car smothered in Mum or Dads stupidity and/or selfishness (take your pick). If legislation helps just a tiny bit, then that's fine with me. The sooner the better.
By the way, I used to smoke, but NEVER in the presence of my kids either in the car or at home or anywhere.
-
As a child, it was always said that I suffered from extreme car sickness. I'd throw up even on quite short car journeys. Years later I realized that it wasn't car sickness, it was my dad puffing on his pipe and my mum smoking fags with the windows closed.
We all know about unenforced/unenforcable legislation, seat belts, phone use etc, but surely the very exisitence of legislation must to some extent act as a deterent ? At least the option is there to prosecute ? At least it will raise awareness of the problem ? Or is it better not to have this legislation and simply do nothing at all ?
I ache with pity whenever I see miserable kids in the back of a car smothered in Mum or Dads stupidity and/or selfishness (take your pick). If legislation helps just a tiny bit, then that's fine with me. The sooner the better.
By the way, I used to smoke, but NEVER in the presence of my kids either in the car or at home or anywhere.
Yup, my old man used to smoke cigars in the car all the time until I was about 15 years old.
He stopped around 1979 after he watched lung cancer destroy (via a medical opps up) his mother and as if by magic, my travel sickness stopped over night
-
EDIT: OOh eck - appear to have written an essay..... :y :y
I think 'yes, there should be a law against this' but to be honest it seems pretty stupid, in so far as if you're an adult, you know what you're doing to your lungs - maybe you'll go at 40, maybe you'll die at 90 from being hit on the head by a falling signs saying 'Health and Safety Warning - Please mind you head' but surely any adult knows that smoking isn't a 'nice' or 'good for you' passtime. So literally weening your kids onto it from birth is just wrong. The parents who know this surely would never do that in front of their kids. The parents that are actually so moronic to think it's 'ok' won't give a rat's backside about some piece of legislation.
Presumably introduced by the same people that invented speed bumps - slow everyone down, apart from the Twockers. Police can't chase them unless they want to fill in a dozen forms indenting for a new exhaust for the pursuit car... and the rest of us just wear brakes & suspension out quicker - and god only knows what extra pollution / tonnes of hyrocarbons = asthma in towns and cities speed bumps have resulted in the last 20 years...
Namby pamby legislation that won't deter the real 'aggressors' a smidge, and won't touch anyone else, on the grounds that no-one with half a brain or more would subject their kids to prolonged fag smoke anyway. They could have put the wages they spend pushing this and other pointless bits of 'law' through in a kitty, and when it reached the top, finished the MR4A program. Deterring Nuclear Russian Subs a damn sight more important than deterring Jade and Olly from lighting up near little baby Marlboro.
-
Yes. A well-reasoned argument :y
Except, maybe, for the MR4A bit.....
-
... The parents who know this surely would never do that in front of their kids. The parents that are actually so moronic to think it's 'ok' won't give a rat's backside about some piece of legislation...
Exactly. We have sleepwalked into a situation where we have aforementioned trailer trash, with no common sense or moral fibre and now we're trying to legislate it into them. It isn't going to work.
-
What a daft idea by the do-gooders.
I'm all for banning drivers from smoking, in the same way I'm not allowed to scoff a pie whilst driving. But "to protect the children", what a bunch of namby pamby, trailer trash mongrels we're turning into >:(
However do you manage then Jaime? Do you take along a small person to feed you pies? ::)
-
The old red buses were the worst for smoke when I was a nipper.
There used to be constant 'fug' of smoke.
We just accepted it.
-
The old red buses were the worst for smoke when I was a nipper.
There used to be constant 'fug' of smoke.
We just accepted it.
Luckily most us are more enlightened these days, but some still need the 'big stick' to change their ways. :(
-
Luckily most us are more enlightened these days, but some still need the 'big stick' to change their ways. :(
Unfortunately in this case I think the 'big stick' will prove to be rather more 'limp stick'..
-
... The parents who know this surely would never do that in front of their kids. The parents that are actually so moronic to think it's 'ok' won't give a rat's backside about some piece of legislation...
Exactly. We have sleepwalked into a situation where we have aforementioned trailer trash, with no common sense or moral fibre and now we're trying to legislate it into them. It isn't going to work.
Very probably not. Particularly around where I live. But is that an excuse for not even trying ?
The oiks who smoke in the car with kids have a choice about whether to do it or not. The kids have no choice. Do we simply say that they don't matter as they are just "oik-kids" ? Some views here seem to suggest exactly that.
-
I'm definitely in favour of it being both seen as wrong, as well as being legislated again - in principle. It's just that I'm not sure how many people would abide by it - basically none.
Not in any way suggesting the kids aren't worth it, of course, but living and working in Grimsby/Cleethorpes I see first hand every day kids being called pretty disgraceful names by their own parents, kids walking behind, smothered in the fag smoke wake of their parent, kids politely asking a pretty intelligent question, only to be verbally or physically beaten down and told to shut up, mum's busy texting a fit lad etc.. And sadly, it's very difficult to tell people how to raise their own children, and tragically it's their right to bring their kids up how they want. Also, see no reason why this argument shouldnt/doesn't apply just as much to middle / upper class wannanbe towie/wag types in their Range Rooneys puffing on cigars etc...
Intelligence/stupidity has no class distinction. ::) ::) It's the same middle-class vegan(apart from nice tasting meat, obviously) types who read one article on google, and then conclude their kids aren't going to get vaccinated, who are causing just as much/more disease than the 'wave of foreigners' coming into the country un-vaccinated. :)
Oh, I feel so much better about the world! ;D
Lets all just hide in our Omegas, click the door pins down and make sure the air is on recirculate mode!! :y :y
-
Can't understand why anyone would want to smoke in their car, or even their house, for that matter.
I don't.
-
Luckily most us are more enlightened these days, but some still need the 'big stick' to change their ways. :(
Unfortunately in this case I think the 'big stick' will prove to be rather more 'limp stick'..
Job for Stemo then ;D
-
Luckily most us are more enlightened these days, but some still need the 'big stick' to change their ways. :(
Unfortunately in this case I think the 'big stick' will prove to be rather more 'limp stick'..
Job for Stemo then ;D
You're getting your sticks and dicks mixed up again. Ha ha ha. :P
Oh...wait up....I mean.....shit! :-[
-
;D ;D ;D
-
OK, so a few years ago, it was inside public places. Today its cars. The logical conclusion is a total ban. I occasionally like a drink. Drinking in your own home is already being made out to be antisocial, and there is a target on drinking in pubs. The logical conclusion is that will have to be banned.
Then driving diesel cars. Then any car with a combustion engine. Then electricity.
Quite simply, if people are not able to work out right from wrong, morally, its already too late, and we're screwed. Legislating will do the square root of cock all to resolve that.
A sensible start would be to line up all the do-gooders backing such crap, and remove their liberty. With a bullet.
-
A sensible start would be to line up all the do-gooders backing such crap, and remove their liberty. With a bullet.
Ahh. Bullet made of lead? No can do due to ROHS legislation. :-X A greener solution would be to wire them up to a wind turbine and wait for it to start blowing, IMHO. I'm sure they're dying to prove that wind turbines aren't totally without benefit to mankind. ;)
-
Unless I missed it there seems to be no suggestion of stopping kids smoking in cars....... :y :y
OK I jest, a little, who is defining the age of 'kids'?............... :-\ :-\
-
OK, so a few years ago, it was inside public places. Today its cars. The logical conclusion is a total ban. I occasionally like a drink. Drinking in your own home is already being made out to be antisocial, and there is a target on drinking in pubs. The logical conclusion is that will have to be banned.
Then driving diesel cars. Then any car with a combustion engine. Then electricity.
Quite simply, if people are not able to work out right from wrong, morally, its already too late, and we're screwed. Legislating will do the square root of cock all to resolve that.
A sensible start would be to line up all the do-gooders backing such crap, and remove their liberty. With a bullet.
This demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of this proposed legislation. Moronically so.
I am no left wing tree hugger. I have sometimes described my views as being somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan, however I have always stood up for those who are genuinely not in a position to control their circumstances. This may be the genuinely (not benefit scroungers) disabled, the old and infirm (genuinely infirm), and children. Compared with some of the views expressed here the BNP are left wing softies.
All together now . . . . . . . Sieg heil ! !
I'm off . . . . .
-
Can't understand why anyone would want to smoke in their car, or even their house, for that matter.
I don't.
I used to do
-
......
OK I jest, a little, who is defining the age of 'kids'?............... :-\ :-\
I'm sure I've heard that it'll apply to 'kids' up to 18 ie those that can't now legally buy them for themselves ;) So if you pass your test at 17, you'll not be able to smoke behind the wheel of your own car cos you'd be under age :o :o
-
Don't smoke. No kids. Bothered? No!
-
......
OK I jest, a little, who is defining the age of 'kids'?............... :-\ :-\
I'm sure I've heard that it'll apply to 'kids' up to 18 ie those that can't now legally buy them for themselves ;) So if you pass your test at 17, you'll not be able to smoke behind the wheel of your own car cos you'd be under age :o :o
Exactly............ ::) ::) ::) We also often see girls, and boys, 14 or 15 or thereabouts, cruising with said 17 year old, smoking, though not necessarily traditional cigarettes........... ;) ;) :-X
-
OK, so a few years ago, it was inside public places. Today its cars. The logical conclusion is a total ban. I occasionally like a drink. Drinking in your own home is already being made out to be antisocial, and there is a target on drinking in pubs. The logical conclusion is that will have to be banned.
Then driving diesel cars. Then any car with a combustion engine. Then electricity.
Quite simply, if people are not able to work out right from wrong, morally, its already too late, and we're screwed. Legislating will do the square root of cock all to resolve that.
A sensible start would be to line up all the do-gooders backing such crap, and remove their liberty. With a bullet.
This demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of this proposed legislation. Moronically so.
I am no left wing tree hugger. I have sometimes described my views as being somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan, however I have always stood up for those who are genuinely not in a position to control their circumstances. This may be the genuinely (not benefit scroungers) disabled, the old and infirm (genuinely infirm), and children. Compared with some of the views expressed here the BNP are left wing softies.
All together now . . . . . . . Sieg heil ! !
I'm off . . . . .
Why?..............ffs, baby and bathwater spring to mind............. :( :( :(
-
Original 2008 legislation was rolled out under the Health and Safety in the Workplace banner...
Might have sat better as a restaurant issue :-\
If the powers that be were serious about banning smoking, they would outlaw it...
-
Original 2008 legislation was rolled out under the Health and Safety in the Workplace banner...
Might have sat better as a restaurant issue :-\
If the powers that be were serious about banning smoking, they would outlaw it...
I think they would it were not for then Tax Revenue the gain from it...........
-
Original 2008 legislation was rolled out under the Health and Safety in the Workplace banner...
Might have sat better as a restaurant issue :-\
If the powers that be were serious about banning smoking, they would outlaw it...
I think they would it were not for then Tax Revenue the gain from it...........
Rubbish excuse... over time the NHS savings would far out weigh the revenue loss ;) might upset the lefties though.
-
OK, so a few years ago, it was inside public places. Today its cars. The logical conclusion is a total ban. I occasionally like a drink. Drinking in your own home is already being made out to be antisocial, and there is a target on drinking in pubs. The logical conclusion is that will have to be banned.
Then driving diesel cars. Then any car with a combustion engine. Then electricity.
Quite simply, if people are not able to work out right from wrong, morally, its already too late, and we're screwed. Legislating will do the square root of cock all to resolve that.
A sensible start would be to line up all the do-gooders backing such crap, and remove their liberty. With a bullet.
This demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of this proposed legislation. Moronically so.
I am no left wing tree hugger. I have sometimes described my views as being somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan, however I have always stood up for those who are genuinely not in a position to control their circumstances. This may be the genuinely (not benefit scroungers) disabled, the old and infirm (genuinely infirm), and children. Compared with some of the views expressed here the BNP are left wing softies.
All together now . . . . . . . Sieg heil ! !
I'm off . . . . .
Why?..............ffs, baby and bathwater spring to mind............. :( :( :(
Understandable in the face of such an utterly obtuse and self centred outlook.
There does appear to be a full moon tonight, going by some posts. Along with the ongoing "Who can be the most arrogant" competition reaching such jaw dropping levels of excelance, that not even man flu could excuse. Suprised there's anyone left on here tbh.
-
In certain circumstances I am exempt from using baby / booster seats............ ;) :-X
But Yes Andy, it was a pain when Miss Vamps was little and a parent may take 2 or 3 to an activity and another parent pick them up, we used to have to call round to swap them over.......... ::) ::)
Not just you, EVERYBODY who has an unexpected journey:-
2. When a child can travel without a car seat
A child can travel without a child car seat in some circumstances.
Taxis and minicabs (private hire vehicles)
In a licensed taxi or minicab:
children under 3 years of age can travel without a child’s car seat or seat belt, but only on the back seat
children aged 3 years or older can travel without a child’s car seat if they wear an adult seat belt
Unexpected journeys
If the correct child seat isn’t available, a child over 3 years of age can use an adult seat belt if the journey is all of the following:
unexpected
necessary
over a short distance
You can’t take children under 3 in a vehicle without a seat belt or the correct child car seat (except a taxi or minicab).
No room for a third child seat
Children under 3 must be in a child car seat. If there’s no room for a third child seat in the back of the vehicle, the child must travel in the front seat with the correct child seat.
Children over 3 years can sit in the back using an adult belt.
Vehicles without seat belts
Children under 3 must be in a child car seat. If there’s no seat belt, they can’t travel.
A child over 3 can travel in a back seat without a car seat and without a seat belt if the vehicle doesn’t have one.
....another stupid bit of legislation. You drop your kids off at swimming/football/etc & you can't get back for what ever reason. You ask your mate if he/she will pick them up for you ...... no booster seat - unless Little Johnny always carries his booster seat with him...
So reading the above if you can't get back 'for whatever reason' it becomes an 'unexpected journey', it isn't a stupid bit of legislation, its actually quite sensible in the way its written. If you knew you were not coming back then theres no reason why you couldn't have left the seat with whoever maybe collecting the child
Guess its much more fun to bitch and moan whithout knowledge
-
There does appear to be a full moon tonight
One has to be careful using this phrase on here ::) ;D
-
....
over a short distance ???
....another stupid bit of legislation. You drop your kids off at swimming/football/etc & you can't get back for what ever reason. You ask your mate if he/she will pick them up for you ...... no booster seat - unless Little Johnny always carries his booster seat with him...
So reading the above if you can't get back 'for whatever reason' it becomes an 'unexpected journey', it isn't a stupid bit of legislation, its actually quite sensible in the way its written. If you knew you were not coming back then theres no reason why you couldn't have left the seat with whoever maybe collecting the child
Guess its much more fun to bitch and moan whithout knowledge
........ and accidents don't happen on short journeys ......
If I'd known when I'd dropped the kids off I would leave the seat ...... but would it fit in the swimming pool changing room locker ........ where do you leave a seat? That scenario is exactly what I mean, you fully intend to go back for them but 'for what ever reason' you can't get back for them. Stupid might not be the right word, but it's certainly unnecessary to legislate ....... it just makes criminal out of more & more ordinary people
-
In certain circumstances I am exempt from using baby / booster seats............ ;) :-X
But Yes Andy, it was a pain when Miss Vamps was little and a parent may take 2 or 3 to an activity and another parent pick them up, we used to have to call round to swap them over.......... ::) ::)
Not just you, EVERYBODY who has an unexpected journey:-
2. When a child can travel without a car seat
A child can travel without a child car seat in some circumstances.
Taxis and minicabs (private hire vehicles)
In a licensed taxi or minicab:
children under 3 years of age can travel without a child’s car seat or seat belt, but only on the back seat
children aged 3 years or older can travel without a child’s car seat if they wear an adult seat belt
Unexpected journeys
If the correct child seat isn’t available, a child over 3 years of age can use an adult seat belt if the journey is all of the following:
unexpected
necessary
over a short distance
You can’t take children under 3 in a vehicle without a seat belt or the correct child car seat (except a taxi or minicab).
No room for a third child seat
Children under 3 must be in a child car seat. If there’s no room for a third child seat in the back of the vehicle, the child must travel in the front seat with the correct child seat.
Children over 3 years can sit in the back using an adult belt.
Vehicles without seat belts
Children under 3 must be in a child car seat. If there’s no seat belt, they can’t travel.
A child over 3 can travel in a back seat without a car seat and without a seat belt if the vehicle doesn’t have one.
....another stupid bit of legislation. You drop your kids off at swimming/football/etc & you can't get back for what ever reason. You ask your mate if he/she will pick them up for you ...... no booster seat - unless Little Johnny always carries his booster seat with him...
So reading the above if you can't get back 'for whatever reason' it becomes an 'unexpected journey', it isn't a stupid bit of legislation, its actually quite sensible in the way its written. If you knew you were not coming back then theres no reason why you couldn't have left the seat with whoever maybe collecting the child
Guess its much more fun to bitch and moan whithout knowledge
If I have to do such a think, for work, it is certainly unexpected and necessary, particularly for the parents............ ;) ;) :-X
By the way, I wasn't bitching or moaning.......... :y :y