new rules...

....buggrem.

from some thing the council sent round:

"New regulations governing the use of child car seats look set to come into
force in September 2006.

Under the plans, all children aged over 3 years, but shorter than 1.35m (4'
5") in height, will have to use a booster cushion, child seat or suitable
child restraint while travelling in a car fitted with seat belts.

Restraints will be compulsory for all children under three. The only
exceptions will be children travelling in the rear of taxis with no child
seats, or 'unforeseen emergencies' such as a trip to hospital or a doctor.

The new rules will also stop motorists transporting too many children in the
back of a car. If seat belts are provided, the number of people in the rear
will not be able to exceed the number of seats with belts or child
restraints."
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"'Tis a mad world, my masters" John Taylor (1580-1633) Western Voyage, 1

Austin Shackles <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz
funny about:
> ...buggrem.
>
> from some thing the council sent round:
>
> "New regulations governing the use of child car seats look set to
> come into force in September 2006.

<snip>

Having had to deal with the aftermath of childern thrown from vehicles I can
only say I fully agree.
The booster seats make perfect sense. No point being secured in a seat if
that security only serves to break you neck. In fact I can't actually see
anything that is negative in there.

Lee
--
www.lrproject.com
Reaching the parts other Landrover restorers can't reach - JLo makes new
home in the USA.
Percy IIa - two Engines to the mile, awaits a new chassis.
Morph - He's "living the dream".

Lee_D wrote:

> In fact I can't actually see anything that is negative in there.

I can - not there though. Austin didn't mention that they are also
planning on making it illegal to use childseats which are more than 8
years old (8 is coming from my memory, but I think it's about that).
Nothing to do with whether they were in an accident (that's common
sense to replace) - just age of the seat.

A few months ago my wife and I decided to get a new car seat as our
then 11 month old was getting to the stage of growing out of the one
she was in. We went to the new Mothercare shop and did what you do
fiddling with harnesses and the like. When eventually we were served it
was by some lassie who kept on going on about "buckle crunch" but
absolutely failed to explain to me in simple terms what it was. We
decided on one seat, and then they insisted on looking at the car (Land
Rover 110 CSW which was parked miles away). So the girl came and
looked at the car and saw that we had belts on sticks, so she said that
we would suffer from this "buckle crunch". She saw the child seat we
had, she tried moving it, and agreed that it was solidly fixed (it's an
American seat and came with instructions for fitting to anything from a
light aircraft to a truck). On getting back to the store she checked
her computer for a seat that was "compatible" with our LR. Nothing.
At all. For any of the LR range we had (pre-isofix). They would not
sell us a seat, because their COMPUTER said that none of the seats they
could get would be suitable.

After speaking with the store manager she agreed that it was
unfortunate, but they would not be moved on the issue and the best she
could suggest was to speak to Land Rover themselves about a LR genuine
parts seat.

So, take your 101 to Mothercare and ask them to fit it out with a
childseat so you can stay legal If you were to go the the
Inverness one, you'd find they wouldn't sell you a childseat and would
turn you away at the door, happy to see children dangerously carried
rather than go against the almighty computer.

Small wonder that Argos next door had sold out of childseats when we
visited there next. No wonder either that Tescos had started doing
them next door as well.

I know that you have to deal with the aftermath, piling up the spare
body parts and the like, but I can't see this legislation really
helping matter much. The other day the middle aged nurse that was in
the news getting a couple of years for killing kids - they weren't even
belted in. That's a legal requirement on her vehicle. If she's not
even going to belt them in, do we really think she's going to buy seats
for them @ 100 quid a pop and strap them in?

Oh yes, for a country that is meant to be looking at being greener,
what a fantastic piece of legislation. We really need more 2 car+
families like this will give.

Bah. Parents who care will transport their children safely they do not
need big brother to legislate that. If the goverment were really
concerned then why not make it mandatory to have built in car seats
(ala volvo) and height adjustable belts? Even just in the cars that
mostly families use - MPVs, estates etc?

Oh, the recent Which? report on the selling of car seats was
interesting as well. Apparently they found that most of the sellers
are clueless gowks as well.

Regards

William MacLeod (bee in the bonnet since that day in Inverness...)

Austin Shackles came up with the following;:
> ...buggrem.
>
> from some thing the council sent round:
>
> "New regulations governing the use of child car seats look set to come
> into force in September 2006.
>
> Under the plans, all children aged over 3 years, but shorter than 1.35m
> (4' 5") in height, will have to use a booster cushion, child seat or
> suitable child restraint while travelling in a car fitted with seat belts.
>
> Restraints will be compulsory for all children under three. The only
> exceptions will be children travelling in the rear of taxis with no child
> seats, or 'unforeseen emergencies' such as a trip to hospital or a doctor.
>
> The new rules will also stop motorists transporting too many children in
> the back of a car. If seat belts are provided, the number of people in
> the rear will not be able to exceed the number of seats with belts or
> child restraints."

To be truthful I can't see much wrong with it. Most responsible people will
already carry their children, and others children, safely, securely and
'properly'. Those who don't aren't complying with existing legislation
anyway and something that will (probably 'cos it nearly always does) add
even more cost to a 'safety device' will still be ignored by the dickwads
who don't gaf anyway.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

On 11 Apr 2006 03:26:15 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Bah. Parents who care will transport their children safely they do not
>need big brother to legislate that.

What really worries me (and yes, I'm sort of gonna contradict myself
here) is the idea that by legislating, we make things better. We
DON'T. By legislating for common sense we're taking away the notion
of individual responsibility.

I _do_ agree with legislation which acts to make society safer, though
which is where the contradiction comes in, but then again, to counter
that I think it's idiocy beyond belief to introduce, as has recently
been proposed, legislation to regulate the heat of the hot water
coming out of the tap. This was driven by a very sad incident where a
child was very badly injured - but where is the common sense? Not
making any judgements about the case inpoint, but why do parents (or
anyone else for that matter) not know to put the cold water in first,
then the hot?

There are a lot of 'common sense' things that are simply being lost
altogether IMO - no amount of legislation will enable folk to obtain
'clue', it'll just lead to more criminals...


--
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one
of distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being
increasingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
In memory of Brian {Hamilton Kelly} who logged off 15th September 2005

Paul wrote:

> To be truthful I can't see much wrong with it.

Probably because you're not going to have to buy another car because of
it? Or you don't mind replacing things simply because they are 8 years
old and look in perfect condition having had 6 months use?

> add even more cost to a 'safety device'

Even more annoying than the people who try and sell you car seats is
the amount of RUBBISH ones there are out there on the market. There is
not a single seat that I have found that compares to the older American
Fisher Price one I mentioned before, with its built in inertia reel
system, it's always adjusted right. Unlike every other one I see in
the shops which only restrain properly when adjusted right, and what a
guddle it is readjusting a harness in wintry weather with the car door
blowing away when your kid is twice the size they normally are due to
big jackets etc compared to the next time when they aren't in such
bulky clothes.

LR lost static seat belts (who remembers them - can't even lean over to
the center dashboard with them!) after the IIa, kids seats still have
them. Progress? Yeah right. You want less deaths, you make better
car seats designed for real world use, not just looking the part, or
matching with your pushchairs.

Regards

William MacLeod

Mother wrote:

> By legislating for common sense we're taking away the notion
> of individual responsibility.

Agree wholeheartedly.

> There are a lot of 'common sense' things that are simply being lost
> altogether IMO - no amount of legislation will enable folk to obtain
> 'clue', it'll just lead to more criminals...

Yes, these rash reactive pieces of legislation really do little to
address the root causes or these "clueless" incidents. I mean,
everyone does have their own clueless times, I'd be the first to admit
to mine, but no amount of legislation will ever change those, just
means that we all get banged up for them. In the case of the hot water
thing, I'd have thought that just putting up signs in school toilets
above the washbasins would suffice to drum it into kids cold first, hot
second, it will stay with them a lifetime if they see it every day and
they will automatically just do that.

Regards

William MacLeod

On 11 Apr 2006 03:26:15 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> scribbled the following nonsense:


>
>So, take your 101 to Mothercare and ask them to fit it out with a
>childseat so you can stay legal If you were to go the the
>Inverness one, you'd find they wouldn't sell you a childseat and would
>turn you away at the door, happy to see children dangerously carried
>rather than go against the almighty computer.
>


already investigating the options.... My favourite at the moment
involves large spreader plates, the top of the engine cover, and a
very quiet baby rocked to sleep by the burble of a V8. Needless to
say, SWMBO disagrees....
--

Simon Isaacs

Peterborough 4x4 Club Chairman, Newsletter Editor and Webmaster
Green Lane Association (GLASS) Financial Director
101 Ambi, undergoing camper conversion www.simoni.co.uk
1976 S3 LWT, Fully restored, ready for sale! Make me an offer!
Suzuki SJ410 (Wife's) 3" lift kit fitted, body shell now restored and mounted on chassis, waiting on a windscreen and MOT
Series 3 88" Rolling chassis...what to do next
1993 200 TDi Discovery
1994 200 TDi Discovery body shell, being bobbed and modded.....

Simon Isaacs wrote:

> My favourite at the moment involves large spreader plates, the top of the engine cover, >and a very quiet baby rocked to sleep by the burble of a V8. Needless to
> say, SWMBO disagrees....

Sounds like a cosy spot, anyway. Regarding the V8 and sleep, spot on I
bet there are a lot of babies who get sent out with Dad to give Mam
some peace and are lulled into sleep to the tune of the V8....

(my wife says that its just I can't hear the cries over the
engine/transmission noise ;-)

Regards

William MacLeod

[email protected] came up with the following;:
> Paul wrote:
>
>> To be truthful I can't see much wrong with it.
>
> Probably because you're not going to have to buy another car because of
> it? Or you don't mind replacing things simply because they are 8 years
> old and look in perfect condition having had 6 months use?

I don't mind replacing child seats that are three years old ... as ours was
when our second child was born. That few years of storage was not ideal and
I would guess that seven to eight years of storage would be even less likely
to keep the seat in good enough condition to put MY CHILD into.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

On 11 Apr 2006 08:31:19 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Sounds like a cosy spot, anyway. Regarding the V8 and sleep, spot on I
>bet there are a lot of babies who get sent out with Dad to give Mam
>some peace and are lulled into sleep to the tune of the V8....

Ah yes. Tim ended up driving around the showground at Peterborough a
couple of years ago for this very reason! Charlotte went off to land
of nod a treat. Woke the rest of us up, mind!


--
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one
of distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being
increasingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
In memory of Brian {Hamilton Kelly} who logged off 15th September 2005

> Bah. Parents who care will transport their children safely they do not
> need big brother to legislate that.

I agree, people who don't strap their kids in etc. etc. aren't going to
suddenly start doing it because of this piece of legislation. The
people who care are probably already doing what is in the legislation
anyway. Let's be honest, what is the chance of being caught and
prosecuted? How many cars do you see with kids bouncing around inside
of them? - bloody loads around here!

Whilst there is nothing wrong with those rules in theory, in practice
it will make absolutely no difference - just another set of rules and
regulations. I can't remember, but when I first saw this I looked into
it and I think it is something to do with harmonising the law on this
issue throughout Europe.

Like I said - great in theory, but won't make any difference in
practice, a bit like a Labour government! (sorry, I know you
should never mix politics and newsgroups!)

Re the Mothercare issue - they are probably protecting themselves from
the "Injury Lawyers 4U" type of idiot - and who can blame them really.

Matt.

Paul - xxx wrote:

> I don't mind replacing child seats that are three years old ... as ours was
> when our second child was born. That few years of storage was not ideal and
> I would guess that seven to eight years of storage would be even less likely
> to keep the seat in good enough condition to put MY CHILD into.

So, by the same reasoning do you replace your vehicle every three
years? With the one that scores highest in the rear passenger safety
tests?

Regards

William MacLeod

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:49:35 +0100, Simon Isaacs <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 11 Apr 2006 03:26:15 -0700, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> scribbled the following nonsense:
>
>
>>
>>So, take your 101 to Mothercare and ask them to fit it out with a
>>childseat so you can stay legal If you were to go the the
>>Inverness one, you'd find they wouldn't sell you a childseat and would
>>turn you away at the door, happy to see children dangerously carried
>>rather than go against the almighty computer.
>>
>
>
>already investigating the options.... My favourite at the moment
>involves large spreader plates, the top of the engine cover, and a
>very quiet baby rocked to sleep by the burble of a V8. Needless to
>say, SWMBO disagrees....

I had a lift in the back of morph on saturday night and I have to say
I almost fell asleep! (it was very luxurious in there in comparison
with my vehicle - even if i sat on the floor!).
The effect seemed to be working on Lee's kids too, so there must be
something in the v8 theory!

Simon Isaacs <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny about:
> On 11 Apr 2006 03:26:15 -0700, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> scribbled the following nonsense:

>> So, take your 101 to Mothercare and ask them to fit it out with a
>> childseat so you can stay legal If you were to go the the
>> Inverness one, you'd find they wouldn't sell you a childseat and
>> would turn you away at the door, happy to see children dangerously
>> carried rather than go against the almighty computer.

> already investigating the options.... My favourite at the moment
> involves large spreader plates, the top of the engine cover, and a
> very quiet baby rocked to sleep by the burble of a V8. Needless to
> say, SWMBO disagrees....

My side facing double seats fold up to reveal a forward facing single seats
(on both sides) plus plenty of leg room for the then forward facing seats.
This has cost a little storage space but whats more important. The rear
Cupboard frames are made of angle Iron with seat belt mounts welded in place
then nicely finished with a 6mm plywood. All very over engineered. Kids
seats go in a treat.

With regards to mothercatre they are just covering there arse due to our
compensation culture as well as trying to do the right thing I'd guess.

Bit like Halfords and numberplates for 101's, it's not going to stop people
buying perfectly legit ones, they just go elsewhere.

Lee.
--
www.lrproject.com
Reaching the parts other Landrover restorers can't reach - JLo makes new
home in the USA.
Percy IIa - two Engines to the mile, awaits a new chassis.
Morph - He's "living the dream".

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Paul - xxx wrote:
>
>> I don't mind replacing child seats that are three years old ... as ours
>> was
>> when our second child was born. That few years of storage was not ideal
>> and
>> I would guess that seven to eight years of storage would be even less
>> likely
>> to keep the seat in good enough condition to put MY CHILD into.
>
> So, by the same reasoning do you replace your vehicle every three
> years? With the one that scores highest in the rear passenger safety
> tests?
>
> Regards
>
> William MacLeod

I recently bought an old triumph Stag (good one, solid condition and I don't
mean seized solid either!) and decided the first thing it needed (after
various other safety related checks) was rear seat belts before my 7
year-old daughter went for a run in it.
Now, it would have been legal (I think?) for her to be sitting in the back
with NO seat belt due to there being none fitted in 1973, but now that I've
fitted (as a responsible parent that cares for his young) brand-new 3-point
inertia reel belts with the shoulder belt at the correct height for her,
some nitwit expects me to put her on a booster cushion/seat and have her
sitting too high for the belt to work properly?? I THINK NOT! The belts are
correctly fitted to the mounting points provided by the car manufacturer for
the purpose, but due to the nature of the design (the way the soft-top fits
in) the shoulder strap is very low, as is the back of the seat, and to be
honest wouldn't be comfy for a person over say 5'6" regardless of their age.
It's about time the taxpayer stopped having to pay for all these do-gooder
namby-pamby nit-wits to sit and decide on the latest issues of legislative
stupidity, which I'm sure they do just to try and justify their own
existance and paycheques! What we really need is more coppers on the
streets, able to pull in a car and "do" the driver if there are kids jumping
around not wearing belts that are provided! Education then punishment, NOT
smothering with legislative clap-trap!!
Oh, how I hate what this bloody useless government is turning our country
into! Blair, I 'kin hate your rotten guts!! Other problem of course, is,
what's the alternatives....
Badger.
(feeling better for getting that off his chest.)

Austin Shackles nearly made me spill my Shiraz on 11/04/2006 10:21 by
writing:

> Restraints will be compulsory for all children under three.

What? You mean I can tie 'em up and gag them to keep them quiet?

Excellent.




Andy

Badger nearly made me spill my Shiraz on 11/04/2006 18:46 by writing:

> Oh, how I hate what this bloody useless government is turning our country
> into! Blair, I 'kin hate your rotten guts!! Other problem of course, is,
> what's the alternatives....

I think you'll find the phrase "rock and a hard place" sums up the
dilemma rather neatly

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:21:23 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>The new rules will also stop motorists transporting too many children in the
>back of a car. If seat belts are provided, the number of people in the rear
>will not be able to exceed the number of seats with belts or child
>restraints."

Well that's clearly bollocks from any angle. All cars made after 1987
have to have seatbelts in the rear anyway, and not to use them is
already an offence. And none of that stopped that woman getting a puny
2-year sentence for killing three of the 7 kids she had in the car.

Alex

On or around 11 Apr 2006 03:26:15 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

> If the goverment were really
>concerned then why not make it mandatory to have built in car seats
>(ala volvo) and height adjustable belts? Even just in the cars that
>mostly families use - MPVs, estates etc?

My minibus has adjustable seat belts - the only thing different is a slider
which will move down the belt to effectively make it shorter, to fit short
people. I don't see why such devices shouldn't be made to retrofit on any
3-point belt. Then you have a suitable child restraint...
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then
something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination -
we learned to talk." Pink Floyd (1994)