National Safety Council and Road Deaths

H

Humpback

Registered User
Messages
859
It is of my personal belief that this organisation are about as helpful to Road Safety as the Consumers Association is towards consumer welfare. The latest guff to come from the NSC is as follows -

NSC seeks greater enforcement of child restraint laws
01/09/2005 - 12:12:51

The National Safety Council (NSC) has called for greater enforcement of regulations governing the use of seat-belts and other restraints for children.

The council made the call at the launch of a roadshow giving parents the chance to get their child car seats checked for free.

Spokesman Brian Farrell said: "I don't think any parent would willingly put their child's life in danger, but that's what they're doing when they allow them to travel unrestrained."

This type of hysteria and unnecessary lumping of fear and guilt on top of parents does nothing for road safety except increase the profits of those who manufacture and sell child restraint seats to these parents.

There have been 253 unnecessary deaths on our roads this year so far. 1% of these unnecessary deaths have been children under the age of 10 (3 in fact).

And all three of these were unnecessarily killed by being knocked down by cars. None were killed in an accident where their lives may have been saved by the use of child restraints.

Would the people they're aiming to protect be better served by Mr.Farrell and the National Safety Council by actually focusing peoples attentions on the actual causes of road deaths rather than on scaremongering parents who'll no doubt rush out to spend even more money in the back to school nightmare to buy the latest car seats so they'll feel better about not being bad parents?
 
Hi Ronan
I don't know if you are a parent, but speaking as one I'm afraid that you mightn't be exactly on the ball on the above subject. Child restraint seats have been proven to save countless lives and in the context of bringing up kids are not exactly a major expense. They have absolutely nothing to do with 'back to school' expenses as by the time kids start school, they generally no longer need the elaborate seats but can do with inexpensive booster seats instead.

On the other hand the NSC warnings are indeed warranted as child restraint seats may not work properly unless fitted properly and if damaged (for example by the impact of a previous accident) may be useless.

Speaking personally, I know of one family alone whose lives were devastated in recent years when their baby was killed while travelling in a moses basket in the back seat of their car. The less families to experience that horror the better.
 
ubiquitous,

Maybe my point was not direct or forceful enough.

My question revolves around the fact that the NSC are funding a major campaign and roadshow to cut the number of children who are dying on our roads, and in doing so focusing on child safety seats etc.

No children have died in road traffic accidents in the last 12-18 months. (I have the statistics if anyone wants them).

So, why do we have a big campaign from the NSC to try to reduce a number that is already 0 already?

Can they not instead address the 88 single vehicle car accidents (not to mention motorcycles - 20) where 116 people have been killed in the last 12-18 months, for example?
 
Would it be better if NSC waited for another child to die before doing something?

I'm afraid that comments like
This type of hysteria and unnecessary lumping of fear and guilt on top of parents does nothing for road safety except increase the profits of those who manufacture and sell child restraint seats to these parents.
Click to expand...
clearly demonstrate that you don't have a clue what you are talking about on this subject, regardless of how many statistics you use. If you feel so strongly on this, you should ask Eddie Hobbs to look into it!
 
ubiquitous said:
Would it be better if NSC waited for another child to die before doing something?!
Click to expand...

Forgive me for asking this so bluntly, but are you saying that 116 people dying in a year in single vehicle accidents are less worth caring about than 1 child? (I don't have children, but a life to me is a life, whether it be a child dying (tragic), or a man or woman in their 20's (equally tragic).

I am asking, why won't do something about an issue that IS A PROBLEM, rather than doing something about an issue that IS NOT A PROBLEM?

ubiquitous said:
I'm afraid that comments like clearly demonstrate that you don't have a clue what you are talking about (regardless of how many statistics you use). If you feel so strongly on this, you should ask Eddie Hobbs to look into it!
Click to expand...

Please explain why you think I don't have a clue here. I've made a clear case, and you've just retorted that I'm ignorant of the situation.

And why can't I do something about it myself? Your flippancy in throwing Eddie Hobbs into the mix here shows you're probably not all that serious in your comments here anyway - obviously you're caught up (quite rightly) in your love for your children and worried for their welfare, and are probably not fully awake to the wider world of the tragic road deaths that we're suffering every day in this country.
 
I see, just because I take exception to your comments on the risk of child deaths this means that I don't care about other road deaths, or in your own words "not fully awake to the wider world of the tragic road deaths that we're suffering every day in this country" What a disgusting slur...

The fact is that child restraint seats are a simple, straightforward and (let me say it clearly) inexpensive means of preventing death and minimising injury to children involved in motor accidents as passengers. The NSC would be criminally negligent in their duty to citizens if they did not reinforce this message whenever possible. To allege as you did that they are doing so simply to line the pockets of car seat manufacturers would be laughable were the issue not so serious.
 
ubiquitous said:
I see, just because I take exception to your comments on the risk of child deaths this means that I don't care about other road deaths, or in your own words "not fully awake to the wider world of the tragic road deaths that we're suffering every day in this country" What a disgusting slur...
Click to expand...

You were the one who highlighted "another child to die" in response to my comment regarding 116 of a certain type of fatality this year alone. I can only take from what you say. No slur intended.

ubiquitous said:
The fact is that child restraint seats are a simple, straightforward and (let me say it clearly) inexpensive means of preventing death and minimising injury to children involved in motor accidents as passengers. The NSC would be criminally negligent in their duty to citizens if they did not reinforce this message whenever possible.
Click to expand...

Can I assume then that they are actually negligent by NOT highlighting deaths from single vehicle accidents?

As a matter of interest, though you're questioning my overall post, you haven't specifically addressed the point that THERE ARE NO DEATHS OF CHILDREN IN CARS in road accidents in ireland in the last 18 months.

ubiquitous said:
To allege as you did that they are doing so simply to line the pockets of car seat manufacturers would be laughable were the issue not so serious.
Click to expand...

Please read my original post. I did not say that the NSC made this comment in order to make money for such manufacturers.

I said that their comments and allegations that parents who didn't buy such equipment were somehow neglecting their children would have the effect of increasing sales of such items, WHILE DOING NOTHING TO REDUCE DEATHS OF CHILDREN IN CARS, because there are no such deaths.
 
There may have been no deaths of children in cars within the past 18 months - this does not negate the fact that small children are uniquely vulnerable to death or serious injury in road accidents unless they are travelling in restrained seats. It may however be a sign that the Garda and NSC policy of enforcing compliance with child seat regulations may be working. If this is the case long may it continue.

You are clearly wrong in alleging that the NSC do not highlight deaths from single vehicle accidents. Their spokesmen regularly pinpoint this category of accident whenever they appear on Morning Ireland or other media interviews. A google.ie search for "National Safety Council" "single vehicle accidents" under the "pages from Ireland" option yields 36 results
 
I've raised my query here, and tried to answer your points, and clarify. Mentioning, highlighting... semantics here over the definitions regarding the coverage they give. I don't want to end up in a conversation like the ripoff threads elsewhere.

Suffice to say, I believe my point is still valid.

0 children dying in cars in road traffic accidents means a countrywide campaign and roadshow, whereas 116 people dying in single vehicle accidents doesn't.

Therein is my question with regards to what the NSC are doing.
 
Hi Ronan

When you state that "no children have died in the last 12-18 months what age group are you referring to?

I personally cringe as a mother to see young "mums" allowing their children 6+ to sit in the front of the car or perhaps 4 year olds stand in between the front and back seats.
The infants are provided with the best of safety seats but as soon as they grow out of them and can speak for themselves they seem to dictate where they will sit in the car
 
franmac said:
perhaps 4 year olds stand in between the front and back seats.
Click to expand...
Paramedics call this the 'launchpad' position, as the little darling will get fired through the windscreen like a rocket if there is a 20 mph fender-bender behind.
 
If an adult decides to get into a car and drive it at very high speeds and ends up smashing into a wall or ditch and killing themselves then that's their choice. I have very little sympathy for such people as they were aware of the stupid risk they were taking and ignoring the potential grief they would cause to their family and friends, and the danger they would pose to other road users, they chose to behave like dangerous idiots. If they end up dead they are but victims of circumstances that were entirely their own making.
Young children on the other hand are not in control of their environment and parents who travel with children standing in between the front seats are putting those children in harms way and should loose their licence for a year on the first offence and go to prison for the next one. It is just about the most stupid and reckless think that a parent can do to their child in the normal course of a day.
I have also heard from a fireman friend of mine about the launch position between the front seats. He attended an accident where it took them 15 minutes to find the child that had been thrown through the front window as she had been thrown about 60 feet into a field of long grass.
 
ubiquitous said:
There may have been no deaths of children in cars within the past 18 months - this does not negate the fact that small children are uniquely vulnerable to death or serious injury in road accidents unless they are travelling in restrained seats.
Click to expand...

Ala Clubman, can you please back this up with facts/figures?

Couldn't it be also the case that the reason for no deaths is because parents are likely to drive slower/more safely when their children are in the car than they would if they're on their own?

Purely coincidental, last night I was reading Freakonomics by Steven Levitt. He has a chapter dedicated to overbearing parents, and how in many cases their undoubted desire to look after their children is misplaced (statistically proven). He mentioned in this chapter how car seatbelts fitted into this category as well, and poorly fitted ones at that.
 
Actually it was me, not Clubman, who made this comment. If you had read the above posts by Franmac, Rainyday and Purple you would have realised the obvious and self-evident truth of what I was saying. This is a matter of basic common sense. As such there is little point in me wading through the web or through people's MA theses to demonstrate this. If you're not convinced, why not ring the NSC and ask them?
 
ubiquitous said:
Actually it was me, not Clubman, who made this comment. If you had read the above posts by Franmac, Rainyday and Purple you would have realised the obvious and self-evident truth of what I was saying. This is a matter of basic common sense. As such there is little point in me wading through the web or through people's MA theses to demonstrate this. If you're not convinced, why not ring the NSC and ask them?
Click to expand...

Why would I ring the people who's mode of operation I'm questioning in the first place?

They're hardly going to tell me something that doesn't justify the position they've taken and the expense they've incurred so far in their campaign.
 
You are free to contact whoever you want. The NSC undoubtedly will have some of the statistics you seek. So will the Garda Press Office and possibly the motor insurance companies. If you're worried about wastage of public funds, you are free to contact the Comptroller & Auditor General's office or in the first instance your local public representative.
 
ubiquitous said:
You are free to contact whoever you want. The NSC undoubtedly will have some of the statistics you seek. So will the Garda Press Office and possibly the motor insurance companies. If you're worried about wastage of public funds, you are free to contact the Comptroller & Auditor General's office or in the first instance your local public representative.
Click to expand...

Okay.

1. The NSC will not provide any statistics that I have requested of them. They have been singularly unhelpful when approached when looking for information.

2. The Gardai have been extremely helpful, but they have only certain statistics on their website which they can publish. These accidents may be subject to court cases etc.

3. I don't need any more statistics than I have. I fail to see why you've got a problem with what I've presented here in the hope of getting a discussion going.

4. My final comment on this. This article, again found after my original post, is worth reading in the context of this non-discussion.

The Seat-Belt Solution: How Much Good Do Car Seats Do?
 
ronan_d_john said:
Can they not instead address the 88 single vehicle car accidents (not to mention motorcycles - 20) where 116 people have been killed in the last 12-18 months, for example?
Click to expand...
Haven't they already had huge ongoing campaigns on this area?
 
Purple said:
Young children on the other hand are not in control of their environment
Click to expand...

Indeed. So I wonder why nobody seems concerned about the amount of provisional drivers that carry their children in the car with them without a qualified driver.

See it every day all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top