Child safety in cars. Is there any way to politely butt in?

[Dangerosa]

@WhyNot

The answer is no, there’s no way to politely butt in. “Polite” is the antithesis of “butt in”. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it and take the risk anyway.

I’m on the don’t butt in side.

I’m always shocked when well meaning people want to tell people information that is all over the place regarding their children. Whether its don’t smoke during pregnancy or have your kid wear a bike helmet or don’t let your kid sit in the front seat. This informaiton has all been part of very successful information campaigns - I’m told these things at the peditrician, I’m sold a bike helmet when I buy a bike, the warnings regarding car seats and riding in the front seat are on my sunvisors and billboards that I pass every day, schools put all this stuff in their newsletters. Why, if I’m choosing to ignore all this advice from professionals and experts, will I accept it from a stranger? What makes people say “oh, if I’m the one that explains the benefits of whole grains to this parent, they will stop feeding their kid Wonderbread.”

I suppose there are parents out there that have managed to live in a cave and don’t realize that the choices that they are making are not the best choices - those people may benefit from a friendly stranger - but I think that most parents do know these things, and they are choosing to do something for some other reason - and that friendly stranger is just patronizing. Unless what they are doing is actually illegal - its their choice.

[XaMcQ]

@commasense

In my opinion it’s none of your business. They’re not your children. Although there is a sense in which your concern is admirable, it’s not your responsibility to step in, unless you happen to be good friends with the parents and have reason to believe that they are unaware of the risks. In that situation you might mildly inquire if they know about the dangers, without appearing to accuse them of child neglect.

I believe there is an element of ego involved in any attempt to intrude into the business of strangers with the intent of protecting them from themselves. You may feel that you are only thinking of the children, but IMHO you would be better off to resist the temptation.

If you persist anyway, expect people to be offended. You may accomplish your stated goals if they consider your message after their anger has passed. But the possibility that they will be angry with you (sometimes justifiably, if, for example, they have switched off the airbag) is the price you must pay if you insist on following your impulse.

If you hold your tongue, console yourself with the fact that these particular children are very unlikely to be involved in an accident today. And if they are at some later date, you will never know about it. Weep, if you wish, for all the children who are lost in auto accidents. Set up a Web site to warn people of the dangers. Contribute to programs that spread the word. Tell all your friends.

But don’t accost strangers and accuse them of endangering their children because you believe you know better than they how to run their lives. It is offensive, and there is no polite way to do something offensive.

(I have done my best not to be offensive in this post, but if I have failed, I apologize.)

No, you’ve summed it up pretty fairly.

It is a personality flaw of mine to frequently jump to the conclusion that other people are wrong. I’m working on that. It is an unfortunate psychological bent of mine to imagine the worst possible outcome of mistakes, both mine and other people’s, real or imagined, and it is worse when children are involved.

I don’t go around accosting people. I really don’t. I know that’s annoying and ineffective, but it frustrates the hell out of me sometimes.

It just seems like on any given day you can pick up just about any random newspaper and read at least one story about a child who died needlessly, of neglect, abuse, or just a simple mistake like failing to use the seat belt or keeping poisonous substances locked up. I’d be willing to bet that in the majority of those cases that there was someone who knew, or suspected a problem and had a chance to possibly prevent it but didn’t, because it was none of their business.

[Sam_Stone]

@XaMcQ

People like me get very annoyed when we see children put in potential danger. Don’t ask me why I care, but I do. You don’t know that about the airbag either way, either. And if you read the TITLE of this thread, it was asking about how I might be polite, which you and your ilk are not concerned with, apparently.

In an ideal world, maybe I could have strolled up and said something along the lines of ‘Aren’t you worried about the airbag going off, with your child in the front seat?’ and the woman in question could have said ‘Oh, it’s disabled, but thanks for asking.’ Or possibly ‘Oh, I forgot about that. I’d better move him to the back seat.’ But no… this is the real world, and I’m positive I’d get ‘Mind your own business, nosy bitch.’

It makes me hate people. It really does.

If the child was big enough to be buckled in normally (not in a car seat), and the seat was all the way back, the child was in pretty much zero danger from the air bag. Deaths from air bags happen when people get too close to them when they go off. An unrestrained child will be thrown forward into the deadly range for the air bag. If the kid is properly restrained, that can’t happen.

From this cite:

Of the 97 older children (older than 1 year) who died from air bag related injuries, virtually all of them were totally unrestrained or improperly restrained. Eighty-three were totally unrestrained - including 13 who were riding on the lap of a passenger. Eleven were wearing lap belts only, effectively negating the advantages of a seat belt. This includes one three-year old who was sharing the lap belt with the front passenger. Two five-year olds and one two-year old, weighing under 40 pounds, were wearing both lap and shoulder belts. Another two-year old, weighing 40 pounds, was restrained by the seat belt, but it’s unknown if the child was secured in a forward-facing child safety seat. The correct restraint for children of this size is a child safety seat in the back seat. Two 11-year-old children and one 7-year old boy were wearing a lap and shoulder belt - the 11-year old boy was leaning forward at the time the air bag deployed. Five children were riding in forward facing car seats. In one case, the child was not restrained within the child safety seat, and in the other four cases, the children were restrained, but the child safety seat was not properly secured to the car. 2

So, 97 children have died in 10 years from the passenger air bag. Of the 97, only THREE were in the age range of the child you saw and properly restrained. During the same period, over 10,000 died from drowning.

Now think of how many passenger miles have been spent driving children around. The woman you saw was adding virtually ZERO risk to her child’s safety.

Also, if having the child in the front passenger seat means the parent won’t be constantly swiveling his/her head around to check on the kids, is that not an actual improvement in safety for the child? A lot of car crashes are caused because parents are distracted by their children and take their eyes off the road to deal with them.

Now compare that to backyard swimming pools. About 300 children per year die in backyard swimming pools. Now consider how less frequent it is for a child to use a backyard swimming pool than to be driven in a car. It basically means letting your child be in a home with a private swimming pool is an action orders of magnitude more dangerous than putting your child in the front seat properly restrained. Do you feel compelled to lecture everyone who owns a swimming pool? Do you prevent your child from visiting any friends who have swimming pools unless you are personally present? If not, you put your child at much greater risk than did that woman you are so angry with.

Bottom line - you should mind your own business. Things aren’t always as it seems when you get your information about risk from the popular media. Our perception of risk is greatly skewed towards risks that make for good TV and news stories. “Child tragically killed by lifesaving device” is a juicy story, guaranteed to make headlines whenever it happens. “Child drowns in pool” - not so much.

[Caricci]

Oh, yeah, I totally think people who are not practicing car safety KNOW the law, but don’t think it’s important to follow it, or find it too inconvenient. That’s why my husband asked if I wanted to call in the kid riding on his father’s lap rather than remind the father that that’s not safe. I mean, really, of course he knows that’s not safe! So, I guess I don’t butt in if that means telling someone what the law is. I have been known to call protective services in a different instance - a child under 2 was wandering alone outside without a coat near the street in the winter and I got a strange vibe when I went to the house to let them know.

[Gary_Robson]

@XaMcQ

The fact that I was previously unaware of the fact that some cars now have airbags you can disable doesn’t make me a moron, just ignorant, and concerned for the safety of a child. The attitude of people like you is exactly the reason I will probably never so much as approach any stranger, even if their kid is playing in traffic. :mad:

You are missing my point entirely. It’s fine that you don’t know how automakers have addressed the passenger-side airbag issue. It’s fine if you know nothing about airbags at all. That doesn’t make you a moron.

But if you’re going to accost someone and accuse them of endangering their children without researching the issue first, that’s a different story. Perhaps I should have chosen the word “obnoxious” rather than labeling you a moron, but the point remains. You don’t have a responsibility to research child safety equipment unless (a) you have a kid or (b) you’re going to accost strangers and accuse them of criminal child endangerment.

[lawoot]

AS an aside, I saw a billboard today touting the new restraint law rule here in Washington State - If the child is 4’ - 9" or shorter, he must be in a booster seat.

My first thought? Someone in the car-restraint business must have a new model out.

[AngryIrishLass]

I noticed that when taking my 7yro to school in the morning, the passenger side airbag in my T&C van automatically disengages. Granted, we are a half a block away and it’s on my way to work, so I have no qualms about him sitting up front. Anything further, he’s in the back.