3 point belt to replace lap belt

From Boris Johnson's column today. Whatever you think of the man, he's at least got the official statistics to hand:

------------------------------------------

. . .

Between 1981 and 1985 there was an average of 18 fatalities per year of children aged eight-11 using roads in the United Kingdom. That had fallen to 12 in the period 1994-98, to 11 in 2002, and in 2004 the total number of fatalities stood at four - an astonishing reflection on the growing safety of cars, when you consider how enormously they have increased in number.

I would resent this law badly enough as an infringement of my liberty to decide how to convey my own children in my own car. But the main reason why I am so angry is that this stupid and impertinent law was not even generated by the British Government. It wasn't some gentleman in Whitehall who decided he knew best about booster seats. It wasn't even the brainchild of the UK health and safety industry. It is, of course, an EU directive, which means that elected British politicians have been given neither the means nor the opportunity to contest it - or even to debate it.

This EU directive, 2003/20/EC, arises because a few years ago some lonely and bored European Commission official was persuaded (no doubt by the booster seat industry) that in some circumstances children under

135cm would be safer with booster seats.

So a directive was drawn up. Even if any EU government had dared oppose this "child safety" measure, that government could have been simply outvoted - while looking cavalier about the wellbeing of our little ones. The UK therefore apathetically connived in the exercise, and the directive was sent for "scrutiny" before parliament's European Scrutiny Committee.

Needless to say, there was no discussion or "scrutiny", since the huge volume of EU legislation makes this impractical. As it rubber-stamped the directive (and bear in mind that there is no way Parliament, at that or any other stage, could have said no) the committee did ask two questions. How much would these seats cost the average family, and how many lives would be saved?

Four years later, long after this directive has become irreversible, the Government has replied. They don't know how much it will cost, they say, but the measure "might save" the lives of 1.5 children per year. In the whole country.

OK folks: you do the maths. You think how many millions of car journeys are there involving children every day. You might decide that it is still worth installing booster seats for all under 135cm. But with odds like that it should surely be a matter for individual choice and not international coercion.

What enrages me is that this was not even discussed in one of the Commons' three European Standing Committees, and what enrages me more is that even if it had been discussed, it would have made no difference.

We need proper standing committees with the power to mandate ministers, and to refuse to accept directives even if they are decided at a majority vote. Otherwise we will find that the law of this country - the law affecting the personal lives of millions, and their children - is not made in this country; and that is a perfect and justifiable reason for massive civil disobedience.

Regards,

Simonm.

Reply to
SpamTrapSeeSig
Loading thread data ...

Some classic cars don't have seat beltsat all!

Neil

Reply to
bumble101

Boris does write some pertinent stuff in his column from time to time.

The government needs to focus on the areas where the greater problems lie and leave the gene pool to sort itself out of those that choose to let their children ride in precarious positions!

Guns, drugs, unlicensed/uninsured cars people blah, blah, blah..... Neil

Reply to
bumble101

While I agree with sentiment wholeheartedly, I can't see what difference it makes whether it comes from the EU or not, the UK is quite capable of comming up with it's own ill thought out law.

A farmer may, under defined circumstances, burn the left overs from trimming hedges. But he is committing a criminal offence, under environmental legislation, if he uses an old newspaper to light it!

Sadly, a lot of the daft laws are placed at the EU's door, but are infact home-grown and blamed by politicians on the EU. Presumambly our politicians choose to do this to avoid having to explain why they didn't even attemmpt to think through the consequenes from the non 9-to-5-with-pension-and-free-health-care brigade[1] perspective.

Richard

[1] Probaby because they will be viewed as trouble makers by the party whips if they don't conform to current "PC" standards and risk upsetting Guardian and Indepenent readers.
Reply to
beamendsltd

Told you so 8-)

The only thing he hasn't quite grasped is that it's too late, the laws are already made in Europe and we can do nothing but rubber stamp them. Our politicians don't bother debating them seriously becase it makes no difference, once a Directive is produced we are legally bound by treaty to implement it in UK law (as are all other member states) and even if we fail to do so it still becomes UK law after a certain date regardless of what our statute book says! (acording to a test case some years ago).

Greg

Reply to
Greg

If a law is even tenuously related to safety, and has been passed in the last decade or so, it's almost certain the implementation of an EU directive as they've totally taken over safety related law making, and when you think about it that covers a heck of a lot of our lives. Yes the politicians often (rightly) blame Europe when it's particularly controversial, but they are walking a tightrope as they dare not admit the truth that we have already lost sovereignty in many areas.

As a designer I have to work within safety legislation all the time, and I can't think of one area where it isn't either an implementation of a Directive, harmonised with a directive or a directive is in the pipeline.

Now of course Europe is moving beyond safety legislation with things like the human rights act, and even the proposed changes to the tiers of local government (unitary authorities) are a direct result of a European dictate that there shall be only two levels of local government in the future.

It's perfectly clear that this is all heading towards a federal Europe by the back door, but that's so controversial that politicians daren't admit it. One thing's for sure, we haven't been asked for our agreement to the loss of sovereignty that's already happened (my parent's generation was only asked about economic union, not political) and aren't going to be asked about future steps. As an example, there was going to be a referendum about a unitary authority in Yorkshire but when it became clear the government would not get our agreement the referendum was cancelled, it had to be since they have no choice in the matter so now it's being worked in by the back door instead.

Greg

Reply to
Greg

In article , beamendsltd writes

Quite. The "dangerous dogs act" is a good example.

But an awful lot indeed originate in the EU, including this one.

Personally I see the EU as symptomatic of a bigger problem of corruption in public life, but that doesn't mean there is any reason not to get rid of it (just because there are other problems too, I mean).

As someone in that category, I couldn't agree more!

Anyway, this is veering off topic so I'll desist. I can't say I'm surprised at the origin though.

Regards,

Simonm.

Reply to
SpamTrapSeeSig

I'll probably get shot for this, but I'm all in favour of a federal Europe - the sooner the better infact. Near the top of a very long list of reasons for thinking that is that the world desperatly needs a second, mature, political and economic force fo substantial weight.

Tin helmet donnned.....

Richard

Reply to
beamendsltd

In article , beamendsltd writes

Nope. It just merits a sad shake of the head. Power apparently corrupts, and the more that's concentrated in fewer hands, the more corruption.

If you want your political masters to stay honest, keep 'em poor, as local as possible, and very much in plain sight at all times. No smoke-filled rooms, such as the EU delight in.

Incidentally, they just decided to buy the freehold of two buildings they use in Strasbourg. That's despite the European Parliament only being there for one week a month (or whatever it is), and everyone, including the most federalist MEPs pointing out how stupid and wasteful the whole business is.

So they can fight each other? Well, you're on the right lines, as various pro-EU European politicians have been making noises about the EU having a military force to counteract the US. Please don't try to tell me that won't end in tears. I don't unreservedly support the US either, but I do know that a militarised EU is certainly not the way to get them to see sense.

Regards,

Simonm.

Reply to
SpamTrapSeeSig

As it happens so am I, we would then have the economic power to dictate what happens, not follow the Yanks as we've done for the last 60 years, I'm sick of our PM doing their President's bidding like a poodle. I can't see it matters much if we're governed by bent politicians in London or bent politicians in Brussels, they'll still be bent 'cos power ALWAYS corrupts!.

By the way the bits arrived safely this morning Richard, many thanks.

Greg

Reply to
Greg

You mean like Smiling Tony's style - i.e. ignore Parliament?

Have a look at Parliament on TV - just because the doors are open doesn't mean anyones in!

Woa! Who said anything about military? I said political & economic.

Richard

Reply to
beamendsltd

Quite. I fear the Americans cause almost all the trouble by failing to appreciate differing cultures (and I have to that say includes ours), then use the upset as justification to become "the worlds policeman", as they put it. There was a fascinating documentary about Jordan/Syria and the midddle east a while back, which made quite clear the point that the US's threat of force to get their way just annoyed everyone, while the EU's seemingly lame quiet diplomacy and carefully placed aid was actually gaining respect, and starting to deliver results, even in tricky areas like womens rights.

Something went right yesteday then!

Richard

Reply to
beamendsltd

In article , beamendsltd writes

Point well taken. As I said, I see the EU as a symptom not the root of all evil. It's one place where I differ from UKIP's new leader!

Too right, but that doesn't mean it should be like that.

You didn't, but they have, and if you read around (and I don't mean the eurosceptic literature!) that's the agenda for a sizable bloc of Franco-German politicians. And I think they genuinely believe that a 'strong' Europe, facing-down the USA is a good idea. As I said, I don't support US foreign policies, nor Bliar's lap-doggy tail-wagging, but trying to operate the EU like the old Soviet bloc (look at the background of people like Merkel if you think it couldn't happen!), is exactly what some people intend, and it's frightening.

Regards,

Simonm.

Reply to
SpamTrapSeeSig

And what a wonderful job they're doing!, apparently there's now far more torture and killing going on in Iraq than under Saddam 8-(. Greg

Reply to
Greg

Yes, one group of not-a-true-muslims torturing another group of not-a-true-muslims, and it's all the fault of the Pope. Don't you just love these peace-loving religions?

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

Hmm, how did the Pope get in there?

Stuart

Reply to
Srtgray

Through the woods?

Reply to
William Tasso

Popemobile ;-)

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

He quoted something out of 14th century book in a speech (or whatever the pope going on about something is called). The Usual Suspects are now demanding that all 14th century books should not be read.

Richard

Reply to
beamendsltd

The passage said something to the effect that nothing but evil came from the Moslem faith, pointing especially to the idea of spreading the faith by the sword, and of course Catholicism has NEVER been enforced by the sword... He later explained that these were not his own views, though quite why he read them at out was left a bit murky!.

Greg

Reply to
Greg

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.