How risk free do people want their lives to be? Has every vehicle used by a child got belts, and in the case of a school bus is there an official on board to ensure that every child uses them? Should children be wrapped in bubble wrap in case they fall over? Should they be forced to wear protective helmets in case they fall over and catch the edge of a kerb?
How many accidents a day do you drive past? How many accidents a day do you see where the occupants have not worn seat belts? Dare you let a child try to learn to ride a bike without full protective gear? Do you want a nurse to follow every child with a first aid kit to disinfect and bandage every scratch "just in case"? Would you allow a child to play cricket with that dangerous hard ball?
Life is for living. Life is for experiencing different things. Once it's over, it's over, this isn't a practice run!
Edited by Webmaster on 05/03/2009 at 00:28
|
Quote.....""Life is for living. Life is for experiencing different things. Once it's over, it's over, this isn't a practice run!""
A very good argument in favour of fitting seatbelts in a classic car! If I had a classic car, I would fit and use seatbelts, especially if the car was built at a time when seatbelts were already available as optional extras or after-market additions.
|
|
|
It's not a good idea to envelop them in bubble-wrap in case they are asphyxiated.
Everything is a risk, and we're all expert at evaluating risks.
The proposed "jolly in the Javelin" is an infinitesimally small one, and well worthwhile from all perspectives.
If the risk isn't acceptable, then neither is it acceptable to routinely drive them in any car, let them climb stairs, swim, or cross the road, even if you're holding their hands!
|
|
|
|
Good posts from CP and NC. Most others seem to have bought the modern nursery agenda wholesale.
Every time you sit behind the wheel of a car you are risking the lives of others. If you are competent and take reasonable care, the level of risk is minimal. That doesn't mean it isn't there though.
In my youth children were allowed to stand on seats with their heads out of the sun roof or ride for short distances on running boards like Chicago gangsters or presidential bodyguards. No one thought it odd to see a nipper standing on the back axle of a bouncing tractor. As for the sort of thing children and adolescents do when out of the sight of adults, best not to think about it. It may cause several BR heart attacks.
If ted's children don't mind their nippers going for a spin in his nice old Javelin, it's a sure bet the nippers themselves won't mind, even if he hasn't had belts fitted. And it will be legal. Unlike the quadbike with a trailer full of passengers that got the MP Nicholas Soames into hot water last year or so.
The modern obsession with passive safety is symptomatic of the creeping passivity hinted at by CP and NC. People think their modern cars are safe so they don't bother to improve their driving. Twits.
|
Quote...""Good posts from CP and NC. Most others seem to have bought the modern nursery agenda wholesale.""
It's about saving lives and reducing injuries. The roads aren't supposed to be risky, they are a transport network not a racetrack!
Edited by Sofa Spud on 04/03/2009 at 16:10
|
It's about saving lives and reducing injuries.
Don't let *anyone* travel in a motor-car, then!
|
|
|
Quote....""Don't let *anyone* travel in a motor-car, then!""
So you want the roads to be more dangerous? Would that make driving more exciting?
letting children take risks as part of growing up is one thing. Adults taking risks with their childrens' lives is another.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 04/03/2009 at 16:15
|
Spot the people without young kids.
|
|
That's what I was thinking. Once you've had kids, one's view changes. And when they come up to driving age, one starts to worry even more.
|
Once you've had kids one's view changes.
I've got one of 7 years old, and would have no hesitation in taking him for a jaunt in an old car as in the OP (from which topic this discussion has rather departed). The risk tiny, and there are others far more worthy of consideration.
And when they come up to driving age one starts to worry even more.
That's an entirely different type of risk - and, agreed, a worrying one, due to the higher risk that young drivers pose generally. There are, of course, ways to mitigate this risk.
|
|
|
I try to take the middle ground with my son. I let him ride a bike without a helmet because I don't buy into that helmet hysteria and I let him climb up high and sometimes inevitably fall, however when travelling in a car he is *always* belted in with a proper booster chair.
There's risks worth taking and some that are not. I guess we as people aren't always very good at assessing risk, hence we tend to go to one extreme or the other with risk aversion...
I try to consider the degree of harm done if the worst comes to worst. In everyday life generally the worst that can happen (normally...) is a nasty cut or broken bones. Not great, but a learning experience all the same.
However, in a car, it's all too easy to suffer a crash that causes death or crippling lifelong injuries, that's if the proper precautions haven't been taken... And for what? When it might be avoided too... And don't give me that rubbish about being a "better driver". There's still the other drivers who can be drunk, asleep or just plain idiots.
Why bother taking the risk for just a quick spin in a car that would be condemned as unsafe if sold today?
Edited by TheOilBurner on 04/03/2009 at 16:29
|
|
|
|
>>Spot the people without young kids.
Of course I'm concerned about Number_Nipper's safety, but I'm also keen to make sure that he isn't over protected. I already lament the fact that he's not going to experience half of what I did in and around my father's garage when I was a kid that would make carriers of the epidemic H&S virus collapse in shock.
|
|
|
Spot the people without young kids.
Explain please. I have 3 youngish children, and I am grateful for the fact that we live in the country where they can romp about in trees, race go-carts through woods, ride on tractors, sledge in the road - in short, have a childhood.
I don't let them stand up with their heads out of the sunroof, or stand on the lowered tailgate of a LandRover at 50 mph as I used to when young. But that's because of the risk TO ME if some busybody spotted me.
On the day that photograph appeared of the child sitting on a chimney stack reading psalms, and his father was arrested, my 10 year old was doing exactly that helping me replace a chimney pot. And he didn't need a safety harness because he has learnt to hold on.
|
|
|
|
letting children take risks as part of growing up is one thing. Adults taking risks with their childrens' lives is another.
If what you say is true, then *don't let them travel in any car*. Simple, isn't it.
|
If what you say is true, then *don't let them travel in any car*. Simple, isn't it.
No - you let children travel in cars, and take all reasonable steps to ensure their safety when doing so.
We used to send kids up chimneys. Most of them didn't die. Should we still do it?
|
Absolutely - and taking all reasonable steps means just that - you can never reduce the risk to 0.
Would you, in your own car, insist on driving your children only in broad daylight on dry roads? If not, then why not?
I'm not at all sure what your odd reference to chimneys has, if any.
|
|
|
|
If what you say is true then *don't let them travel in any car*. Simple isn't it.
No point in arguing from absurdity. We all know that travelling in a car is generally a safe activity, and if the proper restrains are used in a modern safe car then it becomes an incredibly safe way to travel.
Safer perhaps than walking on the pavement or cycling, in which case the lowest risk becomes putting them into a good car and strapping them in properly. Not risk free, but given how it is impossible to live without leaving the house... :)
Edited by TheOilBurner on 04/03/2009 at 16:34
|
|
|
|
letting children take risks as part of growing up is one thing. Adults taking risks with their childrens' lives is another.
That's a reasonable point SS, and one can only agree.
But: it is based on the idea that all decisions can be risk or no-risk. In reality the risk resulting from any decision must lie on a graduated scale running from Severe to Minimal. Where for example would people put allowing a child to go down a water slide into a crowded pool, go on a fairground roundabout or play rugby (or even the effete but thuggish game soccer)?
My impression is that steady government propaganda and certain forms of legislation have given many people a sort of vertigo about cars and the road, in which the level of risk is consistently and grossly overestimated.
It must be pretty carp to go about with a head seething with worst-case scenarios. I don't think it's good for people's driving either.
|
The most dangerous thing in this thread is the comment of
>>Ted,
Hard to see how the children could come to much harm unless the experience has to include high speed.
If you're bowling along at 30/40mph and hit something, they are highly unlikely to suffer anything more than cuts and bruises, if even that.<<
I cannot understand how a normally intelligent individual who regularly contributes helpful and good information on this site can make such an irresponsible statement. The danger is that may be taken in good faith by the less intelligent amongst us.
p
|
I think anyone who still labours under the apprehension that seat belts are somehow unnecessary (especially for "short" or "low speed" journeys) should look at this advert from Oz (warning: quite graphic too):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi5-iVb1YKA
50km/h = 31mph
I don't fancy suffering that myself, why would I risk it with my kids?
|
Whatever that link points to, which is in any case beside the point, you risk worse all the time.
Would you, in your own car, insist on driving your children only in broad daylight on dry roads? If not, then why not?
|
.. you risk worse all the time. ... >>
A number of posts have mentioned probability and risk - whether real or perception.
Risk can be defined as ?the chance you take of becoming injured by a hazard.?
Risk measurement starts with probability (odds or chances). What are the odds or chances of getting injured by a specific hazard?
No one above has yet given any real data/evidence of what the probabilities of injury/death from various activities are.
We are being invited to take their word for it simply it seems because they believe/perceive that other activities have higher or lower risks.
A person?s risk perception (how we judge risk) comes from personal judgements. Most people do not judge the probability of risk very well.
Without the evidence, how can you expect people to understand the true risks and the benefits to be gained from modifying their behaviour.
An academic research paper on risks taken at work said this :
"Risk perception is an important concept in safe work activity. Human perceptions of risk are not very accurate. Our judgements about risks are based upon several things. One important factor is how familiar we are with a hazard. If we think we know a lot about a hazard because we are often exposed to the hazard, we often underestimate the degree of risk. Another factor is whether or not we are voluntarily interacting with a hazard. When we voluntarily take a risk, we usually underestimate the chances of being hurt. A third factor is how much attention a hazard brings if it hurts someone. We tend to think that there is a great risk in flying in an plane (kills many people at one point in time and gets more attention). We underestimate the hazard of driving a car. A car crash may kill one or two persons at a time but receive only local attention."
Edited by jbif on 04/03/2009 at 18:13
|
jbif - I think that you may have now restored my faith in you!
Taken from your post above.....
"We underestimate the hazard of driving a car. A car crash may kill one or two persons at a time but receive only local attention".
and
Most people do not judge the probability of risk very well.
I only conclude that that accounts for your previous statement!
:)
p
Edited by pmh2 on 04/03/2009 at 18:27
|
I only conclude that that accounts for your previous statement!
Cannot take credit for the statement. Statement is a quote from an academic study.
|
FT
Its not rocket science. Yes we all know life is about risk day in day out but we are given information and tools to lessen the chances of coming a cropper.
My general point was that if Ted placed his grand kids in his Classic and something were to go wrong, how could he live with himself.
Its not about bubble wrapping its about lengthening the odds.
If he were to put the kid in the front seat of a modern car without a seat belt, I would possibly see your argument. ABS,passenger airbags etc. would hopefully help to protect and reduce potential injuries.
A crappy old "Classic" that would fold in a gale or throw you out in a rollover is not exceptable.
All the modern safety advances have come about through other peoples misery through death or injury.
I suppose you're still going to ignore the many posts with sensible points and rant further about "nanny" state etc.
Just for once FT, see sense.
|
That isn't sense, spood, it's bigotry. Old cars aren't as dangerous as you think, and new ones aren't as safe.
No one in their right mind would be swayed by someone else's fantasy of what might happen if the worst came to the worst. We all have our own fantasies of that sort and don't need other people's.
There is a bullying quality to this safety wonk stuff, probably justified to the people who do it by the reference to children. They might bear in mind that children are just innocent human beings in the same way that most adults are.
People sometimes talk as if any rational comment on road safety were a personal threat to them or their children. Calm down dears.
|
My general point was that if Ted placed his grand kids in his Classic and something were to go wrong how could he live with himself. Its not about bubble wrapping its about lengthening the odds.
What I was trying to say, but expressed succinctly and elegantly. :-)
Reference to chimneys was a general point that just because we did things a certain way x number of years ago, and few died, it doesn't make it right or acceptable now. Times move on. I rode around in cars without child restraints or seatbelts, and didn't come to any harm, just as I'd stand behind them as they spewed leaded petrol fumes into the air, but technology today means it's no longer necessary. I can put them in a scientifically crash tested car with scientifically crash tested child restraints, because such things exist at relatively affordable prices. And I completely agree that driving it competently and carefully is a fundamental part of the overall package.
When my kids are older, I will fully support (and encourage) them in outdoor pursuits, cycling, sports, climbing trees and all the other things that carry some risk, but contribute to their experience of life, but when I stick them in a car and transport them from A to B, I will reduce and manage that risk to the best of my ability. If they want to ride pillion on my motorbike and they're old enough to do so safely, and to assess the risks, that's fine too, same as if I wanted to take them out in the Caterham I plan to own when they're a bit older. But at 4 and 2 years of age, I'll carry on being (over) cautious, if it's all the same to you. :-)
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 04/03/2009 at 19:15
|
at 4 and 2 years of age, I'll carry on being (over) cautious, if it's all the same to you. :-)
At 4 and 2 years of age they need constant minding or some relative form of incarceration to prevent them from exploring the rich range of suicide methods available to an enterprising nipper. Even when they are older they have to be told to do up their seat belts, and scolded if they don't.
I still think ted could have taken those over five for a spin in his Javelin though, and with a clear conscience.
|
I suppose you're still going to ignore the many posts with sensible points and rant further about "nanny" state etc.
Spood.
Point to where I have "ranted further about the "nanny" state etc.". Ah. You cannot, can you, because I haven't "ranted" about it at all in the first place.
Please will you answer my question, posed several times: "Would you, in your own car, insist on driving your children only in broad daylight on dry roads? If not, then why not?"
Just for once FT see sense.
I see perfect sense. Can you answer my question, above, hm?
Edited by FotheringtonThomas on 04/03/2009 at 19:53
|
"Please will you answer my question, posed several times: "Would you, in your own car, insist on driving your children only in broad daylight on dry roads? If not, then why not?"
No.
Because I reduce the risk at any time I choose to travel. Can't you get it through that stubborn skull of yours FT. Seat belts on. Booster seat. Air Bags. ABS. Good lighting. 25 years driving experience-day and night. No points or disqualifications. Adhere as far as possible to the HC. Anticipate other road users.
Does this satisfy.
Proping a kid up on a cushion unrestrained on an armchair in a classic tin can- no I wouldn't do that. Candles for headlights, red pin pricks for rear lights. A sure recipe for a rear end shunt in the dark or rain. Arms waving out the side window for indicators. I wouldn't entertain the pleasure such an experience would give you FT. My kids are worth more than that.
|
(question): "Would you in your own car insist on driving your children only in broad daylight on dry roads? If not then why not?" No. Because I reduce the risk at any time I choose to travel. Can't you get it through that stubborn skull of yours FT. Seat belts on. Booster seat. Air Bags. ABS. Good lighting. 25 years driving experience-day and night. No points or disqualifications. Adhere as far as possible to the HC. Anticipate other road users. Does this satisfy.
Of course it satisfies - the worthy positives you mention are constant - the fact that you continue to drive, with your children, when the risk of crashes is higher, illustrates my point perfectly. You assess the risk, act accordingly, and are quite happy to continue to drive, with your children, under higher-risk conditions - which you *could* avoid.
As for:
Candles for headlights, red pin pricks for rear lights. A sure recipe for a rear end shunt in the dark or rain.
I assume that you are talking about other people having crashes here, not yourself? You wouldn't crash your car, with its' precious cargo, into an old car which you caught up with but didn't see, would you, mm?
Note, there's a maximum wattage for rear lights. All cars I know of using incandescent bulbs use ones of the same wattage (5W, AFAIR), even Javelins & their ilk. Are you aware of any similar that don't?
|
Most people do not judge the probability of risk very well.
Quite the contrary. Most people (as you say) are very good indeed at judging risk - that's why we don't all fry like moths in a flame, and generally live to a ripe old age.
|
Having read through this a few times I've come to the conclusion that Lud has it just about right. I'm also fairly certain that Spood's comments are more influenced by his apparent distrust of any wheeled vehicle which might not come up to his own stratospherically high standards of driving. ;-)
I know whose kids will have most fun though. Some posters on here are seeking to define calculated risk as reckless disregard for safety. That is a false premise.
|
Just come on line. Well' that provoked some comment, all of which I've read with interest. Having attended many accidents involving both children and adult passengers in, largely, pre-seat belt days and having lost one precious grandson, they are still not going in my car until they are older. Fitting seat belts is not really a possibility due to wooden floors and door pillars with trafficators, etc. PMH, it wasn't me that mentioned 'cuts and bruises at 20/30 mph'. but even at 20/30 mph, the guy who hits you may be doing the same speed, a closing speed of 40/60 mph. Anyway, are cuts and bruises acceptable ? I'll maintain the status quo, thanks.
Ted
|
1400ted
- sorry if others erroneously attributed this statement to you, I certainly didn't. I quoted from the jbif posting, which was addressed to you and included your name as an introduction.
:)
p
|
I'm not saying kids can't have fun.
Running across a six lane motorway playing chicken is fun, isn't it? But would you do it? Would you like to know your kids are doing it? No.
I just think in this day and age the Elf and Safety phenomenon has gone too far. The pendulum needs to be midway. A balance between common sense and risk assessment.
Certain pastimes contain an element of risk, I accept that. Say rock climbing. This risk is reduced with training,equipment and knowledge.
Not fitting an old car with seat belts as a minimum standard safety item is negligent. Would you let your kids on a train without brakes? The train will still eventually stop under its own cohesion, but running a red signal might end up in the back of another train.
Placing a kid in an old rust bucket with the potential for the thing to disintergrate or a wheel to fall off, without seat belts is tempting fate.
And my driving standards are good but not as high as that ;-)
|
Placing a kid in an old rust bucket with the potential for the thing to disintergrate or a wheel to fall off without seat belts is tempting fate.
I'd agree with that, taken literally; might I ask, though, what exactly causes you to think that classic cars are so badly maintained? The vast majority that I know of are better cared for than any modern car, and furthermore tend to be driven with greater care and respect for other road users.
Question for you; if classic cars are as lethal as you seem to think, why are their insurance premiums lower? My old pick-up has the same mileage restrictions as my wife's Punto, engine five times bigger, rare as hen's teeth and yet the insurance premium is half the sum as her car's.
BTW it doesn't have seat belts either, and until the law compels me to fit them I won't. That is not negligence, it's my choice and it's legal. If you decline to travel in it with me that's yours.
I am a firm believer that the more safety systems fitted to a car, the more likely drivers are to behave inappropriately in the mistaken belief that, like a video game, they can't be hurt. I've been on the roads for over 30 years now, bikes, cars and trucks, and never (touch wood) had a serious accident yet; I put my good fortune down to being taught very early on to respect the machine I was driving, and also to treat every other driver on the road as a potential idiot. Training like that is better than any amount of airbags.
|
I am a firm believer that the more safety systems fitted to a car the more likely drivers are to behave inappropriately in the mistaken belief that like a video game they can't be hurt.
IMHO this is 110% true!
give 80% of todays drivers a car with no 'safety' systems, and they wouldnt get 100yards (meters) down the road without coming a cropper!
|
Question for you; if classic cars are as lethal as you seem to think why are their insurance premiums lower?
That's the thing exactly. Insurance companies assess the premiums on risk.
|
Glad my flock grew up before H&S ruined every kids dreams and fun, poor little blighters living life through some electronic visual means unable to feel unique 'once in a lifetime' experiences that will stay with them for ever.
A few years ago there was a steam rally in a local village, a very nice chap driving one of the loco's was letting about 4 or so kids ride on the engine's rear mudguards for a whirl around the village, i was hurling the mite's up and down, one little lad was terrified he'd get in trouble for getting dirty and daren't get on despite me and the driver's best encouragement, he really wanted to but his idiot parents stopped him for a bit of muck.
My 4 year old daughter and her older brother went home looking like they'd swept the chimneys with smiles form ear to ear and my daughter still remembers the fun and joy of the experience some 18 years later; she managed to find a comfy and filthy seat atop the coal..;)
For pete's sake stop wrapping kids up in cotton wool, they need real fun and thrills which often means getting mucky, wet and a bit bruised, a visit to mcwherever clutching a playstation is not an adventure to remember.
|
I have just been reminded how dangerous our roads are.
I am not letting my children walk anywhere on a path now as its way too dangerous! So they will have to travel in a car; but no thats too dangerous too!
I will just make sure they stay at home and lose contact with the outside world.
There is risk of all levels in every daily activity. I know of people who have died after falling over and banging their head. likewise I have known of people get beaten severley and show no signs of it shortly afterwards.
Assess the risk yourself and act accordingly. Dont let others scare you. There is enough out there to scare yourself with.
But do mind the bus as you cross the road, and the guy on the ladder you have to pass. And that shop that sells knives, dont use the mobile phone because of the radiation. Dont eat the food because of the dangers etc etc etc !
Oh and I have known people die in accidents even though they had airbags and were wearing seat belts!
|
There is a sensible compromise between the two extremes. As for people dying despite airbags and seat belts, yes that's true, but compare them to the number who survive or walk away because of them.
Just because health and safety culture is increasingly nitpicking, ridiculous and limiting, it doesn't mean all safety related stuff has no merit. I cannot envisage any scenario where a child being as safe as possible while travelling in a car is a bad thing.
|
"Just because health and safety culture is increasingly nitpicking, ridiculous and limiting, it doesn't mean all safety related stuff has no merit. I cannot envisage any scenario where a child being as safe as possible while travelling in a car is a bad thing."
Thats not what I said, or meant.
I said, asess the situation yourself and act accordingly.
Something too many people are getting incapable of doing. Keeping children away from all risks is not benefiting them; just reducing their awareness of them.
Safety first yes, but where does safety end ? Should they not wear crash helmets and fireproof suits whilst suitably restrained?
|
I am not letting my children walk anywhere on a path now as its way too dangerous!
You can't coccoon your children forever. The only way they really earn about anything is from personal experience.
|
The only way they really earn about anything
Or learn, even! I must learn to check my posts more thoroughly!
|
About 24 years ago my father (a retired police officer) went out to get his paper, something he did everyday and the route involved crossing one road. What made this different was that he was carrying his six month old grandaughter (my daughter).
When he came back he described the feelings he had when it came to crossing the road and how much extra care he felt he had to take, something he never felt with his own children.
He has also talked in the past about the apparent increased risks to children (e.g sex ofenders register and all that) and his reaction to that is that the risks are no greater now than when I was a child 4o or so years ago (and he was a serving policeman so he knew) BUT the public are all more aware of the risks. As we are more aware we take more precautions.
It is stupid and irresponsible now to put a child into a car, especially an old car, without proper restraint. They were not exactly designed with survivabiltiy in mind and lots of people died or sufferred horrific injuries in relatively low speed accidents when they hit the interior trim of their car. A child hitting the dashboard of a 2009 Mondeo at 20mph will suffer, but far less than a child hitting the dashboard of a Jowett at 20mpg because the Mondeo is designed with this in mind, the Jowett was not.
Get some anchorages fitted or don't take them.
|
How many on here are 45 and over? How many of us rode bikes without helmets, climbed trees, played in the river, rushed around on cut down motorbikes pretending to be dave bickers, played with your fathers tools, travelled in our family cars (some of them with rather iffy brakes and tyres) with no seatbelts?
Loads of us. What percentage of our schoolmates survived exactly the same childhood? 99.9% of them.
|
What percentage of our schoolmates survived exactly the same childhood?
Five of my classmates were killed in accidents whilst riding their (road-going) motorcycle, before safety helmets became mandatory.
|
>> What percentage of our schoolmates survived exactly the same childhood? Five of my classmates were killed in accidents whilst riding their (road-going) motorcycle before safety helmets became mandatory.
well out our way we had a motorbike death out of 100 in my age stream. Clearly we were far better bikers than your lot.
|
Get some anchorages fitted or don't take them.
I doubt very much whether a Jowett Javelin (or in fact any car not designed to be fitted with seatbelts) is capable of having effective seatbelt anchorages fitted
|
">> I am not letting my children walk anywhere on a path now as its waytoo dangerous!
You can't coccoon your children forever. The only way they really earn about anything is from personal experience. "
I think you may have missed the intended satirical comment in my post l'es !
Everything in life has a risk, walking on a path is dangerous too. How many people have been killed because a car has moun ted a path suddenly. What chance did the pedestrians have? None!
Its like riding in a car. The actual chance of an acident is fairly small (compared to how many trips/miles are completed), but it may happen!
Assess the risk, it depends on where you live, what the local traffic is like, what the road conditions are etc.
Nobody else can or should tell somebody else whether its right or not to let his offspring travel in a certain car.
My complaint is that nobopdy seems to be able to assess a risk for themselves and then decide accordingly !
|
You can't coccoon your children forever. The only way they really earn about anything is from personal experience
Earlier you showed contempt for my Dad not having seatbelts in the 60s. Bit of a contradiction Mr. Snail. Hope you've got that shell secure ;-)
Edited by spood on 06/03/2009 at 07:21
|
Bit of a contradiction Mr. Snail.
Not really. Being in a car without seatbelts is many times intrinsically more fraught with danger than walking on a pavement. If a car is involved in an accident, the occupants just have to accept the consequences. They have absolutely no control over the outcome. Their life is in the hands of the driver. On a pavement your life is in your own hands.
|
smiles form ear to ear and my daughter still remembers the fun and joy of the experience some 18 years later; she managed to find a comfy and filthy seat atop the coal..;)
Yes gb, quite right. In the late forties, in the mountains of Sri Lanka, saw a mighty bulldozer scooping earth down a steep slope for, I suppose, road improvements. The local driver smilingly invited me (9) and my sister (6) to climb on for a ride, which our parents allowed. I suppose we were only on the thing for a few minutes, but the experience was most cheering. Our mother grumbled a bit later about the state of our clothes, deeply stained with red dust and a trace of diesel, but no one thought we should be prevented from enjoying that feast of power, noise, genial cross-cultural communication and a 45 degree slope. I can still hear the hammering of the engine now.
|
Quite right Lud. I was involved with preserved railways for many years. Looked at objectively, a steam locomotive is probably one of the most dangerous pieces of engineering on the planet, but try telling that to the kids on a "Thomas the Tank Engine" weekend.
|
Will someone please come and give my children a nice ride in a Jowett Javelin?
I'd be so relieved they weren't out breaking their necks building tree house dens somewhere in the wood.
|
I'd be so relieved they weren't out breaking their necks building tree house dens somewhere in the wood.
It makes a nice change to hear about children going out on their own, and their parents not having irrational fears about their children's safety from attack by pervs.
Edited by L'escargot on 07/03/2009 at 09:49
|
The worst risk children face today is that having been fed a diet of salty fatty junk food and non-stop TV, they turn into fat wheezing slobs and die prematurely from heart disease or diabetes.
But at least they will have been spared the risk of riding in a lovely old car. And most important of all, their loving parents will have avoided the risk of censure by their ever-critical peers.
|
Do these grandchildren have pushbikes?
A million times more dangerous than a ride in car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
