Smoking in Cars Carrying Children

samsmoot

Hintza wrote: »

What an absurd statement!

In the 40's when road deaths peaked there were significantly less cars on the road than there are now. Deaths on the road are falling year on year and when measured against car miles they are even better.

I noted that: 'Road accidents in 2011 resulted in 203,950 casualties and 22,783 [edit: versus around 12,000 10 years or so ago] deaths or serious injuries'.


To me it reads that in ten years road deaths and serious injuries have doubled. I'd be glad if it was shown me that less people are getting hurt on the roads, but from the above it doesn't look like it.


For the older statistics I remember it being said that a third were children. If the same thing applied to the 2011 statistics that would make for around 20 children per day being seriously injured or killed on the roads. And they don't even drive.


I'm not here for an argument - just wanted to express my outrage. Nothing said so far makes me feel any happier about the situation.

Jamie_Carter

samsmoot wrote: »

I noted that: 'Road accidents in 2011 resulted in 203,950 casualties and 22,783 [edit: versus around 12,000 10 years or so ago] deaths or serious injuries'.


To me it reads that in ten years road deaths and serious injuries have doubled. I'd be glad if it was shown me that less people are getting hurt on the roads, but from the above it doesn't look like it.


For the older statistics I remember it being said that a third were children. If the same thing applied to the 2011 statistics that would make for around 20 children per day being seriously injured or killed on the roads. And they don't even drive.


I'm not here for an argument - just wanted to express my outrage. Nothing said so far makes me feel any happier about the situation.

The number for injuries has gone up due to fraudulent 'no win no fee' claims.

qetu1357

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Not even to protect the children (who don't have a choice but to breathe in the smoke)?

Health experts urge MPs to back car smoking ban

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26074476

WTFH

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

The number for injuries has gone up due to fraudulent 'no win no fee' claims.

Perhaps.
The number of injuries has gone up because of car safety.
In the 1980s, if someone was killed in a car crash, they didn't inspect the body to record the broken legs. With the improvement in safety, that same accident today may result in the person still being alive (thanks to airbags, side impact protection, etc) but would have broken legs. What was a death is now a serious injury.

There are more road accidents because people are less responsible for their own actions and unaware (or don't care) about the impact their actions have on others. These forums are proof of that - look in the consumer rights section or the how to get out of parking charges section on how eager people are to shirk responsibility for their actions.

Jamie_Carter

WTFH wrote: »

Perhaps.
The number of injuries has gone up because of car safety.
In the 1980s, if someone was killed in a car crash, they didn't inspect the body to record the broken legs. With the improvement in safety, that same accident today may result in the person still being alive (thanks to airbags, side impact protection, etc) but would have broken legs. What was a death is now a serious injury.

There are more road accidents because people are less responsible for their own actions and unaware (or don't care) about the impact their actions have on others. These forums are proof of that - look in the consumer rights section or the how to get out of parking charges section on how eager people are to shirk responsibility for their actions.

There have always been people who aren't responsible for their own actions, but society does appear to be more selfish that previous generations.


Modern SRS systems and safety cages mean that collisions that would have been fatal 20 years ago can now result in no injury at all. The down side to these SRS systems and safety cages is that extricating casualties has become increasingly difficult and dangerous for the emergency services.


The increase (although I'm not convinced there is one), in fatal RTCs is due to the increase in the number of vehicles on the road. And also the number of foreign drivers who may not be used to the same driving style that we are taught in the UK. And before anyone accuses me of being racist, I am far from it. If the driving standards in someone's native country aren't as high as ours, then the driver will be used to driving to the standards in that country.


Another contributing factor is the fact that although drinking and driving is now socially unacceptable, it seems that amongst drug users, taking drugs and driving seems to be acceptable.

Horizon81

Not much point anyone commenting on this thread. Jamie always has to have the final word.

Regardless of all the meandering about on this thread, the bottom line is do you want the state to do a job that a parent is meant to do themselves? Does it send the right message to parents? Do we want to wrap bad parents in cotton wool so they don't have to worry about doing anything wrong as all bad behaviour (e.g. smoking in cars) is legislated against.

Jamie_Carter

Horizon81 wrote: »

Not much point anyone commenting on this thread. Jamie always has to have the final word.

Regardless of all the meandering about on this thread, the bottom line is do you want the state to do a job that a parent is meant to do themselves? Does it send the right message to parents? Do we want to wrap bad parents in cotton wool so they don't have to worry about doing anything wrong as all bad behaviour (e.g. smoking in cars) is legislated against.

Hmm, who is trying to have the last word now???


I will always respond if someone states something that is wrong, or something that needs clarifying. There seems to be a lot of speculation in this thread, rather by comments from people who actually know the facts. On the other hand there are quite a few posts by people who are partially informed.

sharnad

When will we find of the result of the vote

sniffles

Horizon81 wrote: »

Not much point anyone commenting on this thread. Jamie always has to have the final word.

Regardless of all the meandering about on this thread, the bottom line is do you want the state to do a job that a parent is meant to do themselves? Does it send the right message to parents? Do we want to wrap bad parents in cotton wool so they don't have to worry about doing anything wrong as all bad behaviour (e.g. smoking in cars) is legislated against.

I don't think it is right that any government should intervene, but are smoking parents bad parents?

You seem to suggest that they are.

Most of my generation smoked and we still managed to produce surgeons, engineers etc.. It was after the war, and few of us owned cars anyway. We smoked everywhere, even in hospitals, so no, leave us alone.

I would add that I would not smoke in a car with anyone, but that's my own choice.

Go away government..what next? My living room?

photome

Hope it is enforcable. the more places that smoking is banned the better as far as i am concerned