my 1st s2000 (airbag dependant)
02-24-2011, 01:17 PM
#21
Originally Posted by lower,Feb 24 2011, 02:11 PM
I don't believe it because you quite simply won't end up in court for putting a child in a forward facing child seat in a S2000 because you won't have broken any law by doing so.
If you don't have an accident then the only problem is a moral one. Like the idiots who think there is no problem using a mobile phone whilst driving.
02-24-2011, 01:22 PM
#22
Originally Posted by richmc,Feb 24 2011, 10:17 PM
That's not what I said, "in the event of an accident whoevers fault it is", the lawers, if they are doing their job will bring it up in court.
In the unlikely event you end in court relating to an accident, why will lawyers bring up something that is perfectly legal and where Honda contradict their own guidance in the handbook?
And why do Honda sell a child seat designed to fit in the S2000, along with the likes of Britax, Graco, etc.
02-24-2011, 01:30 PM
#23
I know I've heard it already, I'm a magistrate, the case related to a fatal accident in a Z3. I can’t comment further, but the insurance company refused to pay out, and the family lost a 3 year old son. I’m withdrawing from this discussion.
02-24-2011, 01:48 PM
#25
If you feel the need to check my credentials please write to-
Judicial Services Directorate
Room 5.40
5th Floor
102 Petty France
London SW1H 7AJ
Enquire of Lord McDonald of Skye
Judicial Services Directorate
Room 5.40
5th Floor
102 Petty France
London SW1H 7AJ
Enquire of Lord McDonald of Skye
02-24-2011, 11:19 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the back wheel. . .
Posts: 20,306
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by richmc,Feb 24 2011, 09:47 PM
Whos opinion is that yours or your daughters? and what about the twunts you come accross who might put your car, you, and your daughter into a ditch or tree?
Post what you like in reply I've just pressed ignore, like the advice in the Honda book seems to have been, my last word, if it's in the Honda book it will be quoted in court, quoted by your insurance Co, whoever is to blame in a fatal accident.
Post what you like in reply I've just pressed ignore, like the advice in the Honda book seems to have been, my last word, if it's in the Honda book it will be quoted in court, quoted by your insurance Co, whoever is to blame in a fatal accident.
If there's a fatal accident involving the S with my daughter in it then it very likely the same thing would have happened in any car.
I guess you never make you own judgements then, just check in a book. The highway code says the limit (not a recommendation) on a motorway is 70. I guess you've never done 71 then.
02-25-2011, 12:26 AM
#27
Would I be correct in my assumption that warnings in handbooks and the like are simply disclaimers to stop the manufacturer (in this case Honda...) facing legal action should anything go wrong; think Winnebago having to state that Cruise Control doesn’t mean you can leave the drivers seat and make a cup of tea whilst actually driving, McDonalds have to warn that the contents of it's HOT Apple Pie may be hot etc?
I'm not a lawyer, and have only a limited grip on reallity, let alone the law, so plese feel free to correct any misunderstandings I am making here. It strikes me that if a lawyer can argue in one direction (in this case tht the handbook advises against childeren under 12) surely an equally clever lawyer on the other side can make the same arguement as I have and lower have above. Then it's down to the judge, jury or magistrate to make a decision.
I'm not a lawyer, and have only a limited grip on reallity, let alone the law, so plese feel free to correct any misunderstandings I am making here. It strikes me that if a lawyer can argue in one direction (in this case tht the handbook advises against childeren under 12) surely an equally clever lawyer on the other side can make the same arguement as I have and lower have above. Then it's down to the judge, jury or magistrate to make a decision.
02-25-2011, 12:27 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps, may I offer an impartial and *moderately* well researched view?
In my previous assignment, I worked for the Military Aviation Authority. As part of my training for this role, I completed a number of rather expensive safety management courses. Granted, what I did was assess other people's safety work, on behalf of the regulator for a particular area, but I developed a fairly good feel for the way in which safety cases, the law and accident litigation work.
Thankfully, I never had cause to go to court to give evidence on behalf of the regulating body to which I was assigned, but I did learn the following:
Regardless of what the law specifies about a particular requirement (specification of metal to be used in an aircraft component, child seat requirements, whatever), even if you comply with the law, you can still be negligent in discharging your duty of care. The two are completely seperate issues.
I am also the doting father of a 20 month old daughter and I too have looked in great depth at the types of car seats available and their suitability for use in various vehicles. My wife is a GP with a post graduate diploma in paediatric medicine. She has a particular (personal) interest in child seats and their effect on their occupants and did a whole heap of research whilst on maternity leave concerning both initial and follow-on car seats for our daughter.
For example, lets suppose that the law says that it is ok to use forward facing child seats at any age and even in a car with air bags. If you have a 6 month old child, who can support their head, but has trouble sitting up unaided, you can legally put that child into the type of car seat that uses the lap belt of the car to secure a padded bar over the child's lap as the sole means of restraint.
If you then put that car seat into your S2000, drive impeccably well, but get distracted by your child cooing and making excited noises and pile into the back of a stationary vehicle at a traffic light while doing 40mph, the outcome is likely to be that the child will suffer serious damage if not death.
The likelihood of such an occurrence is comparatively low.
The outcome is high in terms of severity.
You have complied with the prevalant regulations.
Can you prove that you have taken all measures to bring this combined severity / likelihood to *as low as is reasonably practical* (ALARP) ? Reasonably practical means that the cost to do more would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit.
In determining what is and what is not grossly disproportionate, the only way to know for certain is when the judge tells you. There are, however, some things that are reasonable to expect to a greater or lesser degree:
If the child cannot sit upright unaided, they should not be in a forward facing seat. This is not a law, merely guidance given by midwives, health visitors and other similar agencies. It is logical (prevents child slumping forward in the seat and constraining breathing), sensible and more importantly, widely publicised and endorsed by various branches of the NHS. Thus it carries credence in court.
If the child IS sufficiently old to merit a forward facing child seat, said seat should provide a means of restraining the child that is at least as good as a 3 point seatbelt is for an adult, if not better (see also ALARP etc). CE or BS ratings do not mean that all car seats are created equal, more that all have met a minimum standard, which is generally regarded by those in the know as barely adequate. For example, in order to achieve certification, car seat manufacturers need only prove that their design and construction methods are sound. There is no crash test requirement for child seats (yet).
It is equally important to ensure that the deceleration of the child is accomplished in a smooth fashion. Modern child seats with ISOFIX fittings inorporate gas rams in the base to ensure a degree of cushioning from the impact force. This type of device is not a legal requirement, but has been developed and pioneered by the only european car seat manufacturer to bother to crash test their seats, Jane (accent over the e - spanish firm, pronounced Hannay).
In our case, we elected to go for a rear facing first seat (in the back seat of the beater) until our daughter out-grew it in terms of weight, then switched to a fwd facing seat with 5 point harness, ISOFIX base and gas rams. We could have gone for a second, larger aft facing seat, which would give even greater protection in the event of a crash, but the size of the thing was such that the front seat in front of it would have to be all the way fwd, or the child seat would have to go in the front with the airbag disabled. It also cost nearly twice what the one we decided on did.
WE judged that the cost to go to the Uber-safe solution (in terms of cost and practicality) was disproportionate in comparison to the increase in safety. We may or may not have been right. I pray that we never have cause to need to find out, but I know I can rest easy at night.
Compliance with the law is enough to avoid being pulled over by plod, fined and/or prosecuted for one's sins. Compliance with the law is, however, merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of disproving negligence.
Granted, the legal principals on which I base this discussion relate to the various H&S at work laws, but the principal of how to construct an ALARP argument remains valid, as does the principal that only the deciding judge in the subsequent court case can definitively say whether you have done enough not to go to jail in the unfortunate event of an accident. Thus, it would be prudent not to have an accident in the first place, or if you are unable to affect the likelihood, seek to minimise the severity of the outcome...
On the subject of airbags, you will probably have already realised that whilst disabling the airbag is not illegal (AFAIK), it does mean that you are operating the vehicle outside of the conditions upon which Honda has based its safety case. You are, in effect, off piste and on your own. This *may* in turn mean that your actions are looked on unfavourably in the event that a crash results in the injury of an adult passenger, both by your insurer and by the courts (where applicable). Conversely, by disabling the airbag, you have made it significantly safer (not to mention legal) to put an aft facing child seat in the car. Aft facing child seats are widely acknowledged as being safer for the occupant, particularly children younger than 6 months (think it's 6 AFAICR).
Although you may not like the way in which he has put his point across and subsequently defended it, Richmc is right when he says that being "legal" is not necessarily enough.
In my previous assignment, I worked for the Military Aviation Authority. As part of my training for this role, I completed a number of rather expensive safety management courses. Granted, what I did was assess other people's safety work, on behalf of the regulator for a particular area, but I developed a fairly good feel for the way in which safety cases, the law and accident litigation work.
Thankfully, I never had cause to go to court to give evidence on behalf of the regulating body to which I was assigned, but I did learn the following:
Regardless of what the law specifies about a particular requirement (specification of metal to be used in an aircraft component, child seat requirements, whatever), even if you comply with the law, you can still be negligent in discharging your duty of care. The two are completely seperate issues.
I am also the doting father of a 20 month old daughter and I too have looked in great depth at the types of car seats available and their suitability for use in various vehicles. My wife is a GP with a post graduate diploma in paediatric medicine. She has a particular (personal) interest in child seats and their effect on their occupants and did a whole heap of research whilst on maternity leave concerning both initial and follow-on car seats for our daughter.
For example, lets suppose that the law says that it is ok to use forward facing child seats at any age and even in a car with air bags. If you have a 6 month old child, who can support their head, but has trouble sitting up unaided, you can legally put that child into the type of car seat that uses the lap belt of the car to secure a padded bar over the child's lap as the sole means of restraint.
If you then put that car seat into your S2000, drive impeccably well, but get distracted by your child cooing and making excited noises and pile into the back of a stationary vehicle at a traffic light while doing 40mph, the outcome is likely to be that the child will suffer serious damage if not death.
The likelihood of such an occurrence is comparatively low.
The outcome is high in terms of severity.
You have complied with the prevalant regulations.
Can you prove that you have taken all measures to bring this combined severity / likelihood to *as low as is reasonably practical* (ALARP) ? Reasonably practical means that the cost to do more would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit.
In determining what is and what is not grossly disproportionate, the only way to know for certain is when the judge tells you. There are, however, some things that are reasonable to expect to a greater or lesser degree:
If the child cannot sit upright unaided, they should not be in a forward facing seat. This is not a law, merely guidance given by midwives, health visitors and other similar agencies. It is logical (prevents child slumping forward in the seat and constraining breathing), sensible and more importantly, widely publicised and endorsed by various branches of the NHS. Thus it carries credence in court.
If the child IS sufficiently old to merit a forward facing child seat, said seat should provide a means of restraining the child that is at least as good as a 3 point seatbelt is for an adult, if not better (see also ALARP etc). CE or BS ratings do not mean that all car seats are created equal, more that all have met a minimum standard, which is generally regarded by those in the know as barely adequate. For example, in order to achieve certification, car seat manufacturers need only prove that their design and construction methods are sound. There is no crash test requirement for child seats (yet).
It is equally important to ensure that the deceleration of the child is accomplished in a smooth fashion. Modern child seats with ISOFIX fittings inorporate gas rams in the base to ensure a degree of cushioning from the impact force. This type of device is not a legal requirement, but has been developed and pioneered by the only european car seat manufacturer to bother to crash test their seats, Jane (accent over the e - spanish firm, pronounced Hannay).
In our case, we elected to go for a rear facing first seat (in the back seat of the beater) until our daughter out-grew it in terms of weight, then switched to a fwd facing seat with 5 point harness, ISOFIX base and gas rams. We could have gone for a second, larger aft facing seat, which would give even greater protection in the event of a crash, but the size of the thing was such that the front seat in front of it would have to be all the way fwd, or the child seat would have to go in the front with the airbag disabled. It also cost nearly twice what the one we decided on did.
WE judged that the cost to go to the Uber-safe solution (in terms of cost and practicality) was disproportionate in comparison to the increase in safety. We may or may not have been right. I pray that we never have cause to need to find out, but I know I can rest easy at night.
Compliance with the law is enough to avoid being pulled over by plod, fined and/or prosecuted for one's sins. Compliance with the law is, however, merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of disproving negligence.
Granted, the legal principals on which I base this discussion relate to the various H&S at work laws, but the principal of how to construct an ALARP argument remains valid, as does the principal that only the deciding judge in the subsequent court case can definitively say whether you have done enough not to go to jail in the unfortunate event of an accident. Thus, it would be prudent not to have an accident in the first place, or if you are unable to affect the likelihood, seek to minimise the severity of the outcome...
On the subject of airbags, you will probably have already realised that whilst disabling the airbag is not illegal (AFAIK), it does mean that you are operating the vehicle outside of the conditions upon which Honda has based its safety case. You are, in effect, off piste and on your own. This *may* in turn mean that your actions are looked on unfavourably in the event that a crash results in the injury of an adult passenger, both by your insurer and by the courts (where applicable). Conversely, by disabling the airbag, you have made it significantly safer (not to mention legal) to put an aft facing child seat in the car. Aft facing child seats are widely acknowledged as being safer for the occupant, particularly children younger than 6 months (think it's 6 AFAICR).
Although you may not like the way in which he has put his point across and subsequently defended it, Richmc is right when he says that being "legal" is not necessarily enough.
02-25-2011, 12:36 AM
#29
Dan, I have not pressed ignore, that would be as rude as turning my back during a conversation and I apologise for posting that, and respect your opion.
And judgement is for Judges not Magistrates so yes if unsure we check the book.
If I were to be caught speeding in my position I would except to feel the full weight of that book more so than other road users but I'm no saint, and in years past was a quite bad person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Penalties
If you are convicted of failing to wear a seat belt as a driver or passenger, you face a fine of up to £500.
As a driver, if you are convicted of failing to ensure that a child passenger is using an appropriate child restraint or wearing a seat belt according to the legal requirements described above, you face a fine of up to £500.
In addition to the legal penalties, failure to wear a seat belt or failure to ensure that a child passenger uses an appropriate child restraint or wears a seat belt according to the legal requirements described above, could affect any claims against your motor insurance cover.
You could also face civil proceedings for damages, if (for example) you failed to safely carry someone else's child.
Laws RTA 1988 sects 14 & 15, MV(WSB)R, MV(WSBCFS)R & MV(WSB)(A)R
Two thing you didn't know-
If there are more rear seat passengers than belts you can ride in the back without one.
Unless spcificly for cycleists, road signs are for the direction of motorists only. if you can get up to 30 in a 20 limit ( say outside a school) you are not braking a law.
These are two instances I have seen thrown out of court.
And judgement is for Judges not Magistrates so yes if unsure we check the book.
If I were to be caught speeding in my position I would except to feel the full weight of that book more so than other road users but I'm no saint, and in years past was a quite bad person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Penalties
If you are convicted of failing to wear a seat belt as a driver or passenger, you face a fine of up to £500.
As a driver, if you are convicted of failing to ensure that a child passenger is using an appropriate child restraint or wearing a seat belt according to the legal requirements described above, you face a fine of up to £500.
In addition to the legal penalties, failure to wear a seat belt or failure to ensure that a child passenger uses an appropriate child restraint or wears a seat belt according to the legal requirements described above, could affect any claims against your motor insurance cover.
You could also face civil proceedings for damages, if (for example) you failed to safely carry someone else's child.
Laws RTA 1988 sects 14 & 15, MV(WSB)R, MV(WSBCFS)R & MV(WSB)(A)R
Two thing you didn't know-
If there are more rear seat passengers than belts you can ride in the back without one.
Unless spcificly for cycleists, road signs are for the direction of motorists only. if you can get up to 30 in a 20 limit ( say outside a school) you are not braking a law.
These are two instances I have seen thrown out of court.
02-25-2011, 12:39 AM
#30
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good info there ian, much appreciated.
i wont be putting my 6 month old in, so i wont be disabling the airbag.
but i do want to put in a seat for my 3 year old if possible/legal.
i wont be putting my 6 month old in, so i wont be disabling the airbag.
but i do want to put in a seat for my 3 year old if possible/legal.