Babes in arms
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
Prev: Mitsubishi RVR
Next: Car yards have a win
From: PHATRS on 27 Jun 2010 18:21 Couldn't believe my eyes the other day. Car-load of people rocks up at my local Indian restaurant as I'm leaving. Woman in the front seat is holding an infant in her hands... FFS
From: D Walford on 27 Jun 2010 18:49 On 28/06/2010 8:21 AM, PHATRS wrote: > Couldn't believe my eyes the other day. > > Car-load of people rocks up at my local Indian restaurant as I'm leaving. > > Woman in the front seat is holding an infant in her hands... > > FFS There is too many of them, on one hand they have babies but at least they offer some form of population control by killing large numbers of themselves with their own stupidity:-) Daryl
From: Doug Jewell on 27 Jun 2010 22:39 PHATRS wrote: > Couldn't believe my eyes the other day. > > Car-load of people rocks up at my local Indian restaurant as I'm leaving. > > Woman in the front seat is holding an infant in her hands... > > FFS Around 40 years ago, you would have posted in amazement... "Woman wasn't even nursing the baby, she had it strapped into some capsule in the back seat. Imagine trusting a device to hold the baby. She wouldn't be able to settle it if it started crying. She wouldn't even be able to breastfeed it. FFS" I'm not condoning what she did, just making a point that things have changed a hell of a lot in a relatively short period of time. In this day and age, insufficient restraint is pretty daft - especially when the government gives you $5k for having a kid, and a baby seat costs about 1/25th of that. There should be absolutely no "can't afford it" excuses. -- What is the difference between a duck?
From: F Murtz on 28 Jun 2010 00:17 Doug Jewell wrote: > PHATRS wrote: >> Couldn't believe my eyes the other day. >> >> Car-load of people rocks up at my local Indian restaurant as I'm leaving. >> >> Woman in the front seat is holding an infant in her hands... >> >> FFS > Around 40 years ago, you would have posted in amazement... > "Woman wasn't even nursing the baby, she had it strapped into some > capsule in the back seat. Imagine trusting a device to hold the baby. > She wouldn't be able to settle it if it started crying. She wouldn't > even be able to breastfeed it. FFS" > I'm not condoning what she did, just making a point that things have > changed a hell of a lot in a relatively short period of time. In this > day and age, insufficient restraint is pretty daft - especially when the > government gives you $5k for having a kid, and a baby seat costs about > 1/25th of that. There should be absolutely no "can't afford it" excuses. > I would like to see the figures for number of babies killed in that circumstance. I realise that you would have to collect figures in some place without belt laws or does someone have pre belt figures? We have been indoctrinated to believe that the instant you fail to buckle up we are in imminent danger.The reality is that the statistics of death caused by not wearing belts against kms traveled are very low. Most people can drive all their life without being in a situation where a seat belt would save them.I have driven for over 50 years (even rolled a vehicle without a seat belt) and have never been in a situation where a seat belt would have saved me. This does not mean that I do not think that seat belts are useful, they are an easy to use extra safety measure against that one in a million chance. This does not mean
From: Toby on 28 Jun 2010 02:42
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:17:35 +1000, F Murtz wrote: > We have been indoctrinated Yup:-) -- Toby Formerly we suffered from crimes; now we suffer from laws. Tacitus |