Tuesday, January 21, 2014


When the motor car became the preferred road vehicle, owners of horse drawn vehicles were significantly concerned about safety with the noisy fume emitting faster machines bringing danger to traditional road users to protest.

Nanny state was alive and well even all those years ago and legislation was passed requiring a walking person carrying a red flag to precede each and every one of the new fangled machines.

Yesterday another educated numpty had a brainfart and called for reversing cameras to be mandatory on all vehicles to prevent the horrifying but easily preventable death by reversing vehicle.

It is illegal to leave a child under 14 unattended.
The vehicle operator cannot run over a child legally.
If the driver has an unattended child around , put the freakin kid in the cab.
We have three ankle biter dogs and they are secured before anyone goes to a vehicle, no fatalities yet.

I will wager a hundy to a knob of dogshit the first fatality after this stupid idea gets introduced, and it will happen,  will be a vehicle where the Camera has either been pawned for a bit of 'gear' or is broken and no-one did anything about fixing it.

Common sense will trump technology every time.

Sheesh walk around the vehicle even if only to ensure the four tyres are there with enough air and no obstacles, it might just avoid another krushed kid.

Hey people the little bugger might just be retrieving its ball out of sight of the camera!!!!

A large notice in the carpark of The Tree Fellers Arms reads; "parked cars dont kill".


Watcher said...

" It is illegal to leave a child under 14 unattended."

That depends on the circumstances.

"Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000 who, being a parent or guardian or a person for the time being having the
care of a child under the age of 14 years, leaves that child, without making reasonable provision for the supervision and care of the child, for a time that is unreasonable or under conditions that are unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances."

gravedodger said...

So watcher, would failing to ensure safety around a potential moving vehicle be covered with that?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...



Watcher said...

"So watcher, would failing to ensure safety around a potential moving vehicle be covered with that?"

Has anybody been charged?

Noel said...

It's uncommon for charges to arise from use of that law in those circumstances.
If there are charges more common to be vehicle related offenses.

Example below.

Of course the law in question quite rightly does require proof of unreasonableness.

"A south Auckland father who killed his 14-month-old son when he backed his car over the toddler will not face charges.

(child_) died in Middlemore Hospital on March 25 after his father accidentally backed over him, unaware his child was playing in their Manurewa driveway.

However, Counties Manukau Police spokeswoman Angeline Barlow today said police had decided there was no need to lay any charges over the incident.

At least six similar driveway accidents involving children have been reported in the past two years.