Child safety enigma !

This past week was officially " Walk to School " week, an initiative to both promote child safety and attack the obesity epidemic caused by lack of exercise.  Sadly, five young children were hit by cars in the 40 kph school zones, causing the media spotlight to focus on speeding motorists.

It seems that we have a safety problem despite laws that impose a 40 kph speed limit outside school entrances before the start and after the finish of the school day.   Speed checks reveal that many motorists fail to slow down and at one check point 57 vehicles were caught exceeding the limit in one thirty minute period.     This is an offence that delivers a hefty fine - and loss of demerit points.

One practical remedy was the installation of flashing lights to alert motorists when speed reduction zones are in operation, but the roll out has been painfully slow.   It will be at least well into the next decade before all schools in this state have this form of warning lights, but it could be achieved in a single year - if the government would accept the donation of these lights from commercial interests - and grant them the the right to a modest advertising sign to acknowledge that gift.     All such past offers have been firmly rejected.

It seems that the preferred option is to install more speed checking cameras and reap a fine bonanza, but this does nothing to actually increase safety in child crossing zones.   Even if we actually manage to get the traffic to slow to 40 kph - a car travelling at that speed is still lethal if it hits a little kid that runs into it's path.

What seems to be the forgotten aspect of keeping kids safe is adult supervision whenever they need to cross a busy road.   A huge number of children are driven to school by parents and picked up again after classes.  This results in chaos as an excess of cars fight for space at limited drop off points and the actual road crossing safety is left in the hands of the " Lollypop Lady".

This week's range of accidents during Walk to School week showed several kids were aged three and one was aged eight.   In one instance, Dad had crossed the road and Mum was preparing the pusher when their three year old impulsively ran after Dad - and got hit by a car.    It is a fact of life that small kids can not be relied upon to use adult judgement in decision making - and their actions are entirely unpredictable.

Half a century ago it was common practice to have such kids restrained by a child harness.  It was a safety measure that allowed the parent to maintain movement control while performing tasks such as erecting a fold down pram or putting groceries in the car.   Such restraints seem to have entirely disappeared from the street scene.

There is absolutely no reason why such child restraints should not make a reappearance when children under five are under parental control.   Probably, the main objections would come from the children - who would not consider wearing a child harness with a lead to be " cool ".

Perhaps we need to tackle the child safety enigma from both ends.   Certainly we need to tame the traffic to keep car speed under control, but an improvement in parental control is a " must " if we are to curb the contributing factor of " child impulse " in traffic accidents !