Re: Seatbelts for Safety

[Catherine Woodgold]

Interesting replies; here are my responses
to some of them.

Barb and Leah: I see that you believe strongly in the
importance of seatbelts and make them an absolute
rule. That's fine. What I don't understand
is why you don't spend any time discussing them.

LaVonne: I agree with you, that discussion does
not necessarily lead to negotiation. I would also
like to point out that being willing to negotiate
around the issue of seatbelts does not have to
mean being willing to negotiate about driving
with no seatbelts.

I think it's fine to have an absolute rule that
a seatbelt has to be worn when driving. This
doesn't mean one can't also discuss the reasons
for the rule.

It also doesn't mean one can't
negotiate about things such as: using alternative
transportation; letting the child stay at
home; putting padding on the seatbelt or
adjusting it to make it more comfortable, if
such can be done safely; letting the child
do it up and undo it hirself, and
many other issues surrounding the seatbelt
experience for the child.

Leah and Barb, I understand that you have
absolute rules about seatbelts. However, why
don't you do discussion about it? Discussion
doesn't have to take up extra time; it can be
done while doing up the seatbelt. What are
your reasons for not having discussion? And
what are your reasons for not having negotiation
about seatbelt-related issues other than
changing the absolute rule itself?

LaVonne: I also agree with you that the purpose
of how we talk and act about seatbelts with
our children is not just to make sure they
always wear a seatbelt when driving with
us, but also so that they understand the
reasons for wearing seatbelts so they can
generalize those choices: to wearing seatbelts
as teens and adults when we're not around,
and to making other safe choices, such as
wearing helmets or seatbelts in things other
than cars, using their judgement as to when
it's appropriate. Explaining the reasons for
seatbelts accomplishes this far better, IMO,
than just making a rule with no discussion.

I'm car-free, by the way. I get around by
bicycle mostly these days.
--
Cathy

[LaVonne Carlson]

Catherine Woodgold wrote:

> LaVonne: I agree with you, that discussion does
> not necessarily lead to negotiation. I would also
> like to point out that being willing to negotiate
> around the issue of seatbelts does not have to
> mean being willing to negotiate about driving
> with no seatbelts.

Maybe this issue has been discussed to death, but I'm interested in how
one could negotiate around the issue of seatbelts without being willing
to drive with no seatbelts. What would the negotiation involve? I
think of my situation with my youngest, who is now 20. Negotiation
involved deciding whether riding in the car, with the designated
destination was worth keeping the seatbelt on. If not, she made the
decision to stay home. This only happened once!

> I think it's fine to have an absolute rule that
> a seatbelt has to be worn when driving. This
> doesn't mean one can't also discuss the reasons
> for the rule.

Absolutely. I certainly didn't mean to give the impression that
providing reasons weren't important. I believe that children always be
given a reason, regardless of how young they are. I think the reason
needs to be stated clearly, in a matter-of-fact tone of voice, with a
minimum of words. The less we make a big deal of things, the better.
My reason was "It is dangerous to ride in cars without seatbelts. You
could get hurt. When we ride in the car, we all wear seatbelts."

> It also doesn't mean one can't
> negotiate about things such as: using alternative
> transportation; letting the child stay at
> home; putting padding on the seatbelt or
> adjusting it to make it more comfortable, if
> such can be done safely; letting the child
> do it up and undo it hirself, and
> many other issues surrounding the seatbelt
> experience for the child.

I agree completely. I think this may simply have been a
miscommunication in reading posts. And of course it's important to
understand, if at all possible, why the child is objecting to wearing
the seatbelt. I just meant that sometimes we can make an issue bigger
than it needs to be by explaining ad nauseum about why the rule is
important.

>
> LaVonne: I also agree with you that the purpose
> of how we talk and act about seatbelts with
> our children is not just to make sure they
> always wear a seatbelt when driving with
> us, but also so that they understand the
> reasons for wearing seatbelts so they can
> generalize those choices: to wearing seatbelts
> as teens and adults when we're not around,
> and to making other safe choices, such as
> wearing helmets or seatbelts in things other
> than cars, using their judgement as to when
> it's appropriate. Explaining the reasons for
> seatbelts accomplishes this far better, IMO,
> than just making a rule with no discussion.

I agree completely. I never meant to imply that no discussion should
occur. As I stated above, I simply meant that a simple explanation,
along with an attempt to understand the child's objections was all I
felt necessary. I would never advocate a rule with no reason and no
room for discussion.

> I'm car-free, by the way. I get around by
> bicycle mostly these days.

Good for you, Cathy. With my job supervising student teachers, and with
the growth of our program, I drive hundreds of miles each week. Yuk!

LaVonne

>
> --
> Cathy