Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Very interesting to read this post and they could be right as I noted the following,


In a licensed taxi or licensed hire car, if a child restraint is not available then the child may travel unrestrained in the rear. This is the only exception for children under 3, and has been introduced for practical rather than safety reasons. You should always think about ways to make sure that a child seat is available.


Sourced from this website: http://www.childcarseats.org.uk/law/


You could always contact ROSPA for confirmation of this rule.


Good luck!

Yes, I looked into this too. It is indeed true.


There have been a couple of situations where we took a taxi with Little Saff just belted into the middle back seat as best we could. Little Saff is very tall for a toddler, so it was ok. Not ideal, but it was alright for a short low-speed journey. (Not in a hurry to get caught in this situation again though!)

karter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is interesting stuff. Also any local taxi

> firm recommended to drive to hospital when about

> to give birth? Family and friends are on standby

> but you just never know.:-S


My backup plan is calling an ambulance, I have considered walking to hospital (if I go to hospital that is), will definitely speed up the labour process.


Taxis are exempt, which I used to think was silly, until I got stuck in the city with my daughter and only simple way to get home was getting a taxi.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What a ridiculous plan. If this is to stop traffic "cutting through" where do they think it is now going to "cut through" via? Has the council produced any data on the scale of the problem on Ryedale - anything to back up their hypothesis? You cannot do these things in isolation as all it does is displaces traffic elsewhere. Dunstans is going to become awful - I feel for the residents there. Councils should not be allowed to implement these experimental TMOs, they are clearly using them to circumvent proper planning and engagement. Has anyone contacted the local councillors about this? The laughable thing was the local ward councillors were concerned about displacement from the wider Dulwich LTNs on their ward so is this an indirect acknowledgement that they are being impacted?  Ridiculous.  
    • I would never leave my dog tied up outside a shop nowadays. A large proportion of ‘dogs stolen’ notices feature dogs nicked from outside shops- fancy dogs, old dogs, mongrels , all sorts. Stolen on a whim, for mischief, for profit or as a bait dog to train fighters. A thief might abandon them shortly afterwards, but the heartbreak and confusion is already done and a reunion not guaranteed.
    • It's a terrible idea, will damage trade in Forest Hill Road and is just creating a nice private road for someone to enjoy. Congestion in the road is caused mainly by delivery vans, well, let's help stamp out those scourges. And an 18 month trial is at least a year too long if you are just interested in judging impact. And there has been no consultation at all, save, perhaps, with the privileged Rydale-ers. I live a block away in Underhill and I've heard only via social media. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...