'Baby on board' signs

[vilakins]

On the way home from work yesterday, I was behind a vehicle with one of those 'Baby on board' signs suckered onto the rear window. (It was a 4WD too, so that gave it two black marks in my book.) Those signs annoy me because of what they imply, to me anyway. However I have no idea why people really use them, and wondered what others thought, so here's a little poll.

[Edit] The first explanation is the most nearly correct according to the Snopes site. To quote them, "there's a child in the car, so drive carefully". Drivers should drive carefully regardless of who's in the other vehicles. What am I, chopped liver? Yes, potentially.

[Poll #938980]

Comments

[trixieleitz]

Cycle commuting inflates my cynicism.

I like "geek on board", but too many people have the wrong idea (i.e. not the same as mine :D ) about what a geek is. They seem to think geek=dork.

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

No one but B7 fans will understand 'Delta on board'; I'd be happy with that.

[grumpoldusenaut.livejournal.com]

The impression those things always give me is option 1, but I have been told that the intended meaning is option 2.

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

Really? My opinion of the owners rises a little. I still suspect an element of boasting though.

[grumpoldusenaut.livejournal.com]

There was a thread somewhere or other where various people were ranting on the subject of "oh, so you think I'm a careless driver, but I'll drive better because you have your Preciouskins on board, and they're more *valuable* than adults"; someone explained that no, the idea of "back off, baby on board" was *supposed* to be to warn people that the driving of the vehicle so marked was likely to be erratic because the driver had been distracted by screaming, hair-pulling etc. Sort of like L-plates.

At which point the ranters suggested that something a little more obviously "distracted driver" and a little less easy to mistake for boasting and "my Preciouskins is *valuable*" might be a good idea, because the general reaction was the opposite of that intended.

[kerr-avon.livejournal.com]

I missed the whole point, then. My impression was that it was intended, in case of a horrendous accident, to warn rescuers to look for a very small victim amidst the rubble.

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

I agree. And I thought the "distracted driver" was an unlikely option. I shall regard them more charitably then, and steer clear out of self-preservation. I get the impression of boasting because so few of the ones I come across driving to and from work actually have babies on board.

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

I considered that, but so few actually have babies in them.

I've heard about signs you can put on your house to say that there are young children or pets inside. Our cats can always get out though; I'm more worried about us clambering about on the roof then having to drop to the deck from the guttering.

[hafren.livejournal.com]

I've heard it's in case of accident, to alert ambulancemen or others that there might be a baby in the wreckage that isn't obvious to the eye. But I do tend to think they look like boasting.

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

It's a bit counter-productive then if there isn't a baby in the car, and there usually isn't. I once had to borrow a male colleague's company car and it had one of those signs on it. I still suspect an element of boasting in many cases.

[trixieleitz]

I think I read somewhere that that was the original intent, but yeah, I tend to interpret it as a warning of "driving while distracted". Which I'm sure is technically illegal in many jurisdictions.

[julesjones]

That's more that people stick the signs in, and then just leave them in the car whether the baby's in the car or not, because they're a pain to remember. Just like L-plates, in fact -- I've seen enough of those going around on cars currently being driven by parent of the learner driver...

I've a vague feeling I've seen the thing about "look for a baby if there's an accident" mentioned before, but I have to wonder how useful that is when so many people don't bother taking the sign out of the car along with the baby.

[kerr-avon.livejournal.com]

Snopes discusses the origin of the signs. The original intent was to ask other drivers to be more cautious because car accidents are the number one cause of child deaths in the US. Incidentally, the manufacturer who popularized them first saw the stickers on cars in Europe.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/parental/babysign.asp

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

See, I never even thought of that as an explanation. Maybe they should publicise what the things mean.

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

AAARGH! So we're back to number one: babies are more precious than other people. Drivers should treat all other drivers with respect regardless of what age or size they are, dammit.

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

See the Snopes link below. Option number one appears to be the correct one. Sigh.

[kerr-avon.livejournal.com]

No, babies are more *fragile*. A fender bender that might bruise an adult could kill a baby. If car accidents are the leading cause of death for children, I don't think it unreasonable to feel they require extra protection.

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure it's not the leading cause here, possibly because we require all babies to be in proper child restraints (a padded chair facing backwards till the baby is a certain age, then facing forward).

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

Back when those came out in the 1980s, car seat regulations involved seats that faced forwards for all ages. But, either way, car seats for babies are marginally better than nothing, but only marginally. There really is no safe way to have a baby in a car.

[kerr-avon.livejournal.com]

Quick google-Leading cause of death children New Zealand got this very official-looking site.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11036796&dopt=Abstract

From 1 to 14 years of age, motor vehicle traffic incidents were the leading cause of mortality. (time period studied was 1986-1995)

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

Huh. You hear more about cot death and parental abuse than car accidents.

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

Actually, I have bad news for you. According to Safe Kids New Zealand, the number one cause of death of children ages one to fourteen is accidental injury; the number one cause of injury is car crashes.

[hafren.livejournal.com]

Of course transporting kids in cars rather than encouraging them to use their feet probably also increases mortaility by heart attack...

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

So I've already been told. I suppose it doesn't get publicised; we hear more about abuse, drownings, and cot death than car accidents.

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

And it still doesn't alter the fact that people should respect other drivers regardless of who's in their car.