Two babies have tragically drowned recently in separate accidents in Australia. In a bizarre attempt to prevent loss of life in the future, Australia has enacted a new law (AS/NZS 2088-2000) that will mandate new “safety” standards for pushchairs beginning in July 2009.
Foremost amongst the changes are the requirements that all strollers have a red brake, and a leash. The idea is that any adult who hasn’t any idea where the brake is will be able to figure it out when he or she sees red. Or, failing that, the brake won’t be necessary because said adult will already be leashed to the stroller.
Good thinking, Australia. But please explain to me how these provisions would have saved little Rebecca Hopper, dead just before her third birthday.
Little Rebecca was in a twin jogging stroller with her eight-month-old brother when her (married) father decided to walk out with his (married, but not to him) lover. As they walked beside these waters
along the path you see on the ridge above the steep slopes into the sea, Daddy decided to kiss his sweetheart. Later daddy Andrew Hopper told all to the police. He feels terrible. You see, while he was kissing his paramour, he let go of the stroller, which slipped down this embankment into the water, trapping the children. Son Lewis survived. Rebecca did not.
So here’s the question: Does anyone seriously believe that this new law would have prevented this horror? If Daddy, who chose to take his children with him for a rendezvous with a lover, along a obviously fairly perilous walkway, couldn’t be bothered to keep a hand on his babies’ stroller, why on earth should anyone believe that he would carefully leash himself to the stroller, and diligently set the brake before turning to his secret mistress and smooching her?
It’s absurd, isn’t it? It would never happen. This parent made one choice after another that completely disregarded any consideration of his children’s well-being. No red plastic brake pedal or leash of any length would have saved these children. (And it should be noted that, had dad leashed himself to the stroller, but NOT set the brake, the weight of the heavy, double jogging stroller might well have dragged him into the water as well while still tied to the stroller frame. )
So some people are a bit up in arms about this new law, including my colleague The PramMan, who wonders if his lifetime collection of indigenous, vintage, Australian prams and pushchairs is now jeopardized. He believes that the new law may prevent sale of any pram or stroller manufactured before 2006, making sale or acquisition of historic prams impossible.
If so, Aussie landfills may get a new lease on life when thousands of otherwise perfectly good, pre-loved, prams and pushchairs end up in the tip. And Australia, which no longer produces its own pushchairs or prams, will lose the artifacts of its own stroller manufacturing history.
It’s not clear to me that the Pram Man’s interpretation is necessarily accurate. But what is clear is that this law is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that does not exist. If you want to prevent your stroller from moving, set the brake. If you haven’t set the brake, hold on to the handle. If you’re pushing a potentially fast-moving jogger, use a leash in case the stroller out-performs you. And, oh yes, pay attention to your surroundings. This is not rocket science, folks.
Jogging strollers are inherently more dangerous than standard pushchairs. Three wheels make them more unstable, and extra large wheels with air-filled tires allow a jogger to roll much more easily than traditional four-wheel strollers. If you’re using one, you probably bought it precisely for this feature. It’s your job to remember that.
On second thought, maybe Australia should just outlaw jogging strollers. Or procreation by irresponsible idiots. Either approach might solve the problem a bit more effectively.
Don’t write and tell me that Mr. Hopper feels terrible. He should. He murdered his little girl because his good time was more important than his children’s lives. And don’t get me started on his wife, who, it’s claimed, is standing by her husband. Accidents happen; this wasn’t an accident. It was criminal neglect. I don’t know about you, but killing my child through calculated recklessness is a real deal-breaker for me.
I totally agree. This law has made all prams just look stupid with this dangly bit of webbing hanging off the sides of all prams! You can buy new ones if your pram hasn’t got one for $4 at Target. But, I have yet to see ANYONE using them. They are just a pain.
As for outlawing stupidity, what would we do with our politicians then?!
In an equally disturbing case, when I lived in New Zealand, the entire Emmaljunga brand died out there when a baby died when the mother hadn’t followed the instructions regarding not leaving an unharnessed baby to sleep in the stroller part. (This was a Ringo which came with a bassinette for infant use). But Emmaljunga copped the blame, and the prams disappeared from NZ shops soon afterwards.
In an article I just read from Australia, the blame is laid squarely on the parents for pretty much all deaths where the standard is not current. (so if you bought last years pram, and the rules changed this year). So it looks like all future deaths in prams without red brakes will be the parents fault now!
Kiwiaussie, I had not realized that this was the cause of Emmajunga’s withdrawal from New Zealand. How bizarre, as you imply, that it happened over a model that came with a bassinet for a small baby. The head just spins.
Your comment about the leashes strikes home. It makes me think about the wild fuss made over the Maclaren hinges; new models come out with the hinge covers in place, but in spite of the huge outcry and a massive, free, distribution plan, I’ve seen very few older Macs with the hinge covers in place. Like the leashes, a “solution” that wasn’t actually needed — or even practical.
Amen to your comment about stupidity and politicians! Better yet, let’s outlaw both!