I suspect that very few people are aware of the new rules about to be brought in for carrying children in vehicles and the impact this is going to have.

From the 18th of September 2006 it will be a criminal offence to drive a vehicle carrying a child unless that child is using an appropriate child restraint. There are few exceptions to this rule. The driver is responsible and liable for a fixed penalty of, at present, £30 for not complying with the new law. That could be £30 for each unsuitably restrained child.

Child in this context is someone under 16. If the child is either 12 or more or is taller than 135 centimetres [approximately 4 foot 5 inches] then the child must use the normal seat belt in the vehicle. It is when the child is shorter or younger that the problem is about to arise because the usual seatbelt fitted to the car will not do.

Children under 3 must be in a baby seat or child seat. The only exception to this rule is where the journey is in a taxi, such a seat is not available and the child sits in the rear. If it is not a taxi, the child must be in a proper seat or an offence is committed.

Between 3 and 12, children must use the appropriate child seat, booster seat or booster cushion appropriate for their weight. There are three exceptions permitted when dealing with older children. Again being in the rear of a taxi is one. The second is where there are already two occupied child seats in the rear resulting in there being no room to fit a third child seat. The third exception is where the journey is short and is an unexpected necessity.

Note the limits to the last exception. The journey has to be both short and an unexpected necessity. Though this may have to better defined in the courts if challenged, it is difficult to see that the school run where a number of children are taken in one car could fall into this exception. It is neither unexpected nor a necessity. It may end up with even more cars at the school gate as each family transports their own children only. Nor is it likely to cover carrying visiting children on an outing. Granddad taking his grandchildren out for the day, aunts with nieces etc are unlikely to be journeys involving unexpected necessity. Appropriate seats are going to have to be fitted, or transferred, to every family vehicle. Does it also mean you must now drive past your neighbour struggling along in the rain with her children at her feet and not stop to give them a lift? It may be a short and unexpected journey, but is it a necessity?

Another change is that it will be illegal to have a rear facing baby seat in the front of the car unless there is no airbag fitted or it has been deactivated.

The rules are to prevent avoidable injury to children. I shudder every time I see a child being held up in the front seat as the car drives past. Presumably the parent is unsure that the air bag is going to work in the accident and believes the child will make a good cushion instead!

It is still remarkable how many people drive or carry passengers who are not wearing seatbelts. Perhaps they are unaware that if there is an accident and they are injured any compensation that may be paid will automatically be reduced by one quarter because the seatbelt was not used. Over the years I have dealt with a number of deaths that could have been avoided had a seatbelt been worn. Nor do I have any patience for those who say their passenger or child will not wear a seatbelt. The answer is simple. No seatbelt, no journey.