Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW I don't have the "stupid sign" on my car.

Why do people plaster signs on their windows about pets and children in the house for emergency responders?

Do you also call these stupid?

When did safety become stupid?

It became stupid when it is a sign that may not always apply.My dog is not always in the house. If my husband takes him for a run and my house is on fire, I don't want emergency responders searching for a nonexistent dog while I'm dying of smoke inhalation.

What about if you're already outside, dead, is it ok if they go inside to search for the dog?

And you seriously think emergency personnel will look for pets first? you sound like someone who deserves to be saved last.

Anonymous wrote:BTW I don't have the "stupid sign" on my car.

Why do people plaster signs on their windows about pets and children in the house for emergency responders?

Do you also call these stupid?

When did safety become stupid?

It became stupid when it is a sign that may not always apply.My dog is not always in the house. If my husband takes him for a run and my house is on fire, I don't want emergency responders searching for a nonexistent dog while I'm dying of smoke inhalation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of you folks need to Google the origin of that sticker before you piss all over people who have it.

Signed, a First Responder

This, you mean?

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

Claim: The death of an infant in an automobile accident led to the invention of 'Baby on Board' signs. FALSE

I'm not the PP you're quoting but this sign was very common in Europe when a military mom brought some to the US and sold the idea to a baby products company.

Anonymous wrote:I think some of you folks need to Google the origin of that sticker before you piss all over people who have it.

Signed, a First Responder

This, you mean?

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

Claim: The death of an infant in an automobile accident led to the invention of 'Baby on Board' signs. FALSE

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To make you more understanding as they hold up traffic driving cautiously.

Driving slow and cautiously only causes more accidents. It's been proven many times. Why would you drive slower because you have a kid in the car? You should always drive safely but driving below the speed limit is dangerous.

Only if everybody else speeds.

Even though a lot of people think that "speed limit" means "you're supposed to go at least this fast", the fact is that "speed limit" actually means "you're not allowed to go any faster than this".

BTW I don't have the "stupid sign" on my car.

Why do people plaster signs on their windows about pets and children in the house for emergency responders?

Do you also call these stupid?

When did safety become stupid?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the point is that the sign is not attached to the physical child. So when you are driving to Whole foods after dropping the baby off with grandma, and you get into an accident the sign is still there. So they are searching for the baby that isn't actually "on board"... therefore it is dumb.

Not dumb if the accident is not he way to grandma. So I vote for keeping the sign up and saving a life. How would you feel if you ran over an ejected baby the first responders didn't find yet when driving by an accident?

Ok. Keep your damn sign if you really need the attention. By the way, go easy on the idiotic scenarios that never happen. That was just stupid. Run over an ejected baby? Come on now.

What's so hard to understand? Don't we all strap our children so they don't fly out of the car in case of an accident?

And the people responding above you re clearly not trained on emergency situations.

You approach the scene and if there's no sticker they go straight to the driver while looking in the car. If there's a car seat they ask "do you have children with you?" Because they want to make sure.

I've been in both sides, as the victim on an accident and as an emergency worker. Every time I was the victim (3x) I was asked if I had my children with me. Same for when I was at work. The personnel approaching the car always asked the driver if they had kids in the car.

If ejection was such an absurd scenario why would you think you're mandated by law to use a car seat?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the point is that the sign is not attached to the physical child. So when you are driving to Whole foods after dropping the baby off with grandma, and you get into an accident the sign is still there. So they are searching for the baby that isn't actually "on board"... therefore it is dumb.

Not dumb if the accident is not he way to grandma. So I vote for keeping the sign up and saving a life. How would you feel if you ran over an ejected baby the first responders didn't find yet when driving by an accident?

Ok. Keep your damn sign if you really need the attention. By the way, go easy on the idiotic scenarios that never happen. That was just stupid. Run over an ejected baby? Come on now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the point is that the sign is not attached to the physical child. So when you are driving to Whole foods after dropping the baby off with grandma, and you get into an accident the sign is still there. So they are searching for the baby that isn't actually "on board"... therefore it is dumb.

Not dumb if the accident is not he way to grandma. So I vote for keeping the sign up and saving a life. How would you feel if you ran over an ejected baby the first responders didn't find yet when driving by an accident?

What a ridiculous scenario. You are saying if the responder doesn't see the small yellow sign on a possibly mangled car then this leads to a higher likelihood that rubberneckers would run over a baby laying in the road? WHAT?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the point is that the sign is not attached to the physical child. So when you are driving to Whole foods after dropping the baby off with grandma, and you get into an accident the sign is still there. So they are searching for the baby that isn't actually "on board"... therefore it is dumb.

Not dumb if the accident is not he way to grandma. So I vote for keeping the sign up and saving a life. How would you feel if you ran over an ejected baby the first responders didn't find yet when driving by an accident?

I'm the PP you're responding to. This makes no sense. Idk about first responders but I'm more likely to notice a BABY IN THE ROAD then to see one of those asinine stickies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took several first aid and CPR classes and all instructors always reminded us to check the surroundings of the car for ejected children when the BoB sign is on the car

A carseat wouldn't be an indicator?

When you're approaching the scene what so you see first? The inside or the outside of the car?

If a first responder starts a search for a child who may or may not have been ejected from the car before checking on the occupants inside then I'd question that person's training. Really, you would go wading through brush because you saw a sign (which would likely become detached in the event of an impact forceful enough to eject a child) before approaching the vehicle? A 4 inch-by 4 inch adhesive sign is what you go on??

Anonymous wrote:But the point is that the sign is not attached to the physical child. So when you are driving to Whole foods after dropping the baby off with grandma, and you get into an accident the sign is still there. So they are searching for the baby that isn't actually "on board"... therefore it is dumb.

Not dumb if the accident is not he way to grandma. So I vote for keeping the sign up and saving a life. How would you feel if you ran over an ejected baby the first responders didn't find yet when driving by an accident?