http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,451806,00.html This poor little boy gets grounded when his mother should have made sure he had a helmet and was wearing it!! I think he didn't need to be grounded to understand that he needs to wear a helmet after what happened and probably being traumatized. I bet he'll have to use his allowance to get his bike fixed too. Unbelievable.
:iagree: to a point.........It says "until he starts wearing a helmet". He may indeed HAVE a helmet and decided either not to wear it, took it off AFTER he went out the door, or any number of things. There was nothing in there that said he did not have a helmet avaialble to him. I guess it's a very tough issue.
it's not to tough he's 6 and shouldn't be out there unsupervised in an apartment parking lot. she should be ticketed with child endangerment
Grounding him for a helmet maybe a life saving thing. He'll think the next time. There's nothing wrong with discipline. It may help him realize the value of safety features. The way I see it is reinforcing the safety matters will only help him in the future.
Times were different back in my heydays popping wheelies and jumping each other, but if I was grounded every time without a helmet I would have been a permanent hermit in our house. of course the only helmets back then were motorcycle helmets and that wasn't happening. LOL
And you don't think getting hit by a car will make him think next time?? Of course there is nothing wrong with discipline, but in this case I think a stern talking to might have sufficed.
I think a band wagon just got jumped on that shouldn't have. I would guess we're missing some of the story. We don't know how many times he's been warned by mom to wear his helmet and for all she knew he had it on when he left out of the house and then stuck it behind the bushes. I don't think we know the full story here. And none of us sits with our children 24/7. Back in the day before helmets and cell phones we left our house on Saturday morning not to be seen again until the street lights came on and somehow we all survived!
Cmon totally different era that required change, too many abductors out there not to keep an eye out on a 6 yr old, certainly at an apartment complex.. Not to be a shoot the word escapes me {stereotype}but rif-raf these days often are around apartments which makes them a little unsafe.
The mom was interviewed on camera and could have mentioned she had told him before to wear it or that he had one and didn't put it on. The reporter said he didn't have one so I'm thinking he didn't. And if you haven't noticed the world is a very different place for kids these days and we can't let the past give us an excuse to not look out for our kids today. My point is that he is 6 years old and just hit by a car and shouldn't be getting grounded when his mother should have stepped up and took responsibility for her role in it instead of making the kid feel like it's all on him.
One thing which seems to be missing, is the fact his sister was riding with him and turned to avoid the car while the boy did not. It seems there is a situation where there was reason for some negative reinforcement. Also, in NC the boy would not have been legally at fault in any case because of his age, it would have been the officer or whomever was driving the car if there was an accident.
isn't there a law in NC for children also to have proper helmet on the noggin, and if they came out of blind spot into the path of a car why is it the drivers fault. I watched it again and Wayne where is the sister, the cop bears no responsibility for that, heck the picture of the sister isn't much older than him so it was total BS and the fault of the mother. She is lucky the kid is ok.
Yep. Because accordung to the laws, a child under the age of seven, I believe, cannot be negligent in NC. The driver is automatically at fault and their insurance will pick up the tab for everything. The case cannot be closed until six months, I believe, after the child turns eighteen because the parents cannot settle the case for the child and the child cannot settle until they are over the age of majority. The article attached: I suspect he does given there are several states with similar laws on the inability of young children to be at fault. Morally, maybe, but legally it will depend on the particular laws of AZ. As I said, in NC there would be no question of the driver being at fault under the law. This is true
