Blogs are now being featured at www.rospa.com/your-stories/
You will also find advice and information on various issues at www.rospa.com/
Prevention in proportion
Marianne Matthews, from Harrow, was celebrating the birth of her first child Eric when, within weeks, he had died after having been carried in a baby sling. Marianne explains what happened.
I write this blog in memory of my first child Eric, and with the hope that this message will help prevent more tragedies like ours.
Eric was four-weeks-old when he became unconscious while I was carrying him in a stretchy wrap baby sling – soft fabric that wraps around the chest and waist and holds baby, allowing a parent to keep their hands free as they go about their everyday tasks.
As a new parent, you get marketed at relentlessly with baby products. I wasn’t fully aware of the risks involving baby slings, and you never think these kinds of tragedies are something that will happen to you. The dangers of slings were not mentioned in the antenatal classes we attended, or in any of the baby books we read. Maybe because baby slings are newly popular, safety warnings aren’t yet part of the standard information given to expectant parents.
I bought a stretchy wrap sling online. It came with minimal instructions and had no safety label.
It was Christmas Eve 2013 and Eric was quite unsettled so I put him in the sling and took him out for a walk to the local shop. He started to get a bit hungry and I tried to breastfeed him whilst carrying him. I then decided to go home. At the time I thought Eric was just falling asleep.
Everything happened so quickly and quietly I didn’t realise that something was very wrong. He had either choked or got into difficulties. By the time I got back, he had stopped breathing.
We called 999 and tried to resuscitate him. Sadly Eric never regained consciousness, and passed away in our arms a week later on New Year’s Day 2014.
We loved Eric so much and wonder how things went so wrong. Eric was our first child, and as new parents, we were finding out what to do for the first time. Our inexperience was to have tragic consequences, sometimes love just isn’t enough.
Eric is now a big brother, our little girl Sola Eden was born in October 2014, and she really is a miracle for me and my husband Bob, especially as we had her when we were still grieving. I have learned a lot from Eric. I’ll never use a baby sling again. Safety is an absolute priority.
My advice is not to use a baby sling for a newborn baby – wait a few weeks until they are stronger and have more neck control. Don’t be tempted to multi-task by feeding a baby in a sling and check for safety standards and warnings before choosing a product.
The part that concerns me most is that some slings are marketed as ‘breastfeeding slings’. In my opinion, the feeding position is unsafe for baby (particularly a newborn) to be carried in, as they need to be kept upright to keep their airways clear. A baby trying to feed may make similar sounds to a baby struggling for breath, or make no sounds at all, and tragedy can occur in a minute or so. Added to this, the use of a sling while out and about may mean there are more distractions, and parents may not be fully aware of what’s happening.
I hope other parents find our story helpful, and it can in some way prevent another avoidable death like Eric’s from happening.
You can read more on RoSPA’s detailed advice on baby slings at the RoSPA website.
RoSPA is aware of risks attached to these products because a sling’s fabric can press against a baby’s nose and mouth, blocking the baby’s airways and causing suffocation within a minute or two. Suffocation can also occur where the baby is cradled in a curved or “C-like” position in a sling, nestling below the parent’s chest or near their stomach.
Because babies do not have strong neck control, this means that their heads are more likely to flop forward, chin-to-chest, restricting the infant’s ability to breathe. RoSPA advocates products that keep babies upright and allow parents to see their baby and to ensure that the face isn’t restricted. Your baby is safest travelling with you in a pram or pushchair in which they are lying flat, on their back, in a parent-facing position.
Here at Braintree District Council we thought we should do our bit to keep our roads as safe as possible.
I’m Gabriella, an apprentice working in the Community Services department. From the beginning of October until the end of November I ran a road safety project. Its aim was to raise awareness of road safety and advise people how to stay as safe as possible. I wanted to let people know about the services they can use to make themselves safer when driving.
Throughout my project I wrote reports, visited road safety partnership sessions and local colleges and updated the Braintree Council website, in order to reach out to people. I also created a notice board in the Council’s reception area. I featured many organisations and gathered leaflets and posters from different charities. This should result in the community becoming more aware of the services available to them.
The number of people killed on UK roads increased by four per cent in 2014. Sadly, some drivers still appear to be unaware of the dangers they are causing. Pedestrians too can make reckless decisions.
Focusing on young drivers and their vulnerability made me come across RoSPA, which offers practical advice and resources to help this age group become confident, safe drivers and campaigns for changes to the current system for testing and training them.
As a young driver, I know the problems they face daily. Young and novice drivers are more likely to be involved in road accidents than more experienced drivers. This is why I feel it’s important to promote RoSPA’s work within communities as it can hugely help to reduce the number of road accidents.
I also looked into what causes accidents to happen. For example, being over confident seems to be common in young drivers, especially male ones, which can be a factor contributing to accidents. I would advise more organisations to focus on this aspect because being overly confident can cost you your life, leaving family and friends devastated.
The best way to educate young people on the roads is to consistently keep the safety message alive, so young drivers are aware of the resources around to help them become accomplished drivers.
RoSPA fundraiser Peter Lowe has been raising awareness of our Lighter Evenings campaign by living an hour ahead of the country since the clocks went back in October. Here’s his story:
So I have come to the official end of the Happy Hour challenge, but I intend to continue as much as possible throughout the winter. The challenge has been interesting, informative and I seem to have overcome most obstacles. I have pretty much done what I set out to do in terms of getting up earlier going/leaving work an hour earlier. I have tried to work around social events rather than pull out. From a PR point of view I’m in the wrong part of the country in London, but I think it’s important someone makes a stand. I would add however that with average commute times of 79 mins compared to 59 nationally for a round trip, arguably this puts us more on a par with other regions for usable winter daylight during weekdays.
I have certainly found that I can get more done during daylight at weekends, but even during the week with work finishing shortly after dusk, if found it physiologically beneficial with daylight for most of the day. I have also found that having my time pieces on GMT+1 is psychologically better for making events happen earlier as opposed to just getting up earlier – this also reduced the temptation to fall back an hour in the evening, as of course all the TV schedules are effectively later than usual.
My work colleagues have been either supportive of my experiment or have not expressed any opinion, but I have not received any negative comments. This is similar to members of my family, some of which have been very supportive. Some have also stated that they can get more done in the day. Some colleagues have expressed their dislike for the current time system. I may have persuaded a few people that the system needs to be changed, but going by Facebook comments, my blogs have also helped to inform many others who liked lighter evenings, that this policy is in fact serious and makes sense for safety, business, tourism, health, sport, energy and other sectors of society.
In terms of a desire to change, some people preferred to stay on BST all year, to conserve daylight in winter and to end the inconvenience of changing clocks – (going by the latest e-petitions, year round BST is by far the most popular time system to change to). While BST all year would be a step forward, SDST would produce the best results for road safety as well as many of the above sectors. The benefits would far outweigh the inconvenience of retaining the twice yearly clock change. I was also surprised at how many people were unaware of the time system on the continent and that SDST would put us on the same time zone. If this was more widely known the e-petition results might be different.
In my blogs I have tried to lighten some of subject matter with catchphrases and photos to illustrate my points. I launched by talking about the history of timekeeping and photos from the Willett Memorial Sundial. As well as the advantages of SDST, I have also talked about objections regarding milk and postal deliveries and farming being less relevant, explained why just getting up earlier would not be very viable and mentioned some of RoSPA’s other work. I’ve taken photos of my watch against other clocks to try and prove the challenge is real and also of local road junctions at different times of day to illustrate traffic levels. Crucially I have also mentioned recent interest from the Republic of Ireland in lighter evenings. If Ireland were to participate in the trial period, this would further boost the case for safety and business and do away with any concerns regarding the land boundary with Northern Ireland.
We may not be able to win the aesthetic arguments for this policy, but then again RoSPA campaigns for what will make us and our families safer, not what looks good – in the same manner seatbelts are hardly fashion accessories and may be a nuisance, but they have saved countless lives and injuries! It is concerning that in recent years attempts to introduce lighter evenings have been allowed to be derailed by relatively few aesthetic objectors and entrenched opponents who still claim lighter evenings will be more dangerous. They should look at the RoSPA website – the evidence in favour is all there! Yes casualties will rise in the morning, but this will be surpassed by the fall in evening casualties.
I have also learnt that motor insurance premiums would fall after a few years of lighter evenings – safety that saves you money – it’s not often you get that! Then there all the other countless benefits including business hours, tourism, energy saving, health and sport all for around £5m for advertising. Even this would quickly be re-cooped by the treasury. Therefore I would urge the government to stand up for safety with RoSPA on this issue!
You can still sponsor Peter at http://www.justgiving.com/P-LOWE1, and you can find out more about the RoSPA Lighter Evenings campaign at http://www.rospa.com/campaigns-fundraising/current/lighter-evenings/
RoSPA is campaigning for a change to the current daylight savings system, calling for the UK to be brought into Single/Double Summer Time (SDST) which would see us move one hour ahead throughout the year – to GMT+1 in the winter, and GMT+2 in the summer.
We understand the concerns that many people will have about this. In this blog, chief executive Tom Mullarkey answers the frequently asked questions and concerns.
What exactly are we asking for?
At the outset, we should explain what we and other campaigners are asking for: A UK-wide trial of at least two years in which we can gather unequivocal evidence on the benefits and disbenefits of a Single/Double Daylight Saving regime or SDST. This would effectively put our clocks one hour ahead of where we are now (to GMT+1 in the winter and GMT+2 in the summer). If the evidence is solid and shows that this idea doesn’t work, we would abide by it. But the vast majority of the current evidence already points to the fact that it would work – hence the need to make the first step – the trial.
Don’t like dark mornings/Prefer dark evenings.
Some people see the proposed change as inconvenient or believe that the current daylight regime is safer than SDST. The move could reduce road deaths by around 80 per year, and serious injuries by around 212 per year. If we can do that, and prevent the incredible heartache and suffering that these road accidents cause, the perceived inconvenience of darker mornings and lighter evenings would be a small price to pay. When we ask people if they think their preference should take priority over making a change which could help to save lives, they generally agree that the experiment would be justified.
There are two peak times for casualty rates involving child pedestrians – during the school runs at 8am and 3.30p.m. However, the afternoon casualty peak is around four times higher. Casualty rates increase with the arrival of darker evenings, so ensuring children are walking home in daylight will help to reduce the number needlessly dying or being injured. But to be clear, there is a potential rise in morning road casualties to children, which is, however, more than offset by the evening reduction – the net figure is the key calculation.
People who say they don’t want their kids to go to school in darkness are expressing a preference, but an argument which surely trumps that is that we don’t want our children to be harmed – and SDST increases the opportunities for us to achieve this. And once again, wherever you live in the UK, children have to go to school in darkness in midwinter, though a change to SDST would make this less significant.
There’s nothing wrong with the current system.
The current system was established long ago – our work/life patterns have evolved considerably since then – and needs to be updated. We are no longer an agricultural economy and the dependence on morning daylight is much less important in the 21st century. Equally, nowadays our evenings are when we get free time, and these are ‘shortened’ by darkness, so we need to make the adjustment to account for modern lifestyles. Road casualty rates currently increase with the arrival of darker evenings and worsening weather conditions. Every autumn when the clocks go back, and sunset occurs earlier in the day, road casualties rise, and the effects are worse for the most vulnerable road users such as children, the elderly, cyclists and motorcyclists.
In 2012, pedestrian deaths rose from 32 in September to 40 in October, 38 in November and 61 in December. In 2013, this number jumped from 38 in September and October, to 53 in November and 51 in December. And in 2014, it rose from 39 in October to 66 in November and 73 in December. The effect of moving the clocks back in the autumn is immediate and obvious and we can easily see how to prevent these deaths. We are effectively allowing these people to die, and many others to receive serious, life-changing injuries, when we could intervene, and this gives me and many others, a real sense of moral frustration.
There’s no evidence this would work.
There is a mountain of evidence that this would work – and very little against the benefits of the change. For those old enough to remember, an experiment was actually carried out between 1968 and 1971. British Standard Time, which is GMT+1, was employed year-round for that period, and saved around 2,500 deaths and serious injuries for each year of the experiment. It was curtailed early because a (unknown) number of people wrote to their MPs and complained – this was hardly a democratic decision. Additionally, the final figures on casualty reduction were not collated until 1973, by which time it was all too late. With almost instant opinion polls and modern road accident data-gathering techniques, these issues would simply not arise today – which is why we need to repeat the experiment using SDST.
From discussions with farming bodies, it is clear that working practices have changed so much since the 1968-71 experiment that the limitations on animal husbandry in the darker hours is no longer as significant as it was then. Practices with farm machinery have also changed significantly. The National Farmers’ Union in Scotland, formerly one of the strongest opponents of SDST, is no longer opposed to the change, and would not stand in the way of an experiment. Builders adjust their days to available daylight. Postmen deliver later in the day than in 1971.
If people want to change when they get up and go to bed, they can, without changing the clocks.
For any group, the option to adjust working hours to take available daylight into account exists now, as it would in the proposed regime. By the same token, this argument undermines the ‘status quo’ position. We’ve had interesting discussions around adjusting school hours in winter, to take available daylight into account, for example. As a society, we should be creative and flexible in the way we implement any regime – but the established rigidity of working/school hours greatly limits the opportunity to give our people access to the available daylight, particularly when it is in short supply in the winter.
It would be bad for people living in the North/West/Scotland.
This is not really a North-South debate as the majority of us broadly share the same longitudinal position and our country lies on a North-South axis. It could certainly be an East-West debate and people in Northern Ireland and the Western Isles make a good point – some aspects of SDST on them might prove negative – but again there are potential adjustments that could be made to working hours etc, which need to be explored. However, if we are to share one time zone (and most people think we should), then it would make sense to optimise time for the benefit of the vast majority and so there needs to be a balance of interests. But overall, as a society, we would gain a lot, even the people who live out west.
However, I would add a point regarding the North-South argument which is the principal stumbling block to change. The further north you live, the less your available winter daylight and so the more important it is to optimise that daylight – the current regime squanders morning daylight and limits winter evening daylight, so a move to SDST would benefit people in the north the most. The many other benefits of SDST (see below) would be felt more keenly in the north and so there is more to be gained for those living in the higher latitudes of the UK, by making the change. This is the reverse of what we are generally told, but it does make sense – the further north you live, the more precious is the optimisation of your winter daylight.
It would only be good for the English/We don’t want the English telling us what to do.
Actually, the English gain the least proportionately (but they still gain) because they already have slightly more winter daylight. But just to be clear, nobody in the UK has much winter daylight, particularly around the solstice. More people’s lives would be saved on English roads but that is because of the higher population. As a proportion of population, Scotland would gain more lives saved and injuries prevented, and achieve a greater proportion of the other benefits of SDST. Rather than couch the argument this way, why not change it around and ask why is it that the Westminster Parliament is preventing Scotland from achieving its proportionally greater gains?
Are there other potential benefits?
Apart from the life-saving argument we espouse (and surely that should be the weightiest), we believe that SDST would benefit the whole of the UK, in many other ways. Here are a few of the other benefits:
It didn’t work in Portugal.
While all available evidence should be considered when making any decision on SDST, the Portugal experiment – when the time zone moved to align with the rest of Europe for four years from 1992 – is not relevant or comparable to the situation in the UK. In Portugal, on the ‘short’ winter days, darkness does not arrive until 5.30pm. In the UK children would reap the benefits of coming home during daylight – including reducing accidents – while that issue did not arise in Portugal. The issue of children not being able to get to sleep and being tired in class was a bit of a myth, as children in Portugal culturally go to bed much later than their British counterparts anyway.
We had to do it in wartime to save energy but the now the war’s over, there’s no need.
The nation does not now ‘need’ to save energy as it did during wartime, but with rising energy bills we are sure households and businesses would appreciate any help they could get to try to save money. When budgets are tight and there is an easy saving waiting to be taken, why not take it?
This phrase was coined by one journalist, doing premeditated damage to a good idea, for his own reasons. During both World Wars, we advanced the clocks to save fuel, improve manufacturing productivity and increase efficiency – so why go back to wasteful ways? You might just as well say we don’t want ‘Winston Churchill’ time.
It would additionally be beneficial for businesses to align with Europe. At present, the UK market loses an hour of overlap in the morning with European markets and an hour overlap in the evening. Making the adjustment would increase working hour overlap by 25 per cent. Stock market hours would match Europe, and produce a greater overlap with Asia. Although overlap with North America would be reduced, the EU accounts for more than half of the UK’s foreign trade, much more than North America.
Don’t like changing the clocks twice a year/Why do we have to change the clocks at all?
Because we live 50degrees+ above the equator, we would have to adjust our clocks anyway. There are good arguments for advancing and retarding the clocks more than once a year each way, but for simplicity, most countries go for a one–change regime. In the UK, the only problem at present is that it’s not quite at the right time. If we left the clocks at GMT all year round, during the summer it would get light even earlier in the morning when most of us are asleep, and get dark an hour earlier in the evening, when most of us would want to be out and about. All we’re suggesting is making the annual changes more significant.
There is a multitude of alternative regimes, which could be ‘just as good’ as SDST.
Most campaigners such as RoSPA have agreed that SDST is by far the option which will achieve the greatest benefit for the UK and we work together for this option, which increases its chances of happening.
What do others think?
The most recent polls show that most people are in favour of the change. In Scotland, despite what is said vociferously by some, most people either support the change or are neutral about it.
Why won’t the politicians make the change?
In my view, this subject has simply become a political football, a hostage to the wider debate about Scottish independence. If a Westminster Government supports SDST, critics in Scotland are likely to use that as an illustration of Westminster ‘trying to impose unpopular decisions on the Scottish people’, or so it is feared. And in Scotland, the expectation is that Scottish politicians would actually use this argument. The terrible irony is that this change would benefit us all and the Scottish people the most, but we are all losers because of the wider politics. And we have to remember that since the 1968-71 experiment, over 5,000 people have died and 30,000 been seriously injured because of this intransigence. That is a terrible price to pay for political pragmatism.
Of course a bold move would be for Scotland to seek to make the change on its own – I’m pretty sure the rest of the country would follow in an instant. This elegant solution just needs vision and statesmanship – so please can we have some?
And by the way, there are many MPs, from all parties and all UK countries, who support the SDST proposal – nearly a quarter of all MPs stayed in Westminster on a cold, snowy Friday when most MPs were back in their constituencies and voted for the last Private Members’ Bill on SDST in 2012, tabled by Rebecca Harris, while only a handful voted against. And no progress was made because of a flawed political process – I gave Evidence to the House of Commons Procedure Committee on that – you can read the transcript here…
So what can people do now?
There are plenty of things you can do:
We’re not saying that our view is overwhelmingly correct and that those that disagree are overwhelmingly wrong. But we do believe that most of the evidence and information available points to this being a good idea and one which deserves to be put to the test – with an experiment. I can understand people being opposed to this idea but I can’t understand why anyone would want to stand in the way of actually finding out a truth.
Let’s work together to make this happen. Many lives and much heartache for families and communities depend upon it. If the experiment works, there is quite simply no other way to make us all safer, greener, healthier, wealthier and happier, at a stroke, at no cost.
Tom Mullarkey, RoSPA chief executive
The impending visit of my brother’s family – including one child aged 22 months and the other 34 months – gave me the opportunity to learn the modern ins and outs of choosing the right seat. Our visitors were coming by train and already had enough to carry…..
It’s been 28 years since our first son was born in Canada, where the quality of the car seat was inspected by the hospital staff before I was allowed to drive him home – a practice now more widespread in the UK. But that child car seat had sustained him all the way through to the point where he had traded up to a booster, so his newly arrived brother could take over the forward/backward facing, reclining and multi-adjustable hot seat. One child car seat and one booster seat spanned two children throughout their growth period.
But in 2015, returning to the subject, I found it had moved forward a long way in design and technology and I’m sure that there are many others like me, including new grandparents, who are having to learn the ropes all over again. My first point of call was the RoSPA Infocentre (free advice to members of the public on 0121 248 2130), where Anita Plumb neatly narrowed down the options to three weights I needed to consider:
• Up to 13kg – rear facing
• 9-18kg – front facing or a combination seat that starts rearward-facing and then becomes forward-facing (better to keep children rear-facing as long as possible)
• 15kg upwards – high-backed booster seats and then, if necessary a booster cushion, but again much better to use a high-backed booster seat rather than a booster cushionn.
And these weight bands certainly were a help when I started to look into the details more fully e.g. on our own website www.childcarseats.org.uk/types-of-seat/ and www.childcarseats.org.uk/choosing-using/buying-child-car-seats-checklist/ where the full and glorious complexity of it all starts to come out. Here, to be precise, you will find up to 10 categories, which give all the weight/age permutations. It certainly isn’t easy to work out the options, so here’s my thinking:
So having decided that I needed Group 1-2-3 seats for my niece and nephew, I set off for Halfords in Shirley, pretty much as a mystery shopper, since RoSPA accredits Halfords’ car seat fitter training, and I wanted to experience what this meant first-hand.
The first issue encountered was that although I had ordered two Halfords own-brand car seats online, that didn’t mean job done. CJ Ahmed, the fitter, explained that he first had to check that they fitted properly (the mind-boggling combinations of cars and car seats make this an imprecise art). So in my brand new Volvo V60, although it had the finest reputation for safety, these seats turned out to be unsuitable. The basic range seats (not Isofix) wouldn’t fit firmly and CJ showed me just how much play was involved. A sudden impact would whip the child forwards or sideways – we needed something much more solid, attached securely to the car with the seat belt.
So we started to move up the scale of seats and this involved moving up the price range too. We stopped when we had sourced a seat which was rock solid. CJ taught me to climb in, kneel on the seat and apply maximum pressure on the belt to get the tightest fit, and the design of this seat, with a clip to hold the belt in place, really did the job. As you go up the range, the adjustability, reclinability and comfort of the seats also improves and these are all important considerations if you’re going on a long journey. And having started at £35 for the basic range seat, we had actually reached £100 each by the time we found what was needed! Whether the less expensive car seat will fit your car seems more a matter of luck and you can see immediately why folks might baulk at this and try to pressurise the staff to fit something cheaper. But CJ was wedded to quality, certainly not for any commercial motive, and that was admirable.
The story wasn’t over yet. Unfortunately, there was only one such seat in stock but CJ, realising that I was on a tight timeframe, offered to drive over to another store in his own time and pick up a second one, to be installed in the morning. This was conduct well above and beyond the call of duty – I was truly impressed.
Talking to Halfords’ staff, I heard some pretty hair-raising stories of customers trying to cut corners – the couple who tried to buy a basic Group 1-2-3 seat for their baby; the people who insisted on buying seats which Halfords would not fit because they were too loose; the couple who argued about trying to fit their baby’s seat forward-facing in the front. I also learnt that at a recent customer advice event at the store, 80 per cent of car seats checked by the fitters turned out to be incorrectly fitted. Having learnt how to do it properly, from an expert, I can believe it.
This was an illuminating experience for me, and I had no hesitation in writing to Halfords’ CEO to commend CJ. My concern is that complexity and cost could conspire to encourage people to cut corners. The truth is that a good quality modern standard new seat (and we wouldn’t recommend a second-hand seat unless it’s from family or a friend you’re willing to trust your child’s life to) costs no more than a tank of fuel.
The weekend passed off fabulously and both children found their seats so comfortable, they fell asleep at the wrong times – I got into trouble a bit for that. But when you see them sleeping there in their innocence, you know that investing in quality for their safety and future happiness is a price well worth paying.
1 The new EU i-size standard is not based on the child’s weight, but requires children to be kept rearward-facing until they are at least 15 months old. They fit into the Isofix points that were built into the car when it was manufactured; see www.childcarseats.org.uk/types-of-seat/i-size-seats/
Tom Mullarkey, chief executive
Mum-of-two Beth Amison, aged 23, from Staffordshire, promotes nappy sack safety following the death of her seven-month-old son Maison in 2013. This is her story.
My world fell apart because of a nappy sack but how do I sum up the worst day of my life? How do I explain how empty I feel and how my heart hurts so much that I can’t breathe?
It was on March 7th 2013 that I went into my seven-month-old baby son Maison’s bedroom to wake him up – only it wasn’t his beautiful smile I was greeted with. Instead Maison was lying in his cot with a handful of nappy sacks scattered around him and one was covering his face.
From this moment on, it’s all a painful blur but I know that 999 was called and my house was full of paramedics desperately trying to save my baby’s life. I knew he was gone and that it was too late.
Our changing stand had been placed next to the cot, as many people’s are, and in the pockets of the stand, I had placed nappy sacks months and months before. To be honest, I had forgotten they were already there.
Our cot was on the highest setting because Maison had never crawled. He could sit, but only if you placed him that way. However, that day he must have learned to stand for the first time as that’s the only way he could have reached the changing stand.
Nappy sacks are usually brightly coloured and make a rustling sound so babies find them very attractive. They are made of thin plastic, which easily covers the face and can be sucked down the airways. As they are used to dispose of soiled nappies, these sacks also aren’t required by law to have safety holes like plastic carrier bags, so they are more dangerous to children.
Babies have a natural grabbing reflex and put things into their mouths, but then they cannot get them back out and as they get older, they start to become mobile and can find items that you thought were put away.
RoSPA records data on these tragedies and research has found that nappy sacks have claimed the lives of at least 16 babies, ranging from newborns to one-year-old. Since Maison died, I share the dangers of nappy sacks to other parents through my Facebook page called Maisons Memory and my advice to other parents and carers is to ask yourself some important questions.
Questions like how many of you have nappy sacks on the side, possibly in reach of a child? or are nappy sacks in the changing bag, zipped away, but the changing bag is within reach?
Do you assume because you haven’t seen your baby stand or crawl yet that they can’t?
Since Maison’s death, I have had two more children, who are currently 18-months-old and six-weeks-old, but I don’t use nappy sacks anymore.
I urge anyone who is around babies to think about the possible dangers before they become a problem. Don’t have the “it won’t happen to me” or “it didn’t do me any harm, so I’m not going to think about it” attitudes because when tragedy strikes, it leaves you heartbroken forever.
Cold, wet and soaking head to toe in mud, I jumped into the river to swim the final stretch before the finish line. I may have been tired and aching, but last month I completed the WolfRun in order to bring vital cash in for LifeForce.
RoSPA’s LifeForce is a community-based volunteer programme that empowers people and communities by giving them the skills, support and knowledge to stay safe in their homes.
I wanted to see just how much of a difference my muddy achievement would make, so I took part in one of LifeForce’s home-checks by visiting a family in Birmingham with Justin, its volunteer manager.
I got to see the programme in action with a family that included an older couple, their daughter and her young son. Once we were welcomed in, we made our way from room to room around the house highlighting potential risks to the family. While we were doing this, I was thinking about how some of the risks Justin was pointing out in this home, actually mirror some of those in my own house.
It dawned on me that I’m also guilty of having too many plugs attached to one extension lead; I often leave things near the stairs with the intention of moving them and then end up tripping over them when I’m in a rush. We think “it’s alright I’ve survived fine in my own home”, but all it takes is that one incident which can change your family’s life forever.
The bathroom was important in this home as it contains a gas boiler; Justin stressed the importance of having a carbon monoxide alarm in the house. A lot of us still have gas boilers and appliances and some even have coal fires in our homes, but how many of us are aware of their dangers and of the silent killer that is carbon monoxide? Part of LifeForce’s role is to inform and educate families on the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning and offering solutions to prevent any tragedies.
Justin checked each of the windows. These windows had catches to restrict how far they could open, which we were happy to see, as it is easy for curious children to climb. What Justin was mainly looking for was the blind cord arrangement – whether they had any, how long they were and more importantly if there was a potential risk of strangulation for the young child. RoSPA is aware of at least 28 cases of death by blind cord strangulation amongst children under the age of five. Each case could have been prevented and LifeForce wants to ensure that this never happens to any of the families it visits. This particular family had two windows with blind cords and although there was a safety device attached to the first, it was broken and there was a piece missing. Justin noted to send them some cleats so that the cords could be tied up out of reach from an inquisitive child.
The kitchen can also be a dangerous place for children, as witnessed in this home. We noticed a few medications left on the side plus cleaning products on the window ledge and sharp knives left out both on the worktop and in the sink. We often leave harmful things out on surfaces and in easily accessible cupboards but children are curious and can be easily poisoned or cut. Knives in the sink are particularly dangerous as a child may innocently wash their hands and receive a nasty surprise. LifeForce is there to reiterate the importance of keeping harmful substances and objects locked away and out of sight from little hands.
We ended the tour in their garden. At this stage the family shared their worries about the safety of the garden and how sad it is that they can’t let their little boy play outside without constant concern for his wellbeing. The pond, which the child had already fallen into twice, was still a potential risk. The pond itself had not been used for quite some time and Justin strongly advised that it could be removed as it remained a danger for the little boy. The other option would be to fit a pond mesh, grille or grid. Aside from the pond, there were large tools and gas canisters outside, which Justin said ought to be locked up carefully in the shed.
So, from my visit I could see first hand the importance of LifeForce – its use in giving practical advice and resources to families that need it. After all, who wouldn’t want to keep their children safe? Who wouldn’t want to prevent a nasty injury or worse to their loved ones in their own home? As I walked away it left me thinking, I hope the family take on board some of Justin’s advice as it would be tragic for anything to happen to them. I also realised that I really need to get home and make some serious safety changes myself!
Tess Bowen, campaigns and fundraising assistant
RoSPA House was an interesting sight at 5:30am on a Tuesday. We were at work at that unearthly hour because five staff had a journey to Powys to complete, so we could take part in this year’s Royal Welsh Show.
We were invited by Wales YFC, who have chosen us as their charity of the year. Safety is very important to their chairman Iwan and sadly Wales YFC has lost a number of young members in road accidents.
None of us had attended an agricultural show before, so you can imagine our delight when we were entertained by sheep shearing, herding and stock judging competitions (not to mention the interesting aromas coming from the food tent!).
At the show we provided advice and resources for young people and their parents;
including leaflets, freebies, 50 free young driver profilers and a fun safety quiz with a Kindle prize! We also handed out luminous snap bands, which were extremely popular with passing children.
It was great to run a stall in the YFC area; we were able to witness how brilliant its
young members are. There were dozens of them wearing white coats and judging several of the competitions.
Members were also taking part in dancing and talent competitions or competing in different challenges. They were all working hard on something be it making milkshakes, teas and biscuits or providing information at stalls.
They were very welcoming and we thoroughly enjoyed the day. We would definitely return next year, perhaps we’ll bring some paper weights as it was extremely windy!
These young people were inspiring and we are proud to be their chosen charity. We
look forward to our continuing work with them to save lives and reduce accidents!
Tess Bowen, campaigns and fundraising assistant
What is so important about April 28th? It’s the 118th day of the year or the 119th in any leap year. It also means there are only 247 days of 2015 remaining!
But it’s not a day like any other…over the decades significant numbers of people across the world have been killed, injured, disabled or made ill as a consequence of working for a living.
The 28th of April provides a single focus each year for those of us who can make a difference to reflect on the staggering number of people who are affected, not only those directly involved but their families and the impact that each accident or case of occupational disease has on the wider community.
The world of work has changed dramatically for some but not all of us. On April 28, 1869 it is recorded that laborers for the Central Pacific Railroad working on the First Transcontinental Railroad laid 10 miles of track in one day, a feat which has never been matched.
I could find no detailed record of the impact that this “feat” had on the workers themselves, however with labor-saving devices in those days consisting primarily of wheelbarrows, horse or mule drawn carts, and a few railroad pulled gondolas. The impact of this immense amount of manual labor will undoubtably have taken its toll.
On April 28, 1914 and 1924 mining disasters in Eccles and Benwood West Virginia claimed the lives of 300 miners.
There were no survivors in the Benwood Mining Disaster, caused by the ignition of methane gas and coal dust, the names of the 119 killed, remain a sombre reminder of the event.
On April 28, 1986, high levels of radiation resulting from the Chernobyl disaster were detected at a nuclear power plant in Sweden, leading Soviet authorities to publicly announce the accident…the result of a flawed reactor design operated by inadequately trained personnel.
On April 28, 2014, an HSE Press Release recorded the life-changing injuries suffered by Kevin Lowe, 48,
as a result of an incident at Tangerine Confectionery Ltd in Blackpool on September 19, 2012, he is now only able to walk short distances with the use of a stick.
It goes without saying that the impact of each and every instance of harm as a consequence of working
for a living is significant to the sufferer.
The 28th of April encourages us all to stop and think about what has gone before, what lessons can be learned, how things can be done differently and what needs to change to tackle emerging health and safety issues within the world of work.
If like myself you have no direct experience (thankfully) of dealing with the outcomes of a work related accident or ill-health caused by work, take a few moments to reflect on the list of names linked to the Benwood Mining Disaster, or visit RoSPA’s Workers Memorial day web page.
Karen McDonnell, RoSPA’s occupational safety and health policy adviser