Driving to and from work this year, having been able to walk for the last four, I've had the opportunity to acquaint myself with all the traffic woes my motoring friends have been complaining about all this time. The roundabout of death next to Peter Mac, the Western Ring Road truck gauntlet, the Monash carpark, and all the cutting-off, intersection-blocking, side-swiping, lane-splitting, and general unpleasantness that a shared problem does nothing to lessen the load of. In amongst the bogan bumper stickers, P-plates, 'My family' stick figure decals, and the myriad other things people see fit to stick to the back of their cars I've noticed many drivers, predominantly in SUVs and 4WDs but us hatchback-drivers as well, put up a 'Baby on Board' sign in the back window. At first I thought it was a celebratory thing, akin to a 'just married' sign or the vehicular equivalent of an engagement ring, and I suspected this as the reason why I would often then drive past these cars and find not only no baby on board but no evidence of basonet, booster seat, or any of the other paraphernalia that goes along with bringing a new human into the world. Growing curious I started paying attention to the ages of the relevant drivers and found that more often than not they were female and well above the age where had I been treating them medically for a prolactinoma [1] I would have long since considered ceasing. Ok, so maybe they were grandparents, sharing in their children's joy. A bit odd to keep the sign up while not actually transporting any babies but not outside the realms of possibility. Then just last week I noticed this sign hanging up at the back of another presumably more socially aware individual's car. It was then that understanding dawned on me. The 'Baby on Board' sign has nothing to do with celebration but rather is a feeble attempt at protecting oneself from the dangers of peak hour traffic. Going back to my high school language analysis for a moment, the sign is presumably attempting to induce feelings of guilt in the would-be hoon driver not to endanger this particular car as it may result in harm to a baby, an individual with far greater moral worth than any adult driver. Putting aside for one moment the cognitive gymnastics it would take someone driving dangerously to see such a sign, make the connection, and be sufficiently shamed into ensuring they don't endanger that particular vehicle, the problems with this are immense. At the very least the driver of the sign-bearing vehicle believes that babies either constitute greater moral worth than adults, or that despite the VicRoads regulations for industrial-strength padded security for any baby or young child in a car they are at greater injury risk than any seatbelt-wearing passenger. Of course they may only believe that there are others who hold this view, but is that not acknowledgement of the possible validity of the viewpoint? On the face of it this seems an odd sentiment to encounter in our decidedly individualist, secular, partial-birth abortion allowing [2], baby boomers supposedly screwing everyone else out of the avocado/housing market society. But perhaps there is some truth to this. Try to raise funds for research into dementia or osteoporosis and you may as well hit your head against a brick wall. But stand at an intersection and rattle a collection tin during the Royal Children's Hospital Good Friday Appeal, as I have done, and you have to stop the motorists from putting the coins in too fast. All the international charities know this too. The Oxfam, World Vision, and CBM catalogues that flood our letterbox all exclusively feature children or females with a caption along the lines of "Help me feed my children" or "Make me strong so I can work to send my children to school". And herein lies the common thread. Both motorists and would-be philanthropists share the idea that a child is innocent and in need of protection. If an adult is poor or gets sick, on some level it's their own fault. They didn't work hard enough at school to get to uni, they didn't take care of their health, they used substances they shouldn't have, or they didn't move away from that risk. Adults have agency. But children do not and can't be expected to. So if you're going to endanger lives then at least pick on someone your own size. And if you feel the need to help someone other than yourself, then help a child, who can't. And maybe that's not such a bad thing to believe. Bruce Willis certainly thought so.
0 Comments
|
DownloadsCheck out the downloads on the next page. Archives
May 2020
Categories |