'Safety fears' over lack of family-friendly car parking spaces
A mother of three who is also a Mid and East Antrim Borough councillor is calling for more parent and child parking in off-street car parks.
Lauren Gray brought forward the motion to the council following difficulties getting her own children out of the car safely.
"I've had to leave my three-year-old with my baby on the sidewalk while I try to reverse to get the doors open," she said.
"That really is a safety fear but I had no other option."
The council said the borough currently has 13 family-friendly bays in its town car parks with plans for that number to increase.
Mid and East Antrim Council is one of only five local authorities in Northern Ireland with parent and child spaces at its council-run car parks. This does not include facilities at leisures centres.
But Ms Gray said the number of family-friendly spaces was "lacking" in the council's car parks.
"Modern life doesn't really blend well with our existing town infrastructure because our towns are quite old," she said.
She said increasing the number of bays would "ease stress for local families and carers" who need to get toddlers, babies and prams out of their cars.
"We need to make our town centre more accessible if we want people to come and shop and spend time here," she added.
"Not only is this a real safety issue for parents and carers, it really is a combined effort to get everybody into the town centre so that we can continue to grow and increase our footfall."
Amy Moore from Whitehead, County Antrim, agreed, saying it was "definitely hard getting out of a normal car parking space with two children".
"Anywhere that we go to park we need both doors open to get them out," she said.
"We've got the baby bag and all of the things to get out of the car so we definitely need the extra space."
Mrs Moore said, on occasion, she has "driven around three or four times to find a space that would be suitable".
"I think a lot of the cars now have increased in size now but the spaces haven't increased as well," she said.
Amy's mother Anna Rolloos has four grandchildren and said it can be "difficult" to get them all in and out of the car.
Ms Rolloos said she needs space to open the doors, get the pram out and her youngest grandchild strapped in before getting the other children out.
"It's the safety of having them all close beside you, being able to open the doors of the car," she said.
"One of the children maybe needs someone holding their hand."
She said having parent and child spaces close to shops is "excellent" as it means "not having to walk them through a busy car park".
The motion calling for more parent and child parking bays at Mid and East Antrim Borough Council was backed unanimously in February.
A spokesperson added that an additional 22 family-friendly bays were due to be added in Ballymena car parks.
Derry City and Strabane Council recently introduced new bays and Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council has plans to increase the number of spaces from 14 to 18.
Belfast City Council has 17 family-friendly spaces across 30 car parks with no plans to increase that number, while Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council has six such spaces with plans for additional spaces in the pipeline.
Ards and North Down Council as well as Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council have no family-friendly spaces at their off-street car parks, but there are some at their leisure facilities.
Newry, Mourne and Down District Council does not provide any parent and child car parking spaces within its car parks, adding that councils are "not legally obligated" to do so.
Mid Ulster does not have any parent and child spaces in any of the council-maintained car parks and has no plans to change that.
Likewise, Fermanagh and Omagh District Council does not provide parent-child parking spaces in its off street car parks but is currently reviewing its overall car parking plan.
Causeway Coast and Glens said the council did not keep a record of such information.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
6 hours ago
- Forbes
AI Safety: Beyond AI Hype To Hybrid Intelligence
Autonomous electric cars with artificial intelligence self driving on metropolis road, 3d rendering The artificial intelligence revolution has reached a critical inflection point. While CEOs rush to deploy AI agents and boast about automation gains, a sobering reality check is emerging from boardrooms worldwide: ChatGPT 4o has 61% hallucinations according to simple QA developed by OpenAI, and even the most advanced AI systems fail basic reliability tests with alarming frequency. In a recent OpEd Dario Amodei, Anthropic's CEO, called for regulating AI arguing that voluntary safety measures are insufficient. Meanwhile, companies like Klarna — once poster children for AI-first customer service — are quietly reversing course on their AI agent-only approach, and rehiring human representatives. These aren't isolated incidents; they're the cusp of the iceberg signaling a fundamental misalignment between AI hype and AI reality. Today's AI safety landscape resembles a high-stakes experiment conducted without a safety net. Three competing governance models have emerged: the EU's risk-based regulatory approach, the US's innovation-first decentralized framework, and China's state-led centralized model. Yet none adequately addresses the core challenge facing business leaders: how to harness AI's transformative potential while managing its probabilistic unpredictability. The stakes couldn't be higher. Four out of five finance chiefs consider AI "mission-critical," while 71% of technology leaders don't trust their organizations to manage future AI risks effectively. This paradox — simultaneous dependence and distrust — creates a dangerous cognitive dissonance in corporate decision-making. AI hallucinations remain a persistent and worsening challenge in 2025, where artificial intelligence systems confidently generate false or misleading information that appears credible but lacks factual basis. Recent data reveals the scale of this problem: in just the first quarter of 2025, close to 13,000 AI-generated articles were removed from online platforms due to hallucinated content, while OpenAI's latest reasoning systems show hallucination rates reaching 33% for their o3 model and a staggering 48% for o4-mini when answering questions about public figures 48% error rate. The legal sector has been particularly affected, with more than 30 instances documented in May 2025 of lawyers using evidence that featured AI hallucinations. These fabrications span across domains, from journalism where ChatGPT falsely attributed 76% of quotes from popular journalism sites to healthcare where AI models might misdiagnose medical conditions. The phenomenon has become so problematic that 39% of AI-powered customer service bots were pulled back or reworked due to hallucination-related errors highlighting the urgent need for better verification systems and user awareness when interacting with AI-generated content. The future requires a more nuanced and holistic approach than the traditional either-or perspective. Forward-thinking organizations are abandoning the binary choice between human-only and AI-only approaches. Instead, they're embracing hybrid intelligence — deliberately designed human-machine collaboration that leverages each party's strengths while compensating for their respective weaknesses. Mixus, which went public in June 2025, exemplifies this shift. Rather than replacing humans with autonomous agents, their platform creates "colleague-in-the-loop" systems where AI handles routine processing while humans provide verification at critical decision points. This approach acknowledges a fundamental truth that the autonomous AI evangelists ignore: AI without natural intelligence is like building a Porsche and giving it to people without a driver's license. The autonomous vehicle industry learned this lesson the hard way. After years of promising fully self-driving cars, manufacturers now integrate human oversight into every system. The most successful deployments combine AI's computational power with human judgment, creating resilient systems that gracefully handle edge cases and unexpected scenarios. LawZero is another initiative in this direction, which seeks to promote scientist AI as a safer, more secure alternative to many of the commercial AI systems being developed and released today. Scientist AI is non-agentic, meaning it doesn't have agency or work autonomously, but instead behaves in response to human input and goals. The underpinning belief is that AI should be cultivated as a global public good — developed and used safely towards human flourishing. It should be prosocial. While media attention focuses on AI hallucinations, business leaders face more immediate threats. Agency decay — the gradual erosion of human decision-making capabilities — poses a systemic risk as employees become overly dependent on AI recommendations. Mass persuasion capabilities enable sophisticated social engineering attacks. Market concentration in AI infrastructure creates single points of failure that could cripple entire industries. 47% of business leaders consider people using AI without proper oversight as one of the biggest fears in deploying AI in their organization. This fear is well-founded. Organizations implementing AI without proper governance frameworks risk not just operational failures, but legal liability, regulatory scrutiny, and reputational damage. Double literacy — investing in both human literacy (a holistic understanding of self and society) and algorithmic literacy — emerges as our most practical defense against AI-related risks. While waiting for coherent regulatory frameworks, organizations must build internal capabilities that enable safe AI deployment. Human literacy encompasses emotional intelligence, critical thinking, and ethical reasoning — uniquely human capabilities that become more valuable, not less, in an AI-augmented world. Algorithmic literacy involves understanding how AI systems work, their limitations, and appropriate use cases. Together, these competencies create the foundation for responsible AI adoption. In healthcare, hybrid systems have begun to revolutionize patient care by enabling practitioners to spend more time in direct patient care while AI handles routine tasks, improving care outcomes and reducing burnout. Some leaders in the business world are also embracing the hybrid paradigm, with companies incorporating AI agents as coworkers gaining competitive advantages in productivity, innovation, and cost efficiency. Practical Implementation: The A-Frame Approach If you are a business reader and leader, you can start building AI safety capabilities in-house, today using the A-Frame methodology – 4 interconnected practices that create accountability without stifling innovation: Awareness requires mapping both AI capabilities and failure modes across technical, social, and legal dimensions. You cannot manage what you don't understand. This means conducting thorough risk assessments, stress-testing systems before deployment, and maintaining current knowledge of AI limitations. Appreciation involves recognizing that AI accountability operates across multiple levels simultaneously. Individual users, organizational policies, regulatory requirements, and global standards all influence outcomes. Effective AI governance requires coordinated action across all these levels, not isolated interventions. Acceptance means acknowledging that zero-failure AI systems are mythical. Instead of pursuing impossible perfection, organizations should design for resilience — systems that degrade gracefully under stress and recover quickly from failures. This includes maintaining human oversight capabilities, establishing clear escalation procedures, and planning for AI system downtime. Accountability demands clear ownership structures defined before deployment, not after failure. This means assigning specific individuals responsibility for AI outcomes, establishing measurable performance indicators, and creating transparent decision-making processes that can withstand regulatory scrutiny. The AI safety challenge isn't primarily technical — it's organizational and cultural. Companies that successfully navigate this transition will combine ambitious AI adoption with disciplined safety practices. They'll invest in double literacy programs, design hybrid intelligence systems, and implement the A-Frame methodology as standard practice. The alternative — rushing headlong into AI deployment without adequate safeguards — risks not just individual corporate failure, but systemic damage to AI's long-term potential. As the autonomous vehicle industry learned, premature promises of full automation can trigger public backlash that delays beneficial innovation by years or decades. Business leaders face a choice: they can wait for regulators to impose AI safety requirements from above, or they can proactively build safety capabilities that become competitive advantages. Organizations that choose the latter approach — investing in hybrid intelligence and double literacy today — will be best positioned to thrive in an AI-integrated future while avoiding the pitfalls that inevitably accompany revolutionary technology transitions. The future belongs not to companies that achieve perfect AI automation, but to those that master the art of human-AI collaboration. In a world of probabilistic machines, our most valuable asset remains deterministic human judgment — enhanced, not replaced, by artificial intelligence.
Forbes
8 hours ago
- Forbes
Why Do Most Drivers Turn Off Vehicle Safety Systems?
Driver shutting off the Lane Keep Assist on a RAM 1500 There's a good chance that your late-model car, truck, or SUV has a handful of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). There's also a good chance that you are not using them, as numerous studies have revealed that most drivers find them distracting and annoying due to frequent alerts, perceived over-correction, or unexpected interventions. If you are like most drivers, you get frustrated and turn them off—negating the safety benefits. To dive deeper into why drivers are shutting off their vehicle's ADAS technology, which includes adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping assist, and automatic emergency braking (often marketed under slightly different names, depending on the automaker), I polled more than a half-dozen drivers to get some additional insight. My findings were consistent with the published studies. Drivers welcomed the ADAS technology (often paying to have their vehicle equipped with the features), optimistic that it would make driving less stressful and more relaxing. Instead, they frequently found the features intrusive, annoying, unreliable, and startling as they intervened unexpectedly and without warning. While some of the technology, such as Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB)—designed to intervene only in emergencies—could not be defeated, systems that could be turned off were often. 'I must turn off the system continuously,' says Sean Dugan about BMW's Lane Keeping Assistant. 'It's jarring and most of the time—more like all the time—unexpected.' And he notes that things are even worse after the sun goes down. 'At night, even when nobody is around, you make a lane change without using a blinker that the car starts fighting to stay in the lane.' Tesla owner Patrick O'Connor finds Lane Assist, part of the company's Autopilot system, frustrating. 'It is over-aggressive, and it doesn't seem to adjust well to naturally curvy roads. I have to turn my lane assist off because it keeps jerking me almost out of my lane—it thought I was swerving on the freeway, although I was following the road within the lane properly.' His wife, Ashley, drives a Kia and uses the vehicle's Smart Cruise Control regularly. 'As a mom of two children under five, I found it helpful in most insists when I drive the kids around. However, I do note that it needs more fine-tuning—it abruptly swerves and does not seem to have as much distance awareness as the system in my husband's Tesla.' 'We have a Cadillac Escalade, and I like the Adaptive Cruise Control because I can set it for 75 (even when freeway traffic is at 35), and it will stay with the flow of traffic automatically speeding up and slowing down. It's kind of nice,' explains Chad Armstrong. 'With that being said, the Reverse Automatic Braking tends to overreact sometimes by slamming violently on the brakes when there's nothing there. For some reason, and I know this sounds weird, it seems to be triggered by shadows.' But not everyone is unsatisfied. Esther O'Connor, who drives a Subaru, appreciates the ADAS features. 'I love them. As you get older, I think they are great because they are very good at alerting you if you get momentarily distracted,' she said, referring to Subaru Lane Keep Assist, part of the company's standard EyeSight driver-assist system. 'Everyone occasionally gets distracted, whether while taking in road signs or watching for other traffic. The automatic system is good because it moves the steering wheel when you leave the lane, and it beeps.' But she's not smitten with all the systems. Esther has a steep driveway that continuously triggers Subaru's Reverse Automatic Braking (RAB) system when backing out of her driveway. When her Outback crosses over the gutter on the street, it automatically comes to a jarring stop. Frustrated, she's developed a work-a-round. She puts the transmission in neutral (thus defeating the ADAS) and rolls into the street without stopping. Meighan Offield drives a Volvo equipped with the company's Pilot Assist & Adaptative Cruise Control System. 'I don't like using adaptive cruise control because I get disengaged from actually driving—same with the lane-centering self-steering. I need to keep my hands on the steering wheel for it to work anyhow, so I'd rather just steer and stay engaged,' she explains. 'Additionally, the adaptive cruise control brakes and accelerates too hard when cars change in and out of lanes in front of me. I prefer to be in control.' Offield also notes other frustrations with ADAS, including one with Volvo's Rear Auto Brake (RAB) that mirrors Esther O'Connor's frustration. 'My driveway is sloped, so when I'm backing out of my driveway, the car senses the unlevel pavers and auto brakes. The system brakes really hard, and it's very startling—you think you have hit something. Fortunately, the button to disable it pops up on the screen when the rearview camera turns on, so I often disable it.' Volvos are fitted with forward collision warning systems, which is part of the company's City Safety or Active Driver Assist features. 'When I'm driving on a curved road with parked cars along the sides, the forward collision prevention system kicks in and starts braking my car aggressively when it shouldn't,' Offield observes. 'It seems to read the parked cars on the side of the road, and because of the angle, it thinks I'm going to have a head-on collision. This is very frustrating, but unlike the back-up system, the forward collision system is not as easy to turn off without navigating to it in the infotainment system, so I leave it on.' Charlie Schiavone drives a RAM 2500 pickup with Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC). 'I religiously use adaptive cruise control in every car I drive, including rentals when they have it. It takes away all the fatigue when driving, especially in traffic,' he explains. 'However, the sudden and harsh braking you get when a car gets in front of you is annoying. More times than not, there is enough space in front of you that simple coasting will suffice.' Schiavone also notes that the system doesn't drive naturally—like a human. 'When cars are moving out from in front of you, the adaptive cruise control accelerates way too quickly to close the gap, and if there is slowed or stopped traffic ahead, you need to intervene, or the system will do some harsh braking. It always feels like it engages too late—it feels like you're going to hit the car in front of you, and you may!' Jeep owner Shannon McGee finds that ADAS offers some benefits but also has more than a few frustrations. Her vehicle is fitted with the company's Active Driving Assist (or Active Lane Management). 'Thankfully, my lane-keeping assist isn't as aggressive as other vehicles, and it just slowly corrects my wheel. However, my Jeep has a Forward Collision Warning with Active Braking, and the sensor isn't the greatest. My car will automatically brake if it senses another vehicle too close, and most of the time, there is no reason to brake—it brakes hard and beeps, too. It usually scares me more than helps me.' Like many motorists, McGee finds the system 'crying wolf' so often that it can't be trusted. 'I can see its benefits if I need it to prevent an accident, but it seems to activate when it's not needed, and it makes things more dangerous.' Automakers have spent billions of dollars engineering, developing, validating, and testing Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). However, studies and interviews indicate that most consumers still find them infuriating—to the point where they are ignored or defeated. The reality is that drivers prefer to maintain complete control of their vehicles rather than trust current ADAS technology. Drivers I interviewed want ADAS technology to drive naturally and predictably, mimicking the way they drive—staying smoothly within the lane on the road, anticipating the flow of highway traffic, gently applying the accelerator and brake, and memorizing familiar challenges such as backing out of a driveway at home. They want ADAS to drive more like a human. Despite widespread consumer frustration with current ADAS technology, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is mandating that all new vehicles have emergency braking systems as standard equipment by September 2029. But unless automakers make drastic improvements to the technology, it appears that most drivers will simply shut it off.
Motor Trend
a day ago
- Motor Trend
Volvo Invented a Safety Device You Use Every Day—and Now It's Improving It
Here's a quick quiz: What's something you wear every day (or should), but you can't take it with you? If you guessed your car's seatbelt, here's a cookie. The modern three-point safety belt, specifically, owes its existence to Volvo, the Swedish carmaker renowned for its car safety innovation. In 1959, an engineer working for Volvo, Nils Bohlin, developed the three-point belt—and then Volvo effectively released that patent by vowing not to pursue infringement claims or charge royalties on it. After all, what better way to ensure widespread adoption than to, in essence, open-source a lifesaving technology? Of course, widespread adoption took a few years—okay, decades—but Bohlin's design, which locates two sections of seatbelt over the strongest parts of the body (the pelvis and chest) while also being easy to use by requiring only one hand to grab, pull across one's body, and buckle, eventually became the standard globally. Some innovations have altered the basic design somewhat over the years, both from Volvo and other automakers, namely retractable inertia-reel functions, those irritating motorized track-style units popular in the early 1990s, and more recently, belts with built-in airbags to better distribute crash forces across the body. ZF even came up with heated seatbelts—no mere luxury, this was said to reduce heater use (or need) in EVs, where using the heater can drastically affect range. Now Volvo is announcing another step forward for the three-point belt Bohlin invented 66 years ago: A "multi-adaptive" safety belt. A Multi-Adaptive What Now? This "world-first" technology, according to Volvo, introduces sensor feedback to the seatbelt's action in a crash, allowing the restraint leeway in "adapting to traffic variations and the person wearing it." What this means in practice is that the belt is plugged into sensor data from both inside and outside of the vehicle that can, apparently, gauge an occupant's overall size—including their height, weight, and "body shape"—and match that to their seating position. Using that information, Volvo says the seatbelt can adjust to a "higher belt load setting" for a larger occupant or more severe impact or a "lower belt load setting" for a smaller rider or a fender-bender. But those are only two examples; as Volvo points out, traditional seatbelt pretensioners have only a few load settings at most—the multi-adaptive setup, in Volvo's words, "significantly increases the number of so-called load-limiting profile variations," adding that the technology can improve over time by way of over-the-air (OTA) updates. Volvo doesn't specify how, exactly, the seatbelt pulls off this fine control, but it would seem the load-limiting mechanism for the belt—you know, the part that jams the belt if you try and lean forward too quickly while wearing it, or that locks it after unwinding the belt all the way with the intention of locking it to hold a car seat in place—has been transitioned from somewhat passive to active control. (The exploded view of the seatbelt reel below looks pretty complex.) This gives the belt the ability to more precisely modulate its lockup, we gather, in order to better restrain passengers in certain situations, while allowing some cushioning in others, thus reducing unnecessary belt-related injuries such as rib fractures. In some ways, this technology seems to be tackling the same basic issue that seatbelt airbags attempt to combat: Namely, secondary injuries from the restraint itself. The seatbelt airbag inflates in a crash to effectively increase the safety belt's surface area, spreading the load forces across a broader section of the body. Volvo is attempting the same trick, just not by way of increased belt surface area, but rather control over the belt's load limiter.
