(CA) State bill would ban preteens from riding in auto front seats

[question everything]

State bill would ban preteens from riding in auto front seats

By Jim Sanders
SCRIPPS-MCCLATCHY WESTERN SERVICE

May 16, 2006

SACRAMENTO – Not a teenager yet?

OK, out of the front seat.

Children younger than 13 would be restricted to the rear of vehicles under legislation gaining traction in Sacramento.

The measure would end riding shotgun for youngsters by prohibiting them from sitting in the passenger seat beside a driver.

Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, said her goal is to increase child safety. “I think society in general has an interest in reducing the risks,” she said.

Assembly Bill 2108 also would require very young children to use car seats or booster seats for two additional years – until their eighth birthday or are 4 feet 9 inches tall. Anyone ignoring the provisions would be fined $100 for a first offense and $250 thereafter.

Evans' bill passed the Assembly Transportation Committee recently on a party-line vote, 8-4, with Republicans opposed.

(snip)

Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060516/news_1n16backseat.html

[wtmusic]

1. I don't understand how this is a partisan issue

Shows how divided * has made the country :eyes:

[The Straight Story]

2. Wonder if it takes things into consideration like

you have 4 kids and only 3 can fit in the back, you have a 2 seater car, etc and so on.

[Warpy]

3. Hell, no, of course not

but people who propose this stuff aren't generally living in the same world the rest of us do.

While it makes sense to keep kids out of the passenger seat in cars with passenger seat airbags, the quest to keep the world utterly safe for all kids is getting just a little silly.

Infants and preschoolers need the seats. School age kids should be able to cope with seat belts.

Honestly, it's a miracle any of us who grew up in the 40s, 50s and 60s are still alive. According to dingbats who propose some of this stuff, we should all have been killed off by car crashes by now.

(old fart contrarian rant here, just consider the source)

[LeftyMom]

8. School age kids need boosters

Back when we were kids cars just had lap belts in the back and they were a big cause of abdominal injuries but they fit kids as easily as adults. These days cars have shoulder belts in the back but they really don't fit well until one is the size of a small adult, so until then kids need boosters to lift them up and adjust the shoulder belt down. It's a very small expense (no-back boosters are less than $20, boosters with backs range from $30 to $100)

And they shouldn't be in the front seat because an airbag can kill them.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. Well, you know, that's the reason a lot of newer cars (c. 1999 and newer)

have passenger airbag deactivation switches (which are operated by the same key as the ignition lock). So saying 'they shouldn't be in the front seat, because an airbag can kill them' isn't strictly true.

[LeftyMom]

19. Many don't though

For the most part only vehicles with no back seat such as pickups and little 2 seater sports cars have that option.

Additionaly the rear seat is about 30% safer than the front in terms of injury risk in an accident, so kids should be back there even when there is no airbag.

[LostinVA]

15. I'm 5'3", and the belts in some cars rub against my chin

I don't exactly get the optimum protection with them... so, kids shorter than 4'10" or so? Hell yeah, they shouldn't be in the front seat. It gives me the heebie jeebies when a belt is too "tall" for me.

[LeftyMom]

20. I have the same problem

I'm 5'2". If I can't fit safely and comfortably in a seat belt I can't imagine why it's legal for LEftyKid to ride in one next year. Needless to say he's going to be in a harnessed seat or booster for some time to come.

[question everything]

9. Hear hear!

We, of the baby boom generation, were the first to challenge and to rebel against the automatic authority of parents, teachers, and government institutions. And we did this because we had something to rebel against. We were told by our parents "no, because I say so." They did not try to be our friends, did not try to "reason" with us when we were too young to understand reason. They even kept us in play pans where we were perfectly happy with all our toys and did not endanger ourselves by crawling all over the place and getting into harm way.

We did not even expect any "privacy." Hey, most of us shared our bedrooms with at least one more sibling or with another family member. And thus our parents did not have to worry about us meeting strangers over the Internet, or being exposed to things that they thought they should teach us.

Either way, it was made clear to us that as long as we lived under their roof they called the shots about our behavior.

And, yes, they would occasionally disciplined us with an open-hand smack on our tush. We accepted this, it did not cause irreparable damage to our psyches. And of course, we would never dream of threatening our parents by calling the social service because, really, that smack humiliated us more than it hurt us. At some point we accepted our parents the way they were, doing the best they could do and when they grew old and feeble, we took care of them with love and respect, hoping to set an example to our kids.

This does not mean, of course, that some child abuse is real and should be dealt with. But for the government to get into so many areas really weakens the child abuse protection laws.

[question everything]

4. Goes into the "nanny state" that is considered the domain of Democrats

that it really not the role of government to determine how parents rear their children... except with clear abuses, of course.

Several weeks ago there was a story here about forbidding children in cars when someone is smoking. No, not California. And I remember some years back when the State of California did provide a hotline number for others to call when they saw children not in child seat.

This either waste resources that should be used for real concerns like... solving crime or highway rage, or is turning all of us into a nation of snitches and busy bodies.

And I don't think that there are car seats available for big kids. There was story in Newsweek some weeks ago where there are young kids, about four years old who weigh more than 40 lbs and should not use the regular child seats.

[LeftyMom]

10. There are seats for larger children

Both booster options for children who can sit reasonably still and harnessed seats for kids who cant or who ride in a position without a lap/shoulder belt.

There are several seats on the market that go to 65 lbs harnessed including the Cosco Apex and the Britax Marathon, one that goes to 80, the Britax Regent and quite a few seats and vest or harness options that go to 100 lbs or more which are marketed primariy to special needs kids. (US readers only. There are no seats certified past 48 lbs in Canada because Transport Canada won't test them past that point.)

My kid was too tall for regular 40 lb harnessed car seats before he was three. I spent about $200 on a Britax Husky (older version of the Regent) and it was one of the best purchases I've ever made. At five he still has a lot of growing room in it, though he is a big tall boy. He will probably fit in it until it reaches it's expiration in 2009.

[question everything]

14. Yes, this was the comment, that they are expensive (nt)

[LeftyMom]

18. There are less expensive options

The Cosco Apex is about $120, vests and harnesses such as the SafeRider vest and the EzOn 86-Y harmess are less than $100.

[tsuki]

27. I had 4 children in a carpool, all less than thirteen. What was I to do

with the 4th child? Leave him/her at the bus stop until I delivered the other three?

[TahitiNut]

28. Huh? Is your trunk full?

:evilgrin:

[tsuki]

29. No, but I thought it over. Don't carpool. Put four cars on the

road. Or buy a HUGE SUV. Then the children would all be safe.

:crazy:

[MadHound]

5. Would somebody please put a stop to this madness!

At thirteen I was already 5'9", and back seats were already starting to become cramped. Oh, and the belts in the front and back were only lap belts at the time. And when I was younger, we had absolutely no seatbelts. I even went through a major front end crash without a seat belt, and not only did I live, I came through with nary a scratch.

That said, I firmly believe in using seat belts, and welcomed the development of airbags. But this sort of nanny statism is just wrong, no matter who it comes from. I seriously doubt that it is going to save any lives, but hey, it will sure drive those sales of SUVs and minivans. Hmmm:think: maybe that's the underlying reason all along? Wonder what sort of campaign contributions Ms. Evans has gotten from the auto industry lately?

[etherealtruth]

6. I have always insisted that my children sit, buckled, in the back seat ...

My youngest two are now pre-teens ... at 5'4" I have no problem with my 12 YO daughter sitting in the front seat.

With that said, I believe it is a good parental decision to have younger children in the back seat and it is an ASSININE proposal for a law.

[MindPilot]

7. These safety nazis piss me off

If "society" is that interested in reducing the risks...why not ban kids from cars altogether?

Seriously how about some better signaling and signage systems? How about some adequate freeways? How about some viable public transportation? Right. Those things would truly reduce driving hazards, but would deprive law enforcement of yet another "revenue stream" and yet another excuse to pull you over, check your papers, search your person, and monitor your movements.

Sometimes--it's very rare--but sometime the Repugs are on the correct side of an issue.

[question everything]

16. Please express these sentiments to your representative in Sacramento (nt)

[SidDithers]

12. Good...

If some parents need a financial penalty to make their kids more safe, then so be it.

Though I think the regulations should be height and weight based, rather than age based.

Sid

[LostinVA]

17. I agree with everything in your post

I know people who don't make their kids wear seat belts period. People have to be "lawed" into protecting their kids, because so many people are idiots. I do think that, like an amusement park ride, the law should eb height and weight based.

[porphyrian]

13. All children should be confined to their rooms until they're 18.

Then, they're out of the house.

If they're really concerned about the welfare of children, why are there still homeless kids in California? Why are there starving kids? Why are there kids without any kind of health care?

I guess some rich White person's kid got injured in the front seat, otherwise we wouldn't even hear about this bullshit.

[Spangle]

21. Only Rich People LOVE their Children

This sort of stuff, that is what they are saying.

Honestly, if they want to make these stupid safty laws, then they should be the ones that PAY for it. RIght down the line. If a family has 3 kids and not a one can ride up front, government should pay for an auto so that all three can fit in the back.

If the government wants special seats for older children, then the government should pay for them. As one poster stated that they were able to find a seat for $200.. congradulations.. Not everyone can afford $40, much less $200. And STILL not qualify for the freebie system.

When these types of laws are passed, they are enforcing these laws on those who CAN NOT AFFORD the rules. THen claim that the parents don't love their children and need to be taken away. Another words, poor people shouldn't have children. Only the rich should have children.

Now, for all you guys who might think I'm saying the government should pay for everything... pay attention. IF the lawmakers have to take into consideration the COST, they will spend more time considering the matter. It's easy for someone making over $100,000 a year to dismiss the cost of a car seat, etc. And not consider how someone making $30,000 or less and supporting a family will pay for all these (little costs that bundled together amounts to a bunch).

What the rich own today will eventually belong to the poor. The poor by the riches cast-off stuff. That includes baby things, car seats, and AUTOs. Items that are (today) considered to be un-safe are pulled out of circulation. That means less are passed down or around. What your sister used for her baby, might not be able to be used again by the new rules. Hence, there might not get many uses out of a family purchuse.

Auto's with airbags.. Hmmm.. anyone considers the cost of replacing an airbag? For some, the cost alone makes the car 'totaled' if deployed. Pulling the auto out of circulation becaue the car isn't worth the cost of replacing the air bag. Which means less cheap autos for the poor. Or if they had an older car that has an airbag, once in a small fender bender, and with cheep insurance.. their car would be 'totaled' and they would no longer have a car.

We ARE making it harder on the poorer society. Raising the costs and adding bickering rules.

[LeftyMom]

22. Wait a minute.

I made about $6500 last year and even less the year I bought that seat for my son. My car cost less than $3k. I'm not exactly living in the lap of luxury here. I spent that $200 on my kid because that's what a seat to meet his needs cost. I planned ahead and budgeted for it. Considering that people on welfare actually make more than I was making at the time (my takehome was just over $500 a month) I got that seat for my son and that a decent regular toddler seat (such as the Graco Ultra CarGo or Evenflo Generations) costs about half that much, I really don't see why a family that needs to can't budget for it and pick it up with the birthday money or thier tax return.

That said, if you're concerned chip in a couple of bucks to SafeKids or whatever the local organization is so they can help families that need it out with a seat rather than making excuses for why poor children don't deserve a legal assurance of safe transportation.

[Spangle]

25. Notice if you will...

That I didn't even insinuate that you could or couldn't afford the seat. That you were rich or poor. But that you said that such seats can be had, and that they were $200.

THIS comment was rather a LOW blow. It assumes ALOT from you about me.

"you're concerned chip in a couple of bucks to SafeKids or whatever the local organization is so they can help families that need it out with a seat rather than making excuses for why poor children don't deserve a legal assurance of safe transportation"

Look you, you seem to have been AWARE in time that you needed such an item. Unlucky me, I did NOT. SInce I had kept nearly EVERYTHING one would need for having children, after my first child. When I had my second, I thought I had everything. It was in another state and was to be brought to me. A few weeks before my child was born I was informed that it was ALL gone. I had given my ok to donate a few of the items and I told them which ones. Seems that it all went to an un-wed mothers home somewhere. <grin> I couldn't complain, it went to a good cause. But just weeks before the baby was due, I found that I needed EVERYTHING. Ok, I had a baby bed that was 40 years old, which most likely wasn't built to 'todays code.'

Did I WHINE or make excuses? NO I did NOT! SInce we were new to the state, no baby shower was going to happen. No one thought to give HUBBY a baby shower.. if I worked there..it would have been different. I bought a paper bag full of well worn and stained baby clothes that only had 3 out fits for a tiny baby.. all for $25. Yes, I paid for them. They were not donated. I bought fabric and made the rest buy hand. Even though my hands were swellowen and couldn't hold a needle. The ONE major problem I had was getting ahold of a car seat to bring baby home with. 4 days before I had the baby I found a group that gave baby car seats away. I went, they did not harrasse me or make me feel like dirt. They didn't ask for a $$$ accounting, but only asked IF I needed one.

Since then, I can't tell you how many car seats I have donated to that group. Not a little money to chip in, but actual car seats. I've collected them from others and made the long trip to their location to drop them off.

I've NEVER sold my baby clothes, but always found someone who NEEDED them. Not just wanted them, but needed them.

Reminded people that DADDY's are also proud of having a new arrival and that they should get baby showers as well. Exspecialy if they are NEW to the area or seem to have no family or friends around. I'm REALLY not quite about this issue at all!

So no, I don't set back and make excuses for poor people. I realize that shat happens. I don't judge others badly, just because 'I' was able to do something.. they should too.

WE as parents should do ALL that we can for our children. BUT, it's a FACT that rich can do more for their children. WE have learned to accept that the rich can pay for their childrens education. Can buy them a brand new SAFE car. The BEST of everything. Familys have always done the most that they can. The bar has slowly being raised to where if poor parents can NOT compete with the rich parents, they are neglicting their children in some shape or fashion.

[LeftyMom]

26. Horseshit.

I've seen crusty ten year old seats in brand new Escalades and high end seats in battered old Geo Metros. This isn't a class issue, it's an issue of making the kid's safety a priority.

Nearly anybody who puts a little effort in can scrape together the money to get thier kid a seat that meets legal requirements. If they really can't there are family members and programs to help out. Hell, around here a mom who asks nicely on craigslist will either get an offer of new equipment or a really well cared for hand me down.

For that matter, the ticket is waived when the ticketed party brings in a reciept for a car seat. This isn't criminalizing poverty, this is codifying in law that all children deserve safe transportation.

[Spangle]

30. I believe you got that backwards.

It's your zero tollerence for others that is.. what was you call it.. oh yea.. 'horseshit'.

Sorry, not everyone is as perfect as you. Not everyone has family around, not everyone has friends around when they are in need. Not everyone knows all the 'freebie connections' when they NEED them. Not everyone has all their marbles all in one basket.

Goodie for you! Proud you could figure it all out and make it happen.

Excuse me while I worry about those that can't, that are not as strong, who don't have the confidence, who feel over welmed by it all.

[mwooldri]

23. It's not just California. North Carolina...

...has some good child restraint laws in place that personally I support.

• Children 5 and under can't ride in the front, especially in vehicles where the passenger side airbag can't be disabled.
  
• Children that are under 8 or are under 80 lbs have to be in a booster seat (if they're 8 or 80 lbs+ they don't have to be in a booster seat).
  
• Additionally the state recommends that children under 12 don't ride in the front seat anyway.
  
• Cars that don't have rear seats such as pickup trucks don't have this problem, the kids can ride in the front seat.
  

So if you must have your kid ride in the front, buy a pickup truck!

Mark

[bobbieinok]

24. I believe this has long been the law in Germany........years ago

a German couple here in states (he was on a sabbatical from a German research institute) were appalled at the lack of such a law in the US......they thought it reflected a lack of love and care for the safety of children