Wash. State: Car Booster Seat and Abortion

[fix]

Yet another example of hysteria without understanding facts. How many 15-16 y.o. prom-goers and/or drivers out there are 4’9" and weigh less than 80 lbs.?! That’s the weight requirement of the law. It’s also the minimum body size that seatbelts are designed to restrain. With the exception of options on a few models, factory-installed seat belts simply aren’t intended to accommodate or restrain the bodies of small children–and airbags can be lethal to them. The WA law reflects the very same recommendation made by the American Academy of Pediatrics–not for purposes of being intrusive and meddling with parents–but to be informative because traffic accidents kill kids in greater numbers than anything else–especially in the absence of properly fitting restraints. Period.

Another factor here that is not explicitly stated in the article is that many older model cars are not equipped with modern seat belts (shoulder + waist restraint) and/or air bags. Anyone holding onto a late model car and/or buying one for their teen in an effort to save some $$ might take this into account–it IS a safety concern. Most reasonably responsible parents educate themselves about the safest alternatives for their kids and then make their choices accordingly. For the morons out there who don’t, sometimes the state does step in to protect innocent life. Hardly something to complain about.

So we’d be better off letting kids who do make it past live birth needlessly die in auto accidents?!? I’m all for expanding the rights of the pre-born, but y**our **argument is nothing more than cutting off your nose to spite your face and makes no sense.

I think the point here is not that children should not be in the seats, the point is why does a law need to be in place. If saving lives is the issue why not ban all children from ever riding in a car period? That would save even more lives.

What about people who refuse to wash their hands after using the bathroom? They spread disease that can kill. Should we have a law that enforces hand washing in private homes? That spread of disease effects everyone.

What I am saying is there seems to be a social concern for car seat mandates, but not for abortion. It seems absurd because it is.

 

[Brian_C]

Near me, we just had a girl expelled for bringing Midol to school without first explaining to her principal that she was having menstrual cramps. Yet, yes, abortion seems okay.

On another tangent, all these people telling everyone how to live environmentally friendly lives are the same ones driving people with more than two children into SUV’s and minivans b/c it’s near impossible to fit all the hardware for three kids into the average car backseat. I drive a SAAB 9-5 with a huge backseat and it’s an ordeal to get my oldest child’s seatbelt buckled in her booster seat.

 

[Island_Oak]

I think** the point** here is not that children should not be in the seats, the point is why does a law need to be in place. If saving lives is the issue why not ban all children from ever riding in a car period? That would save even more lives.

So your point is that there should be no government involvement in any safety or health regulations because you can find a few examples that seem contradictory, absurd or unnecessary to you personally?

I guess in a perfect world we wouldn’t need things like OSHA safety regulations or product liability protections or laws prohibiting airline pilots and train engineers from flying or driving drunk or ethical canons to discourage lawyers from cheating clients or doctors from performing unnecessary surgery. There is no perfect, fool-proof system, but because people are imperfect, foolish and/or dishonest sometimes the best motivation is a “hammer” of enforcement that promises consequences like fines, rescinded professional or operator licenses, jail, disqualification from government contracts and the like to “motivate” people to do the right or smart or safer thing and/or educate them about the hazards of dangerous or reckless conduct. This is particularly true where the likely victims of malfeasance are either potentially large in number and/or at a significant disadvantage by virtue of age, disability, inexperience or comparable lack of education, skill or judgment.

 

[musicgal4jesus]

sigh Once again I feel ashamed for living in Wash. State. (The scenery is beautiful, but the politics… yeah.)
That’s insane- imagine the ridicule you would get for riding around in a booster seat at 15! I like the examples put forward before: going to the prom or on a date, buying a car, imagine getting a ride to the airport or something! That would be embarrassing!
Now, I’m 16 and 5’10", but I can imagine that the shorter portion of the population would not enjoy having another burden just because they have less of the height gene.

 

[fix]

So your point is that there should be no government involvement in any safety or health regulations because you can find a few examples that seem contradictory, absurd or unnecessary to you personally?

No, that is not my point. I favor regulations that are not overly intrusive. The term Nanny State fits this issue well I think. It seems socially acceptable to mandate car seats until age 16, perhaps age 40 in the future, but there is no social consensus for direct homicide.

I point out the absurdity.

I guess in a perfect world we wouldn’t need things like OSHA safety regulations or product liability protections or laws prohibiting airline pilots and train engineers from flying or driving drunk or ethical canons to discourage lawyers from cheating clients or doctors from performing unnecessary surgery. There is no perfect, fool-proof system, but because people are imperfect, foolish and/or dishonest sometimes the best motivation is a “hammer” of enforcement that promises consequences like fines, rescinded professional or operator licenses, jail, disqualification from government contracts and the like to “motivate” people to do the right or smart or safer thing and/or educate them about the hazards of dangerous or reckless conduct. This is particularly true where the likely victims of malfeasance are either potentially large in number and/or at a significant disadvantage by virtue of age, disability, inexperience or comparable lack of education, skill or judgment.

Moderation is the key. I am in favor of clean drinking water, but against throwing a kid out of school for taking an aspirin.

 

[Island_Oak]

… I favor regulations that are not overly intrusive. The term Nanny State fits this issue well I think. It seems socially acceptable to mandate car seats until age 16, perhaps age 40 in the future, but there is no social consensus for direct homicide.

I point out the absurdity.

Part of the perceived absurdity is buying into the hysteria that there is a large population of 16 year olds who are under 4’9" and weigh less than 80 lbs who will be toting booster seats to drivers’ ed. or the prom. Look around you, most kids that age are twice that weight and considerably taller. The goal of the law is, in part, to raise parental awareness of the fact that just because your child is no longer wearing diapers, they are not necessarily protected from injury in an auto accident by wearing a seat belt–which is designed for an adult-sized body. As for achieving consensus on abortion in a secular society…

Moderation is the key. I am in favor of clean drinking water, but against throwing a kid out of school for taking an aspirin.

 

[Tom317]

Yes the legislature’s mentality is messed up. But that doesnt make this law that they passed bad just because they fail to see the most important problems. That is what I am trying to say. Yes, the government should protect ppl to this extent, and they should protect people even further by eliminating abortion and sex ed/hedonism education. But to say it is wrong or silly to pass a law like this when we are already required to wear seatbelts sounds illogical.

So what if someone has to move their booster seat into a new car? How hard is it to do this? How is this an issue if it is her safety at risk?

Would you want to drive a car with a big chance of being thrown out of it and dying if you got into an accident, just so that you don’t have a little delay at the prom? That also is a messed up mentality.
Furthermore, being a straight A student has nothing to do with the structure of her body.

And if she is so short that she needs a booster seat to learn how to drive( so that her seatbelt actually works )and her feet cant touch the pedals, then she can get extensions for her pedals. This is a non issue.

Oh pleeeeeeeese!

Fifteen year-olds do NOT need a booster seat unless they have had some sort of growth problem. If they are old enough to drive, they are old enough to not have a booster seat. For heaven’s sake, this nation needs to get a grip on reality.

 

[Tom317]

Exactly! If I had a seatbelt in my car and the government didn’t tell me I had to wear one, I would still wear it! If I realized that I needed a booster seat because I was too short for my seatbelt and the government didn’t tell me to use one, I would still use it!

If anyone is to blame it is our society because many of us fail to do the smart thing due to our ignorance or indifference. This is nothing new to human nature, and it is further evidence of the necessity of government’s existence. Because the few bad apples spoil the whole barrel.

If one were in an accident, a seatbelt allows one to stay in a position where they could still control their car more often than if they did not wear one. If you can control your car you might be able to avoid further damage. So this law is not only intended for an individual’s safety, it is also for the safety of the community, which is one of the basic needs of society that government is supposed to govern, in any kind of social contract!

This is not intruding into our personal lives because, logically, we should be doing this regardless of a law, and driving a car does not only affect the individual driving it(so this is not completely our personal domain).

Wake-up! This has nothing to do with safety, it is (like just about everything else in this nation) about the all powerful dollar!

 

[Tom317]

I tell you something, I live in Illinois, if they try that here, I will leave the state.

 

[Tom317]

Island_Oak:
Part of the perceived absurdity is buying into the hysteria that there is a large population of 16 year olds who are under 4’9" and weigh less than 80 lbs who will be toting booster seats to drivers’ ed. or the prom. Look around you, most kids that age are twice that weight and considerably taller. The goal of the law is, in part, to raise parental awareness of the fact that just because your child is no longer wearing diapers, they are not necessarily protected from injury in an auto accident by wearing a seat belt–which is designed for an adult-sized body. As for achieving consensus on abortion in a secular society…



So, then you must agree that since there is so few teens that fit that description, the law is essentially meaningless. Nanny state indeed, next there will be cameras in our cars that are wirelessly connected to momma central.

 

[BlestOne]

Island_Oak:
Part of the perceived absurdity is buying into the hysteria that there is a large population of 16 year olds who are under 4’9" and weigh less than 80 lbs who will be toting booster seats to drivers’ ed. or the prom. Look around you, most kids that age are twice that weight and considerably taller.



I had a 17 yo 4’10" 80 lb girl in my house(she wore a girls size 12)… I didn’t see her as uncommonly small… just slender. By this law she would have just squeaked by with less than an inch to spare. I don’t think they are as uncommon in some parts of the country as others. Where i grew up I was one of the short ones at 5’7" but in Michigan, and upstate PA, I was considered tall.

 

[Island_Oak]

So, then you must agree that since there is so few teens that fit that description, the law is essentially meaningless. Nanny state indeed, next there will be cameras in our cars that are wirelessly connected to momma central.

:banghead: For the final time…the law has nothing to do with placing teens, per se, in booster seats. It is to ensure that parents are aware of 1) the proper use of seatbelts as well as 2) the limits of protection offered by seat belt use. Specifically, that children OF WHATEVER AGE must meet the height and weight minimums that seat belts were designed to accommodate in order to reap the safety benefits of their use. The purpose of the law is not to regulate the ridiculously rare and exceptionally undersized teenager, but more logically to reach parents of elementary-age kids who falsely assume they are “old enough” to be out of boosters simply because they can operate a seat belt and “don’t like” sitting in a baby seat anymore.

 

[Tom317]

:banghead: For the final time…the law has nothing to do with placing teens, per se, in booster seats. It is to ensure that parents are aware of 1) the proper use of seatbelts as well as 2) the limits of protection offered by seat belt use. Specifically, that children OF WHATEVER AGE must meet the height and weight minimums that seat belts were designed to accommodate in order to reap the safety benefits of their use. The purpose of the law is not to regulate the ridiculously rare and exceptionally undersized teenager, but more logically to reach parents of elementary-age kids who falsely assume they are “old enough” to be out of boosters simply because they can operate a seat belt and “don’t like” sitting in a baby seat anymore.

That is NOT what the article says, it says: “The changes also require children to use booster seats until they are 16 years old if a vehicle’s seat belt does not properly fit the child.” Now, if the law does not require that, then the article is wrong.

 

[Island_Oak]

I had a 17 yo 4’10" 80 lb girl in my house(she wore a girls size 12)… I didn’t see her as uncommonly small… just slender. By this law she would have just squeaked by with less than an inch to spare. I don’t think they are as uncommon in some parts of the country as others. Where i grew up I was one of the short ones at 5’7" but in Michigan, and upstate PA, I was considered tall.

While anecdotal experience is interesting…a child this size represents less than 2% of the total population of children this age per the CDC.

That is NOT what the article says, it says: “The changes also require children to use booster seats until they are 16 years old if a vehicle’s seat belt does not properly fit the child.” Now, if the law does not require that, then the article is wrong.

To spare myself further aggravation, I’ll refer you back to my comment in post #19 on this particular issue.

 

[Tom317]

To spare myself further aggravation, I’ll refer you back to my comment in post #19 on this particular issue.

I read that post. I disagree with your view. There is no reason for this law…it is all about money, nothing more. Do not fool yourself into thinking it is about safety, that is a hoax.

 

[Cari]

:banghead: For the final time…the law has nothing to do with placing teens, per se, in booster seats. It is to ensure that parents are aware of 1) the proper use of seatbelts as well as 2) the limits of protection offered by seat belt use. Specifically, that children OF WHATEVER AGE must meet the height and weight minimums that seat belts were designed to accommodate in order to reap the safety benefits of their use. The purpose of the law is not to regulate the ridiculously rare and exceptionally undersized teenager, but more logically to reach parents of elementary-age kids who falsely assume they are “old enough” to be out of boosters simply because they can operate a seat belt and “don’t like” sitting in a baby seat anymore.

Then why not:

1. institute a series of PSAs on local TV to educate the parents of just this fact
2. begin an initative through doctors’ offices to heighten parental awareness of just this fact
3. include “child seat protection limitations” literature in handouts sent home by the school
4. have local police and fire departments include information on this subject when they offer free child seat checks
5. enforce EXISTING child seat laws, rather than passing new ones

I cannot imagine for a moment that the purpose of this law is to elevate the awareness of elementary age kids when it is written for teenaged young adults. Face it- saying that a law targeting teenagers is meant to educate parents of younger children is like saying passing a law targeting homeowners is meant to educate apartment renters.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Can someone show me the research that says just how unsafe regular seatbelts are?

Are poorly fitted seatbelts so ineffective that the kids are just as well not wearing any seatbelt?

I have a sneaking suspicion that if most parents could see the actual research on booster seats, they would not consider the benefit worth the hassle.

Remember the air-bag panic? My wife and I looked up the research on that. It turned out that ALL the child fatalities due to airbags were caused by unbelted children, or rear-facing carseats. In other words, if the child was belted, they were in no danger of death from the airbag. That information was enough to satisfy our concerns. But for a person sitting in an ivory tower in D.C. who has to make a “guidance statement” for the entire country - they give their advice to the least intelligent parents and apply it to the country as a whole. Hence we get a dumbing down.

I suspect that if one actually looks up the research the booster seats are probably similar. Has anyone ever wondered if this crud is just effective lobbying by the manufacturers of the seats?