New California Booster Seat Law
10-21-2011, 11:15 PM
#1
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New California Booster Seat Law
Check it out:
http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...nclick_check=1
Typical liberal democratic move. Maybe there should be a law against driving all together...it's dangerous. Anyway...looks like the Recaro Vivo works well with 997.1 cars.
I wonder which politicians are getting campaign dollars from Britax, Graco and the like.
http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...nclick_check=1
Typical liberal democratic move. Maybe there should be a law against driving all together...it's dangerous. Anyway...looks like the Recaro Vivo works well with 997.1 cars.
I wonder which politicians are getting campaign dollars from Britax, Graco and the like.
10-21-2011, 11:55 PM
#3
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check it out:
http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...nclick_check=1
Typical liberal democratic move. Maybe there should be a law against driving all together...it's dangerous. Anyway...looks like the Recaro Vivo works well with 997.1 cars.
I wonder which politicians are getting campaign dollars from Britax, Graco and the like.
http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...nclick_check=1
Typical liberal democratic move. Maybe there should be a law against driving all together...it's dangerous. Anyway...looks like the Recaro Vivo works well with 997.1 cars.
I wonder which politicians are getting campaign dollars from Britax, Graco and the like.
It's a perfectly reasonable move. Children sometimes need protection from poor parent who, absent regulation like this, might leave them vulnerable. Regulation alone won't make a poor parent a model of parenting virtue, but it does provide a framework for those who choose not to protect their kids to be dealt with. This law simply extends the requirement for a booster seat by a couple of years. It is more likely than not that a child aged 8 and under will be better protected by their seatbelt if they are in a booster seat.
The law requiring seat belts is generally accepted to have resulted in fewer fatalities. A law requiring younger kids being in booster seats a year or two longer is likely to do the same.
10-21-2011, 11:58 PM
#4
Miserable Old Bastard
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
My son is 6 1/2 and I continue to keep him in his booster in the back of the TT and think that is best. My wife has him on the regular car seat now in the back of her Cayenne S, but honestly I think he needs to grow some more before that's the best idea. I can't stand a lot of the busybody nonsense that is legislated, but I can't get too excited about this new safety reg as it seems to make sense.
10-22-2011, 04:13 AM
#5
10-22-2011, 05:05 AM
#6
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seal Beach, SOUTHERN california
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Not that this has anything to do with the 997 but let's indulge your weak political rant for what it is.
It's a perfectly reasonable move. Children sometimes need protection from poor parent who, absent regulation like this, might leave them vulnerable. Regulation alone won't make a poor parent a model of parenting virtue, but it does provide a framework for those who choose not to protect their kids to be dealt with. This law simply extends the requirement for a booster seat by a couple of years. It is more likely than not that a child aged 8 and under will be better protected by their seatbelt if they are in a booster seat.
The law requiring seat belts is generally accepted to have resulted in fewer fatalities. A law requiring younger kids being in booster seats a year or two longer is likely to do the same.
It's a perfectly reasonable move. Children sometimes need protection from poor parent who, absent regulation like this, might leave them vulnerable. Regulation alone won't make a poor parent a model of parenting virtue, but it does provide a framework for those who choose not to protect their kids to be dealt with. This law simply extends the requirement for a booster seat by a couple of years. It is more likely than not that a child aged 8 and under will be better protected by their seatbelt if they are in a booster seat.
The law requiring seat belts is generally accepted to have resulted in fewer fatalities. A law requiring younger kids being in booster seats a year or two longer is likely to do the same.
10-22-2011, 12:22 PM
#7
Rennlist Member
We had the same law here for a cpl of yrs. Its very hard to enforce and pretty much is ignored. I guess only case it could become an issue is when someone gets into an accident woth their child without seat booster.
Trending Topics
10-22-2011, 03:35 PM
#8
Nordschleife Master
There are alot of laws that could be made which would save lives. This still does not lead one to the conclusion that the government should micromanage everything which we do in or out of our cars. Our country was founded with a spirit of individual freedom and responsibility. Lib-dems (led by the northerners in our state) are promoting a nanny state. It's just a foundational difference in what we believe. Lib-dems are happy with the government deciding what is best for us in our daily lives and then enforcing it as law.
OTOH school buses continue to be fragile tin cans with kids riding on bad seats without any strapping. Go figure!
10-22-2011, 03:45 PM
#9
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sigh...
Not that this has anything to do with the 997 but let's indulge your weak political rant for what it is.
It's a perfectly reasonable move. Children sometimes need protection from poor parent who, absent regulation like this, might leave them vulnerable. Regulation alone won't make a poor parent a model of parenting virtue, but it does provide a framework for those who choose not to protect their kids to be dealt with. This law simply extends the requirement for a booster seat by a couple of years. It is more likely than not that a child aged 8 and under will be better protected by their seatbelt if they are in a booster seat.
The law requiring seat belts is generally accepted to have resulted in fewer fatalities. A law requiring younger kids being in booster seats a year or two longer is likely to do the same.
It's a perfectly reasonable move. Children sometimes need protection from poor parent who, absent regulation like this, might leave them vulnerable. Regulation alone won't make a poor parent a model of parenting virtue, but it does provide a framework for those who choose not to protect their kids to be dealt with. This law simply extends the requirement for a booster seat by a couple of years. It is more likely than not that a child aged 8 and under will be better protected by their seatbelt if they are in a booster seat.
The law requiring seat belts is generally accepted to have resulted in fewer fatalities. A law requiring younger kids being in booster seats a year or two longer is likely to do the same.
Let me ask you this question...should the California legislature mandate 5 point harnesses and helmets for all adult drivers?? It would be a lot safer. Please answer using the logic that supports your answer. Your logic above says, "It's safer..therefore it should be legislated."
My point is, where does this line of reasoning end?
10-22-2011, 05:57 PM
#10
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will grant you everything you said above...except the part about poor parenting...there is a lot more to parenting than the the seat I choose for my child.
Let me ask you this question...should the California legislature mandate 5 point harnesses and helmets for all adult drivers?? It would be a lot safer. Please answer using the logic that supports your answer. Your logic above says, "It's safer..therefore it should be legislated."
My point is, where does this line of reasoning end?
Let me ask you this question...should the California legislature mandate 5 point harnesses and helmets for all adult drivers?? It would be a lot safer. Please answer using the logic that supports your answer. Your logic above says, "It's safer..therefore it should be legislated."
My point is, where does this line of reasoning end?
10-22-2011, 06:27 PM
#11
Nordschleife Master
10-22-2011, 06:31 PM
#12
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're talking about children here... I'm all for Darwin doing his thing with adults, I'm equally in favor of taking reasonable steps to help protect children. It isn't Darwinism at work when a child dies because some ******* parent didn't take proper precautions with their child's wellbeing.
10-22-2011, 06:34 PM
#13
Ahh yes, the "think of the children" mantra. Stupid breeds stupid, but I do agree to a point. Now if there was a way to prevent idiots from breeding, we wouldn't need this sort of stuff. Then again, what would the lawmakers do with their time. Now they just seem to find new laws to justify their existence.
10-22-2011, 08:02 PM
#14
Nordschleife Master
We're talking about children here... I'm all for Darwin doing his thing with adults, I'm equally in favor of taking reasonable steps to help protect children. It isn't Darwinism at work when a child dies because some ******* parent didn't take proper precautions with their child's wellbeing.
[Quote:] And parents say having a law behind them helps. "A lot of time, kids don't want to do the things you tell them," said Wong, who lives in Willow Glen and works at Santa Clara University. "But it makes it easier when I can say: 'It's the law. Do you want mommy to go to jail?' " [End Quote].
These are not parents. They are 'nanny state' subjects.
10-22-2011, 09:28 PM
#15
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're talking about children here... I'm all for Darwin doing his thing with adults, I'm equally in favor of taking reasonable steps to help protect children. It isn't Darwinism at work when a child dies because some ******* parent didn't take proper precautions with their child's wellbeing.
I am going to buy a Recaro Vivo seat for my car, by the way. I guess that means I am not an a**hole...thank goodness for that.
Cheers.