Mandatory Booster Seats

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1106367

Car seat rules target kids up to 8 years old
Safety boost
By Benjamin Bell
Friday, July 11, 2008 - Updated 1h ago

EmailE-mail PrintablePrintable Comments(34) Comments LargerSmallerText size ShareShare Rate(0) Rate

Parents hit area children’s stores to buy booster seats after a tough state law went into effect yesterday, setting new rules for securing kids younger than 8 in cars.

“The state has studied this issue and consulted with medical experts and determined that there is a benefit to requiring children of a certain age and size to use a booster seat,” said David Procopio, spokesman for the Massachusetts State Police.

The new law mandates that children must use a booster seat until they reach 8 years of age or 4 feet, 9 inches in height.

Parents acknowledged the potential inconvenience posed by the law but also stressed the prevailing importance of their children’s safety.

“Getting the booster seat can be a hassle, but it’s important and definitely worth it,” said Dr. Inger Rosner, originally from Brookline and mother of two children, ages 4 and 7. “As a physician, I know it is safer for the children.”

“It can be a struggle to make children do things sometimes, but overall I think the law is a good thing,” said Katie Bettencourt, 34, of Salem, the mother of 3-year-old Grace.

The bill has also meant a spike in booster seat sales for local stores.

“We have seen an increase in sales and an increase in interest and awareness in children’s car safety products,” said Eli Gurock, owner of Magic Beans, a baby and toy specialty store with three locations in Massachusetts. “I was thrilled to see the booster seat law go into effect.”

The new law is an effort by the state to help reduce traffic crash deaths, which is the leading cause of death among children ages 3-14 nationally.

“This law is critical to saving children’s lives,” said state Sen. Steven A. Baddour, the bill’s sponsor. “It’s an easy and cost-effective way to protect the children.”

Under the new law, police can stop a car if they see an unsecured child and issue a $25 fine.

“It would be ideal for us to issue as few fines as possible because parents are properly securing their children,” Procopio said. “We urge people to obey the law.”
4'9"?? How much of a benefit to the :qunq:children:qunq: should it take before the government mandates garbage like this?

[The Kettle]

“Getting the booster seat can be a hassle, but it’s important and definitely worth it,” said Dr. Inger Rosner, originally from Brookline and mother of two children, ages 4 and 7. “As a physician, I know it is safer for the children.”It costs 15 bucks at any big-box department store.

[H.R. Paperstacks]

You hate short people.

[Kris Kross]

so if you end up having to drive like 5 of your kid's friends somewhere, you gotta have 5 booster seats? wtF?

[_BullDog_]

yep.

[Anitha Desai]

so if you end up having to drive like 5 of your kid's friends somewhere, you gotta have 5 booster seats? wtF?
Actually, it is the law where I live also. But for the very reasons you've mentioned, it's not strictly enforced. AFAIK. Hubby doesn't have a car/booster seat in his car. I do. And our son is 9. Not yet 4'9" I have not yet heard of any of my friends who regularly take multiple kids in their cars (most of whom don't have extra car/booster seats in their car ready to seat the guest-child) being ticketed for not having an older kid in a car/booster seat.

[Ohel Moed]

I heard Gary Coleman is leading a protest as we speak...

[_BullDog_]

I hope he has a booster seat in his car or he won't make it to the protest site.

[Loner]

Have they calculated the risk of the kid getting killed by a car when he walks across the street instead?

And does this really make a difference in the back seat?

[Actuary321]

I heard Gary Coleman is leading a protest as we speak...Yeah, is the 2 options a which ever comes first, or last? My 13 YO is not yet 4'9". My 16 YO who just got his DL is barely over the height limit.

[Seldon]

Yeah, I'm sure people will fall right in line over fear of the $25 fine. Oooooh, scary.

[Barbara]

The new law mandates that children must use a booster seat until they reach 8 years of age or 4 feet, 9 inches in height.

I haven't done a search, so it might be clarified elsewhere, but most kids do not reach 4'9" until well after their 8th birthday. Is this an "AND" or an "OR"?

I have no problem with some sort of required booster seats for older kids. Most car seat laws only apply to kids under 4 or or so, and a 4 or 5 year old is way too small to safely ride in a regular seat belt -- they tend to put the shoulder belt behind their back or under their arm, both of which greatly reduce the effectiveness of the belt.

So, some sort of booster seat law makes sense. The benefit of booster seats decreases as a kid gets older and bigger -- it makes a huge difference for a 4 or 5 year old, and a pretty small difference for a 4'8" 10 year old. I'd be more comfortable with this law if it applied until a kid turned 8 OR was 4'9". If a kid had to be both 8 AND 4'9", I think the inconvenience of requiring a car full of kids to be buckled is beginning to outweigh the safety benefits.

[Barbara]

Yeah, is the 2 options a which ever comes first, or last? My 13 YO is not yet 4'9". My 16 YO who just got his DL is barely over the height limit.

It looks like our responses overlapped on the AND/OR question...

So, off topic, is your 16 YO able to safely drive? My kid (who's about 4'10") will be old enough for a driving permit in about 6 months. We've already told him we won't let him start learning to drive in January (too snowy), but I'm really not sure if he's big enough to drive safely. An adult of that size could get accommodations (blocks on the pedals, etc) to drive safely, but I'm not keen to do that to our cars. I'm tempted to simply tell him he can get his permit when he's 5'0" tall, but that means it will be well after his friends, and it doesn't seem "fair" to punish him for something that's not his fault. But, I truly don't think he could drive safely until that point, so will probably make him wait.

So, did you worry about this? How did you handle it?

[Barbara]

so if you end up having to drive like 5 of your kid's friends somewhere, you gotta have 5 booster seats? wtF?

Sure, just like you did when they were in toddlers and in car seats.

The booster seats are smaller and easier to carry than a car seat, though, so it's not as big a deal. Around here, it's the norm for younger kids to bring their own booster seats when riding in someone else's car.

[Lucy]

Booster seats cost like $15 and you just toss them on the seat before the child sits down. They're not like car seats that can take 20 minutes to install correctly. Since all those kids you are carpooling have a booster seat in their own car, it's not a big deal to just grab it when you pick up the kid.

I think the real cost of all these things is that it drives people to need bigger cars, though. When I was a kid we could crowd 4-5 children in the back seat, because children have skinny bums. Now it's tough to fit 3, because the safety devices are so bulky.

It's too bad the auto makers don't make seatbelts that fit short people, like 5 year old kids. That would probably be even cheaper, and would certainly be easier. It would also mean that two children and an adult would fit comfortably in the rear seat of a midsized sedan.

[Maine-iac]

It looks like our responses overlapped on the AND/OR question...

So, off topic, is your 16 YO able to safely drive? My kid (who's about 4'10") will be old enough for a driving permit in about 6 months. We've already told him we won't let him start learning to drive in January (too snowy), but I'm really not sure if he's big enough to drive safely. An adult of that size could get accommodations (blocks on the pedals, etc) to drive safely, but I'm not keen to do that to our cars. I'm tempted to simply tell him he can get his permit when he's 5'0" tall, but that means it will be well after his friends, and it doesn't seem "fair" to punish him for something that's not his fault. But, I truly don't think he could drive safely until that point, so will probably make him wait.

So, did you worry about this? How did you handle it?

What is the issue with the pedal extenders? Some are fairly elaborate bolt on things, but there are also relatively simple snap on ones as well. Meant as a temporary accomodation for pregnant women who need to be further from the airbag. If the rest of the drivers in the family are not very tall, you may be able to install permanent pedal extenders in one vehicle for the kid's use, and the other drivers may be fine just moving the seat back a little further than they normally would when they drive that car.

But if that's not feasible, the kid could have a set of the snap on extenders that he installs when he drives.

[Barbara]

What is the issue with the pedal extenders? Some are fairly elaborate bolt on things, but there are also relatively simple snap on ones as well. Meant as a temporary accomodation for pregnant women who need to be further from the airbag. If the rest of the drivers in the family are not very tall, you may be able to install permanent pedal extenders in one vehicle for the kid's use, and the other drivers may be fine just moving the seat back a little further than they normally would when they drive that car.

But if that's not feasible, the kid could have a set of the snap on extenders that he installs when he drives.

You are right, it's worth looking into. I'd assumed that these were semi-permanent bolt-on things, but they probably don't have to be.

Maybe I'm just using this an excuse for delaying the day when my kid's behind the wheel...

[notreallyme]

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1106367

4'9"?? How much of a benefit to the :qunq:children:qunq: should it take before the government mandates garbage like this?


Far far more than this.

I find it interesting that many people are discussing the safety issue and ignoring that the Gov't is forcing you to do something. They have completely accepted that it's the Gov'ts job to raise our kids. (Or give us explicit directions on how to raise them.)

Having an overweight kid isn't safe or healthy either, can (should) we start fining parents if their childs BMI is over a certain number?

[Barbara]

It's too bad the auto makers don't make seatbelts that fit short people, like 5 year old kids. That would probably be even cheaper, and would certainly be easier. It would also mean that two children and an adult would fit comfortably in the rear seat of a midsized sedan.

:iatp:

Automakers could probably put adjustable seat belts (maybe with a second "receiving buckle") in cars for less than the cost of a booster seat. But, nooooo..., they figure it won't be a selling point so why bother?

For a while, you could get minivans with built in toddler car seats/booster seats. It was just a "flap" that folded down from the back of the regular seat, raising the kid a bit and exposing the buckles, etc. I don't think they sell those anymore, but have no idea why -- it seemed like a great idea.

[Tight Tin Foil Hat]

The new law is an effort by the state to help reduce traffic crash deaths, which is the leading cause of death among children ages 3-14 nationally.

Take into consideration that even if this statistic is true, it's meaningless. How else are young children or teenagers going to die a majority of the time? Cancer? Heart disease? Such instances have to be vanishingly rare.

And even if this new(totalitarian) law achieves its aims of dethroning traffic crash deaths as the #1 cause of death among kids, the next leading cause of death will probably be alcohol poisoning or drug OD - giving the media more stuff to hype up.

[notreallyme]

My kid (who's about 4'10") will be old enough for a driving permit in about 6 months. We've already told him we won't let him start learning to drive in January (too snowy), .........

Based on this should the Gov't make a law stating kids can't learn to drive in January in snowy areas?

Why / Why not? Isn't this a child safety issue as well? Why should the parents get to makke that decision?

[Tight Tin Foil Hat]

:iatp:

Automakers could probably put adjustable seat belts (maybe with a second "receiving buckle") in cars for less than the cost of a booster seat. But, nooooo..., they figure it won't be a selling point so why bother?

For a while, you could get minivans with built in toddler car seats/booster seats. It was just a "flap" that folded down from the back of the regular seat, raising the kid a bit and exposing the buckles, etc. I don't think they sell those anymore, but have no idea why -- it seemed like a great idea.

Obviously because no one wanted to buy them.

[Standtall]

Far far more than this.

I find it interesting that many people are discussing the safety issue and ignoring that the Gov't is forcing you to do something. They have completely accepted that it's the Gov'ts job to raise our kids. (Or give us explicit directions on how to raise them.)

Having an overweight kid isn't safe or healthy either, can (should) we start fining parents if their childs BMI is over a certain number?

I agree with you generally.

However, should there be laws about parents submitting their kids to pornography? Alcohol? Tobacco? etc...

The government should help take care of those that CAN NOT take care of themselves.

This one is tricky because I think that it should not be the government's business, but I think the government does have some place in protecting children. Even from their parents.

Its not as cut and dried as some other "nanny state" laws are.

[Lucy]

Obviously because no one wanted to buy them.anecdotal, but I have a friend who chose a particular model of minivan solely for that feature. It was otherwise a less-than-terrific minivan, too. Now that they aren't an option, her latest minivan is a different model.

[glassjaws]

I don't think this is a law that will get you stopped, but one that will be enforced if you happen to be stopped otherwise, very much like seat belt laws.

[Barbara]

I find it interesting that many people are discussing the safety issue and ignoring that the Gov't is forcing you to do something. They have completely accepted that it's the Gov'ts job to raise our kids. (Or give us explicit directions on how to raise them.)

I think that nearly everyone here agrees that it's appropriate for the government to have some requirements that parents must follow regarding the health and safety of kids. I think that everyone here also agrees that there is a point where parents must be allowed to use their judgment. The only question is where to draw the line.

To me, the line should be drawn where

1) it is clear whether or not the "standard" is being followed

2) There is a clear and significant safety benefit

3) Compliance is not unreasonably difficult

Obviously, those statements are not unambiguous enough to draw a sharp line. That's what we're discussing, though -- is requiring young elementary-aged children to ride in booster seats a significant enough improvement in their safety to be worth the imposition on parental choice and convenience?

For me, I think the answer is "yes", if the kid is under 8 or so. It leans towards "no" as you move from "under 8" toward "at least 4'9" ".

None of this, though, is a requirement about how to "raise" our children -- "raising" children is the process of teaching them how to be a part of society and shaping their values. Requiring that young children ride in car seats or not be left unattended for hours does not interfere in a parent's ability to raise their own children.

[Maine-iac]

You are right, it's worth looking into. I'd assumed that these were semi-permanent bolt-on things, but they probably don't have to be.

Maybe I'm just using this an excuse for delaying the day when my kid's behind the wheel...


Well, that I can certainly understand! But if you do decide to look into it, search for "portable" pedal extenders. Makes sense, when you think about it, that there are easily installed/uninstalled versions available, since shorter folks may need to rent cars, might want to test drive cars when buying, might want to share the driving on a road trip, etc.

[Barbara]

Based on this should the Gov't make a law stating kids can't learn to drive in January in snowy areas?

Why / Why not? Isn't this a child safety issue as well? Why should the parents get to make that decision?

It would not seem unreasonable for a state which frequently has dangerous driving conditions to pass a law saying that no one under age XX (or with only a permit) may drive in certain months. Many states have laws limiting the hours during which 16/17 year olds may drive and/or the numbers of passengers they may carry. I have no problem with that.

It wouldn't work for a law to be passed that says that kids under some age can't drive if it's "too snowy" out. "Too snowy" can't be well defined, and probably varies from mile to mile.

[The Kettle]

Based on this should the Gov't make a law stating kids can't learn to drive in January in snowy areas?

Why / Why not? Isn't this a child safety issue as well? Why should the parents get to makke that decision?
:meltdown:

[notreallyme]

I agree with you generally.

However, should there be laws about parents submitting their kids to pornography? Alcohol? Tobacco? etc...

The government should help take care of those that CAN NOT take care of themselves.

This one is tricky because I think that it should not be the government's business, but I think the government does have some place in protecting children. Even from their parents.

Its not as cut and dried as some other "nanny state" laws are.

There is a difference between making your kid safer in an accident and directly harming your child.

[notreallyme]

To me, the line should be drawn where

1) it is clear whether or not the "standard" is being followed

2) There is a clear and significant safety benefit

3) Compliance is not unreasonably difficult

1) Why? Put your kids in booster seats and don't worry about my kids.

2) You can't define "to snowy" but you can define 'clear and significant'?

3) is a HORRIBLE consideration.

The Gov't should be able to tell me what to do if it's not to much of an inconvenience? :shake:


We are so far apart on this issue I doubt it's worth discussing with each other directly.

[Standtall]

There is a difference between making your kid safer in an accident and directly harming your child.

Maybe we can meet in the middle.

Should the government be able to stop a parent from placing a child in a place where he/she is more likely to be harmed?

[notreallyme]

Maybe we can meet in the middle.

Should the government be able to stop a parent from placing a child in a place where he/she is more likely to be harmed?

We have neglience laws if that is what you are getting at, and I agree with them.

Do you think most people want their children to be put at risk for no reason?

[The Kettle]

1) Why? Put your kids in booster seats and don't worry about my kids.What if she wants to beat her kids with a baseball bat? Should we not worry about it? You've already opened the door for ignoring extremes when you compared a car seat to the government raising kids.

[Barbara]

To me, the line should be drawn where

1) it is clear whether or not the "standard" is being followed

2) There is a clear and significant safety benefit

3) Compliance is not unreasonably difficult

Obviously, those statements are not unambiguous enough to draw a sharp line. That's what we're discussing, though -- is requiring young elementary-aged children to ride in booster seats a significant enough improvement in their safety to be worth the imposition on parental choice and convenience?

1) Why? Put your kids in booster seats and don't worry about my kids.

2) You can't define "to snowy" but you can define 'clear and significant'?

3) is a HORRIBLE consideration.

The Gov't should be able to tell me what to do if it's not to much of an inconvenience? :shake:


We are so far apart on this issue I doubt it's worth discussing with each other directly.

1) Does that mean I should be fine with letting you drive down the highway with your kids "surfing" on the roof of your car, and just prohibit mine from doing so if I wish? Or, is surfing on the roof of a car (and, yes, teens have been known to do this) so clearly dangerous that it's OK for the government to prohibit it? If so, than you agree with some sort of safety prohibitions, the only question is whether car/booster seats qualify for that.

2) You didn't read my note. It specifically stated that my guidelines weren't unambiguous enough to draw a sharp line as to what is and isn't OK. That has to be decided on a situation-by-situation basis, and reasonable people may differ on where that line should be drawn.

3) I think "not unreasonably difficult" is crucial (and yes, I know that "unreasonably difficult" isn't clearly defined). I think it's OK to have a law that says kids under a certain age may not be left alone for long periods of time. I think it would be unreasonable to mandate that all children must be accompanied by at least 3 adults at all times -- because, of course, one adult might have a heart attack and need to be rushed to the hospital by a second adult, so you need a 3rd to stay with a kid. The safety increment by adding the 2nd and 3rd adults is so small, and the inconvenience so high, that such a requirement would be absurd. There is some significant inconvenience to a requirement that a young child not be left alone for long periods (wouldn't it be easier to just leave your baby when you go to work, the way you leave your dog?), but the safety benefits of such a requirement have been deemed to be significant enough to be "worth it".

[Pseudolus]

Does anyone have a link to actual data showing how much safer a kid would be with a booster compared with just being seat-belted?

[QMO]

Does anyone have a link to actual data showing how much safer a kid would be with a booster compared with just being seat-belted?My guess is that Evenflo, Cosco, Graco and Safety 1st have shown lawmakers that kids are MUCH safer in boosters.

[notreallyme]

1) Does that mean I should be fine with letting you drive down the highway with your kids "surfing" on the roof of your car, and just prohibit mine from doing so if I wish? Or, is surfing on the roof of a car (and, yes, teens have been known to do this) so clearly dangerous that it's OK for the government to prohibit it? If so, than you agree with some sort of safety prohibitions, the only question is whether car/booster seats qualify for that.

Would you expect that without laws most parents would allow their kids to do this?


2) You didn't read my note. It specifically stated that my guidelines weren't unambiguous enough to draw a sharp line as to what is and isn't OK. That has to be decided on a situation-by-situation basis, and reasonable people may differ on where that line should be drawn.

I did read your note. And we disagree big time on where the line should be.

3) I think "not unreasonably difficult" is crucial (and yes, I know that "unreasonably difficult" isn't clearly defined). I think it's OK to have a law that says kids under a certain age may not be left alone for long periods of time. I think it would be unreasonable to mandate that all children must be accompanied by at least 3 adults at all times -- because, of course, one adult might have a heart attack and need to be rushed to the hospital by a second adult, so you need a 3rd to stay with a kid. The safety increment by adding the 2nd and 3rd adults is so small, and the inconvenience so high, that such a requirement would be absurd. There is some significant inconvenience to a requirement that a young child not be left alone for long periods (wouldn't it be easier to just leave your baby when you go to work, the way you leave your dog?), but the safety benefits of such a requirement have been deemed to be significant enough to be "worth it".

Do you think parents intentionally put their kids in harms way?

THIS IS A MAJOR POINT that you seem to be ignoring. You seem to be saying (implicitly) that you are a good parent and will protect your children -- won't even let them drive in the snow.

BUT other parents are bad parents and you (and people like you) need to make laws to force them to be better parents, because they don't care about their children.

[SirVLCIV]

"“The state has studied this issue and consulted with medical experts and determined that there is a benefit to requiring children of a certain age and size to use a booster seat,” said David Procopio, spokesman for the Massachusetts State Police."

So, the requirement to have a law passed is 'there is a benefit to" :blah: :blah: :blah: without any other considerations?

What an idiotic law.

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

I love how the title "Mandatory Booster Seats" is just a discussion about booster seats, not mandates. :shake: GO NRM!

[Barbara]

Do you think parents intentionally put their kids in harms way?


Of course not. I do, however, think that sometimes parents underestimate the dangers of certain activities, and/or use poor judgment. That doesn't mean that they don't care about their kids.

Just because you surfed on top of a friend's car when you were a teen and didn't get hurt doesn't mean that it's somehow OK for you to drive your car with your 5 year old surfing on the roof. Regardless of whether the kid "has a great sense of balance" or you'll "drive carefully", the activity is so dangerous that you should not be allowed to have your kid participate in it. You wanting to do that doesn't mean that you don't care about your kid, but it does show poor judgment.

I'm not saying that society should prohibit everything that might be dangerous. I do think that there needs to be some safety guidelines that are required to be followed by adults when caring for children. Is driving with a young child in a car but not in a car seat so negligent that it should be prohibited? I think so, but clearly you don't.

[Barbara]

I love how the title "Mandatory Booster Seats" is just a discussion about booster seats, not mandates. :shake: GO NRM!

What do you mean? Virtually the whole discussion here is about whether they should be mandated -- there's little disagreement that using the seats themselves is a good idea.

[notreallyme]

Of course not. I do, however, think that sometimes parents underestimate the dangers of certain activities, and/or use poor judgment. That doesn't mean that they don't care about their kids.

And you in your infinite wisdom (and others like you) are such good people you are going to help them save themselves (and their children) from their poor judgment?

-- Scenario:
I get a call and need to pick up my kid and 3 others from a house 6 blocks from mine. I don't have 3 booster seats in the car.
I decide to go pick the kids up and give them a ride to the house.

-- What was the danger of that activity and did I underestimate it?

Just because you surfed on top of a friend's car when you were a teen and didn't get hurt doesn't mean that it's somehow OK for you to drive your car with your 5 year old surfing on the roof. Regardless of whether the kid "has a great sense of balance" or you'll "drive carefully", the activity is so dangerous that you should not be allowed to have your kid participate in it. You wanting to do that doesn't mean that you don't care about your kid, but it does show poor judgment.

I'm not saying that society should prohibit everything that might be dangerous. I do think that there needs to be some safety guidelines that are required to be followed by adults when caring for children. Is driving with a young child in a car but not in a car seat so negligent that it should be prohibited? I think so, but clearly you don't.

So you think if it was legal parents would allow their 5 year old kids to surf on the roof of the car while driving :-?

Otherwise I don't get the whole middle part. Seems to be justifying car surfing.

[Standtall]

We have neglience laws if that is what you are getting at, and I agree with them.

Do you think most people want their children to be put at risk for no reason?

Nope.

I think a case could be made that not putting the kid in the seat is negligent.
Not sure I would make it, but it is possible.

[notreallyme]

Nope.

I think a case could be made that not putting the kid in the seat is negligent.
Not sure I would make it, but it is possible.

-- Scenario:
I get a call and need to pick up my kid and 3 others from a house 6 blocks from mine. I don't have 3 booster seats in the car.
I decide to go pick the kids up and give them a ride to the house.

-- Was I negligent?

[Standtall]

And you in your infinite wisdom (and others like you) are such good people you are going to help them save themselves (and their children) from their poor judgment?

-- Scenario:
I get a call and need to pick up my kid and 3 others from a house 6 blocks from mine. I don't have 3 booster seats in the car.
I decide to go pick the kids up and give them a ride to the house.

-- What was the danger of that activity and did I underestimate it?



So you think if it was legal parents would allow their 5 year old kids to surf on the roof of the car while driving :-?

Otherwise I don't get the whole middle part. Seems to be justifying car surfing.

I do not believe anyone would want to stop consenting adults from hurting themselves.

I do not care if you surf on your car. I hope you have fun and that you do not get hurt.

I do care if your kid gets hurt because you let them surf on the car.

I believe Child Protective Services should take the kids away from you before you give them the chance to get hurt by surfing on the car.

[notreallyme]

I do not believe anyone would want to stop consenting adults from hurting themselves.

I do not care if you surf on your car. I hope you have fun and that you do not get hurt.

I do care if your kid gets hurt because you let them surf on the car.

I believe Child Protective Services should take the kids away from you before you give them the chance to get hurt by surfing on the car.


Do you think kids surfing on cars while their parents drive would be a widespread problem if legal?

My point is either not getting through or being ignored. You (and Barbara) seem to think that if there are not laws telling parents what to do they will not protect their children.

-- i.e. You, her, and the Gov't are better parents than they are so they need to be told what to do.

-- Have childhood mortality rates changed much over the last 50 years? (when normalized for diseases, etc.)
If these laws are good surely you have some stats SHOWING how they have helped.

[Standtall]

-- Scenario:
I get a call and need to pick up my kid and 3 others from a house 6 blocks from mine. I don't have 3 booster seats in the car.
I decide to go pick the kids up and give them a ride to the house.

-- Was I negligent?

If the law is as it states above, then yes. In the eyes of society you were negligent.

[Standtall]

Do you think kids surfing on cars while their parents drive would be a widespread problem if legal?

Nope.

Do you think kids riding without seatbelts would be widespread if legal?

[Maine-iac]

I do not believe anyone would want to stop consenting adults from hurting themselves.


Have you never heard of motorcycle helmet laws? Mandatory Seat Belt Laws? :D

[Standtall]

Have you never heard of motorcycle helmet laws? :D

Yeah. I meant in this discussion so far.

I think actuaries are smarter than politicians. Of course, it was probably an actuary that convinced politicians to pass those laws to lower claims on life policies or something.

[Barbara]

-- Scenario:
I get a call and need to pick up my kid and 3 others from a house 6 blocks from mine. I don't have 3 booster seats in the car.
I decide to go pick the kids up and give them a ride to the house.

-- Was I negligent?

As I said, when you get into booster seats, the line gets grayer as the kids get older/bigger.

But...any kid big enough to need a booster seat instead of a car seat should be perfectly capable of walking 6 blocks. Why don't you just walk over and pick them up? You'd all get some exercise.

And, no, don't try to turn this around into saying that I want to mandate that adults always walk children if the distance is less than XX miles...

[Pseudolus]

Is driving with a young child in a car but not in a car seat so negligent that it should be prohibited? I think so, but clearly you don't.

On what basis are you judging non-booster car-riding to be a dangerous activity? It's surely not 1/1000th as dangerous as "car-surfing" (which makes your analogy quite unconvincing).

[QMO]

I'm not saying that society should prohibit everything that might be dangerous. I do think that there needs to be some safety guidelines that are required to be followed by adults when caring for children.I'd agree with this if it weren't for the word "required." Especially when the adults in question are generally parents.

Guidelines aren't requirements, they're suggestions.

Laws with penalties for non-compliance aren't guidelines.

[Barbara]

I'd agree with this if it weren't for the word "required." Especially when the adults in question are generally parents.

Guidelines aren't requirements, they're suggestions.

Laws with penalties for non-compliance aren't guidelines.

You're right. "Rule" would have been a better word.

[twig93]

Seems to be conflicting evidence that they prevent fatalities in kids over two, stronger evidence that they prevent injuries, but still some holes in the research.

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/womenfamilies/articles/106718/article.html

[notreallyme]

Nope.

Do you think kids riding without seatbelts would be widespread if legal?


not enough that I'd make a law about it.

[Guest]

This is all just a pay-off to Big Booster Seat. :tfh:

[Pseudolus]

This is all just a pay-off to Big Booster Seat. :tfh:
I don't think that's it, but I do think there is an interesting asymmetry:

What would be the reaction if someone (the government, an organization) told us that boosters are important at saving lives, and it turns out they're really not? Very, very little.

Now, what would be the reaction if that same someone told us that boosters aren't all that efficacious, and it turns out that they are? Aramfreakinggeddon.

So the incentive that such organizations are facing all point towards "tell 'em to use the seats", even if the seats aren't helpful. Which is why I don't see the organizations saying so as particularly good reason to believe that the seats work - they would say the same thing irregardful.

[Actuary321]

Take into consideration that even if this statistic is true, it's meaningless. How else are young children or teenagers going to die a majority of the time? Cancer? Heart disease? Such instances have to be vanishingly rare.
I don't think anyone is expecting deaths of young children or teenagers from accidents is going to be eliminated to the point of not being the leading cause of death, but reducing the number of deaths caused by the leading cause of death is probably a reasonable goal.

I would rather see an education campaign similar to the tobacco ads rather than a law. But where to get the money for that campaign?

Does anyone have a link to actual data showing how much safer a kid would be with a booster compared with just being seat-belted?Best question I have seen so far.

[twig93]

Best question I have seen so far.

Have you blocked my posts? I put up a link just a few posts back.

[Standtall]

not enough that I'd make a law about it.

I think a lot of kids would ride without seatbelts if it were legal.

I would bet more than 20% easy would do so.

[Actuary321]

Have you blocked my posts? I put up a link just a few posts back.No I am just slow at reading and when I got to the end of the thread your post was not yet showing. Sometimes when I know it has been a long time since I refreshed the page, I will do that.

This time I didn't. But thanks. You gotta know I like you and read your posts. Look at my sig.

[notreallyme]

I think a lot of kids would ride without seatbelts if it were legal.

I would bet more than 20% easy would do so.


:shrug:


Make up a number, use it as evidence for something. :yawn:

[Standtall]

:shrug:


Make up a number, use it as evidence for something. :yawn:

It is not evidence.

Just my opinion.

I know that I had to wear a seatbelt because my dad told me it was against the law not to.

Did you wear a seatbelt growing up?

[Lucy]

Before seatbelt use was mandated, most children rode without them. My parents were unusual in requring all the children to "buckle up" before driving.

[Pseudolus]

Before seatbelt use was mandated, most children rode without them."Most"? I'm not sure that's true. "Many", okay.

[Pseudolus]

Seems to be conflicting evidence that they prevent fatalities in kids over two, stronger evidence that they prevent injuries, but still some holes in the research.

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/womenfamilies/articles/106718/article.html

Thanks. Nothing in that article leads me to believe this is such an important, slam-dunk, no-brainer issue that there oughta be a law.

[twig93]

I think a lot of kids would ride without seatbelts if it were legal.

I would bet more than 20% easy would do so.

Certainly before seatbelt laws became the norm, it was quite common for kids and adults to not wear them. But social norms have changed. Now I bet if the seatbelt laws were repealled, there would be far fewer parents that would let their kids ride without seatbelts.

And parents who might let their kid ride with their friend's mom to the science museum without his booster seat might still require one while the kid is in their own car. There would likely be some balancing of safety and convenience that laws don't allow.

[twig93]

No I am just slow at reading and when I got to the end of the thread your post was not yet showing. Sometimes when I know it has been a long time since I refreshed the page, I will do that.

This time I didn't. But thanks. You gotta know I like you and read your posts. Look at my sig.

Gotcha. Sorry if I'm a bit touchy today.

[The Kettle]

:shrug:


Make up a number, use it as evidence for something. :yawn:Aren't you essentially implying numbers in these statements?
Would you expect that without laws most parents would allow their kids to do this?

Do you think parents intentionally put their kids in harms way?

Do you think most people want their children to be put at risk for no reason?

Do you think kids surfing on cars while their parents drive would be a widespread problem if legal?

not enough that I'd make a law about it.

[The Kettle]

Certainly before seatbelt laws became the norm, it was quite common for kids and adults to not wear them. But social norms have changed. Now I bet if the seatbelt laws were repealled, there would be far fewer parents that would let their kids ride without seatbelts.His guess of 20% is probably low.

[QMO]

irregardful.I like that word, and how you used it. Thank you.

[QMO]

I think a lot of kids would ride without seatbelts if it were legal.

I would bet more than 20% easy would do so.Not in my car.

[notreallyme]

It is not evidence.

Just my opinion.

I know that I had to wear a seatbelt because my dad told me it was against the law not to.

Did you wear a seatbelt growing up?


No I did not. I'd make my kids wear one, law or no law.

[yankeetripper]

No I did not. I'd make my kids wear one, law or no law.

Same here, did not use as a kid, do make my kids use now.

fwiw, I'm in favor of many of these laws but I wonder at what point/age you hit the point of diminishing returns.

Even with the laws, anacdotally my sister-in-law used to ride with her daughter unstrapped on her lap in the front seat of the car all the time. I would not advise this, fortunately they were never in an accident.

here is a link to a site with some "facts" not sure where they got the facts, or how accurate they are as many of the links in the site are dead. But thought it was at least an interesting attempt to justify these laws useing at least presumably real numbers.

http://www.carseatsite.com/statistics.htm

This one was particularly interesting if true but the link was dead - I assume the savings is in medical costs from injured kids.

"Every dollar spent on a child safety seat saves this country $32." National SAFE KIDS Campaign

[twig93]

This one was particularly interesting if true but the link was dead - I assume the savings is in medical costs from injured kids.

What's interesting is that they claim that 80% of kids are improperly restrained, but it still saves that much money. I'm guessing that there's some manipulation there.

Like for example (I'm making these numbers up) if a properly restrained kid in a car accident has an average medical bill of $20,000 and a kid without a car seat has an average medical bill of $1,000,000 and the chance of the kid being in a car accident is .0005, then a properly restrained kid is going to cost an average of $10 and an improperly restrained kid is going to cost an average of $500. So spending $15 on a carseat and using it properly saves (500 - 10 - 15) = $475, or about $32 times the cost of the carseat - what they're claiming.

But if a kid is improperly restrained in a carseat and such an accident has expected medical expenses of $900,000, then that kid has an expected medical cost of $450. Since 80% of carseats are installed improperly, now buying a carseat reduces the expected medical cost from $500 to (.8*450 + .2*10) = $362. Furthermore (500 - 362 - 15) = $123, or $8 times the cost of the carseat - one fourth what they're claiming.

I'm making the numbers up: I don't know what they are. My point is that I'm a bit hesitant to believe all their statistics without more information. But it is interesting nonetheless.

Obviously, different numbers will yield different results. But my point is that it's easy to ignore one statistic (i.e. 80% of carseats are installed improperly) when computing another (how much money a dollar spent on a car seat saves).

[Pseudolus]

Many of those claims on the carseatsite website lump together quite wide age ranges. Car seats reduce the risk of death by [...] 54% for children ages 1-4Ages 1-4? A 1 year old is still pretty close to being a baby. My kids were juuust on the verge of walking at their 1st birthdays. A 4 year old is running around wreaking havoc. Huge difference in height, weight, and all-around physical makeup. It makes my suspicious heart think that such a wide range may have been chosen purposely, to camouflage that the vast majority of the protection is on the 1yo end of things and that the seats don't help 4yos much of all.

Also, reduce vs. what, precisely? I think it was one of the Freakonomics guys who pointed out that some of these studies compare properly restrained booster seats to... no restraint whatsoever. If that's the case, well, duh, of course the seat is an improvement. The valid comparison is seat-with-belt vs. just belt.

(FWIW, my 3yo is still in a car seat. She's petite, and she still fits in the seat she's been in since she was an infant.)

[Lucy]

I gather the actual studies are a bear to wade through. Reading between the lines, and reading sources that sound trustworthy, it sounds like:

seatbelts save lives
booster seats prevent some internal injuries that occur when small children are restrained with adult seat belts.

Is the evidence strong enough to warrant a law? Doesn't sound like it. A major question is whether the law will have much influence when people don't have a booster seat handy, and what influence it will have. If people think, "I have no booster seat, so I guess I'll just toss the kid in the back, maybe those adult seatbelts are risky for my little darling", then the law may have a net negative effect on child safety. Dunno how it will play out.

(FWIW my kids sat in booster seats until way longer than any of their friends. They liked them, because the added height gave them a better view out the windows.)

[Actuary321]

My kids were just on the verge of walking at their 1st birthdays.I am sorry your children were slow. ;-)

(FWIW, my 3yo is still in a car seat. She's petite, and she still fits in the seat she's been in since she was an infant.)Seems I remember my kids still riding in their big carseats until they were about ready to start Kindergarten. But then again my kids were all under the bottom 95% line on the growth chart.

ETA: But they were all walking on their first birthday.

[Loner]

(FWIW, my 3yo is still in a car seat. She's petite, and she still fits in the seat she's been in since she was an infant.)

Quitcherbrewin' and FEED the poor kid! ;)

[Pseudolus]

Hey, stunted or not, I get the same tax deduction.