Now its up to what, 9 years old? Its getting crazy. Giant kids are having to be in boosters or fear cops targeting you and ticketing you.
These laws are obviously written by people who do not have kids.
Who benefits?
Car seat manufacturers? Parent’s magazines? Would be interesting to know who contributes to this lobby. I have two little kids - still young enough they need to be in car seats, but my oldest is almost ready to sit in a regular seat (in my opinion as his parent, i.e. the person half of whose genes he happens to be carrying) … only problem is these damn regs keep jacking the age/weight requirements to the moon. This nanny fascist state is getting really tiresome.
Clayton -
Wow, I didn’t know about this sh**. Fked up as hell. Of coarse, not surprising. I hate to sound like an ahole, but I don’t know how anybody could purposefully have kids these days or the past 2,000 years or so too. lol. I guess condoms didn’t exist 100 years ago. Then again, condoms totally take away all the pleasure away. Am I right?
Man this world’s getting worse and worse each day. I feel sorry for all these kids that have to grow up in the hell hole.
I must say, your remark on the effect of condoms on sexual pleasure was.. random.
That aside, I suspect a combination of moralist busybodies, demagogues and manufacturers of child seats (who probably bankroll the first two as their spokesmen and pawns) are responsible for such situations. Such is the state of things in corporatist societies.
I was reading Tucker’s new book, which is a collection of articles. In his water section he mentions all these laws that were passed to reduce home consumption of water, which makes up only 1% of total water use in the United States.
Everyone has to be part of the hysteria. Everyone has to know that there are people in charge and they will force you to do what they think is right.
Also they steal sometimes.
“I must say, your remark on the effect of condoms on sexual pleasure was.. random.”
I don’t think so. It has to do with why so many people have kids. Many people have religious beliefs that are against the Pill and abortion, so when they invevitable don’t use condoms because they are unpleasurable they get preggers.
The reason I said your remark seemed random was your “Am I right?” right after your statement. Perhaps it was a misinterpretation of your grammar, but it seemed like you were asking the members of this forum about the effect (or lack of) condoms have on sexual pleasure, a topic that is neither appropriate for this forum nor one that comes to mind when one things of child booster seat laws. That, and I’m probably paranoid after seeing so many textspeakers putting “Amirite” after their posts, though this is not to say you are one.
Anyway, if someone believes that contraceptive pills and abortion are unacceptable, why would they consider condoms acceptable? I cannot think of any philosophies or religious that hold the former two unacceptable, but condoms to be a generally acceptable item of contraception. I don’t see how the alleged effects of condoms on sexual pleasure would even come into it.
“Anyway, if someone believes that contraceptive pills and abortion are unacceptable, why would they consider condoms acceptable? I cannot think of any philosophies or religious that hold the former two unacceptable, but condoms to be a generally acceptable item of contraception. I don’t see how the alleged effects of condoms on sexual pleasure would even come into it.”
Because most people are hypocrites, especially parents or people considering having babies. It’s like George Carlin said, ‘You have to be full of sh** to be a parent’ lol. I mean most religions say sex is a sin anyway, so religious types aren’t even supposed to have sex for pleasure. But most of them do.
“Who benefits?”
The state by collecting money from dumbass made up laws like this. Everytime copswrite a ticket to someone the government gets that much more powerful and richer.
They’re preparing you for a lifetime of ‘booster seating’.
Saying that because one considers certain forms of sexual activity immoral, one must believe all sex is sinfu,l is like saying that because one hates smoking, that one hates breathing.
OT: It would be interesting to see some empirical data on this matter. Might be hard to obtain, given the very nature of lobbying, but there might be something on Wikileaks or other watchdog sites regarding the funding of “safety” organisations, and of politicians that vote for these laws.
The law does not list an age or weight requirement but a height requirement. The height requirement is 4’9". I believe it has to do with where the shoulder restraint rests across the body. For an individual shorter than 4’9" , the strap rests across the neck, not a good place in the event of an accident. The booster seat provides the extra few inches in torso height necessary to permit the should restraint to rest across the shoulder, thereby lessening the severity of injury.
Hope this helps.
“The law does not list an age or weight requirement but a height requirement. The height requirement is 4’9”. I believe it has to do with where the shoulder restraint rests across the body. For an individual shorter than 4’9" , the strap rests across the neck, not a good place in the event of an accident. The booster seat provides the extra few inches in torso height necessary to permit the should restraint to rest across the shoulder, thereby lessening the severity of injury."
Increasing height will increase age on many children.
I understand they have good intentions behind this law and alot of other laws. But using force against people is not justified. There are usually good intentions behind many tyrants.
Yes, there is a normal correlation between age and height. However, depending on the child, typical age to reach 4’9" is between 8-11 years. It is the height that is all important for determining if a child would be safer to be in a booster seat.
I concur with the use of force as unjustified.
Do you have a right to blatantly risk children’s lives?
Quote by CoolUserName:“Wow, I didn’t know about this sh**. Fked up as hell. Of coarse, not surprising. I hate to sound like an ahole, but I don’t know how anybody could purposefully have kids these days or the past 2,000 years or so too.”
Mainly because two people wanting kids involves a lot of powerful emotions that trump logic. lol have you never been with a woman that was totally in love with you? Sex can be a lot more involved and powerful than just about getting off. You don’t have to be religious(not sure what religion you’re talking about, I dunno which ones consider sex a sin) to not care about using protection.
Scineram: “Do you have a right to blatantly risk children’s lives?”
Is having a child in a car that is being driven at highway speeds a blatant risk of the child’s life?
No child under 4’9" is permitted to ride in my van without a booster seat regardless of age or what their parents do in their own vehicles.
There are multiple things that parents can do or not do that blatantly risk their children’s lives. Should there be a law for all of those possibilities? Who decides what qualifies as a ‘blatent risk’? Who will pay for the studies to determine the risk?
The majority of parents, when educated of the real or potential harm of a product or behavior, will endeavor to keep their children away from that danger without the need to have it legislated.
As long as you don’t force children to get in cars…