> As I said, dangerous and illegal.
>
> > But your reply is so typical of people these days who believe
that
> > laws are passed to protect us.
>
> I don't believe that at all. Most laws are bullshit. I am the last
> person to blindly follow laws. In fact I am known for shocking
people
> with my ability to think for myself and flat out ignore laws I
think
> are stupid.
>
Good for you. There needs to be more of us.
> I do believe that, should you get into an accident, your child
could
> die quite easily in that location. Have you done the engineering
work
> to understand the impact forces a DeLorean would receive, and what
> that could do to a 10 to 30 pound child sitting in that location?
How
> are you going to tie the seat down securely, and more importantly,
do
> you understand exactly what those mount points you select could do
in
> an accident? Are they going to hold? Will they buckle, pull down,
and
> break the mount points on the seat, thus sending it through the
> windshield or anywhere else in the passenger compartment?
No I haven't done the engineering and that is why I posed the
question.
I was hoping there was a system for this and the engineering had
already been done.
I'd argue though that the passenger seat is more dangerous if the
accident is a side
Impact one. There is precious little space between the door and the
child in this situation.
The center of the vehicle on the shelf would be safer. The NTSB
states that a child is 35%
safer in the center of a vehicle than the passenger side. This is
why I was looking for a system.
I could easily put my child in the passenger seat but would prefer
to put him in the center between
seats because it is a safer location.
>
> I bet any random cop in the U.S. would issue a big fat ticket for
> something like this.
Not if the system was approved. Cops are ignorant to many laws. If
the system was
approved and you got a ticket, you'd have an open a shut case.
More
likely, if you showed
the cop proof on the spot that it was an approved system you
wouldn't get a ticket in the first
place.
> > How is it that you and I have to go to expense and trouble of
having
> > car seats when kids ride on a school bus (or any mass transit
for
> > that matter) every day with not even a seat belt.
>
> It's a matter of weight. Buses are huge. Big giant machines. Seat
> belts aren't required in vehicles of this size for one major
reason -
> the vast majority of accidents would scarcely affect the
passengers on
> a bus. We're talking about a vehicle weighing half a dozen tons
plus,
> colliding with a vehicle weighing a couple tons at most. Sure, the
> passengers on the bus will get bumps and bruises and may be
dislodged
> from their seats, but life threatening injuries while riding on a
bus
> are fairly uncommon.
>
> A car, on the other hand....
A taxi is a car and they aren't required to have a car seat. I
can
name a dozen other
places where the law contradicts itself on the requirement of a car
seat. It usually comes
down to economics not safety. If an industry is going to be
economically impacted by a law
then that industry becomes exempt because they lobby against it.
The laws usually only pertain to the individual.
Same is true with the pool laws. Only resident pools are required
to have the fence or alarm. Why? because big
business lobbies to make themselves exempt.
>
> > Car seats do save
> > lives but the reason they are required by law has more to do
with
> > political lobbying than rational thinking. So the fact that
> > something is "illegal" doesn't immediately make it a bad idea.
>
> That's a load of BS and you know it. Most accidents would
positively
> kill a loose child. No rational person would toss an infant in the
> back seat and drive off. Requiring children to be properly secured
is
> perfectly rational thinking.
I'm not saying that a loose child is as safe as one in a car
seat.
I'm saying
that car seats do in fact save lives but the reason we are required
to have them has
more to do with political lobbying than safety. If it was really
about safety, the
auto manufacturers should have been required to design a restraint
system that
is built into the car that can accommodate a child. Why wasn't
that
done?
Lobbyist.
Requiring the auto manufacturers to design a system would be much
safer. This way, people who can't
afford to shell out $100+ for a car seat wouldn't go without one.
Also this would
solve the bigger problem of incorrectly installed seats. It is
estimated that 80% of car
seats are not fully effective because they are not properly
installed. At a minimum, the auto makers should
develop a system that makes a car seat idiot proof to install. The
LATCH system is a step toward this but
it is still very difficult to get a LATCH seat installed properly.
>
> > A good example of stupid laws that are meant to protect us:
Safety
> > fences around swimming pools.
>
> We aren't talking about swimming pools. But since you bring it up,
I
> mostly agree with you.
Back to the Home of PROJECT VIXEN