> > 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.
>
> I disagree. It makes little sense to require every vehicle to have
> some sort of safety system built in. Some people don't have a need
to
> transport children in their vehicles. Why should some law force
them
> to pay the added expense of a child safety system in their car?
>
> Auto manufacturers do put these safety systems into most vehicles
via
> their own choice. Seatbelts lock after being pulled out all the
way to
> accommodate child seats, and there is a relatively new "LATCH"
system
> designed specifically for car seats being put into some vehicles
now.
>
> > 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.
>
> [voice=Jayne, reference=Firefly] That's crazy talk. [/voice] Not
> everyone needs to transport children. This law wouldn't pass
because
> it's insane. The current system works fine: Make people who want to
> transport a child secure that child in an approved seat.
>
So then I shouldn't have to pay for the passenger side air bags
if I
never carry a passenger? How about my rear seat belts. I never use
them. How about side curtain airbags for the rear. Same argument
holds. Same with the pool. If I don't have kids why do I need
the fence?
You already pay for features that you won't use. Your passenger
side airbag has sensors in the seat to make sure that a child
isn't
sitting in the seat. Your going to pay for more features in the
near future too. A system is being designed that will use motion
sensors to tell when a person or pet is in a vehicle that is not
running the AC/Heat. The motion sensor is powerful enough to
perceive the breathing of a sleeping infant. If the sensor
determines that there is someone in the vehicle at risk of
experiencing dangerously high/low temperatures, a horn alarm will be
triggered.
We have blanket laws that cause all of us to incur expenses
we will never benefit from. All the safety features mentioned above
are because the car COULD carry people in those seats not because
they do. Built-in seats are already an option on some GM and Ford
vehicles. The Chevy Venture is one of them. The seat is for
forward facing children over 1year and 20 lbs. The car
manufacturers are starting to accept it now because they know 1) it
will sell cars and 2) know it's going to get mandated eventually.
On the other side of the argument, what if I don't have kids but
someone who wants to ride with me does? Now they can't or must
break the law because I don't have a car seat. Do you expect
them
to carry a car seat with them wherever they go?
> Also, I would submit that people who can't afford a car seat
shouldn't
> have children. Honestly, anyone who is that poor is going to have
> trouble feeding, clothing and otherwise caring for the child. How
are
> you going to afford doctor appointments and immunizations, etc,
when
> you can't even come up with $100 for a car seat? How about food,
> shelter, clothing? I am big on personal responsibility. I don't
like
> that we keep shelling out more welfare money for each additional
child
> some people continue to have despite being unable to support them
> financially. People shouldn't have children if they can't support
them.
I agree here. I think you should have to get a license to have
children but the reality is that there are people who can't or
don't
spend the money on a seat. The hospitals here will give you one if
you don't have one when your child is born and you can show
financial need.
>
> > 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.
> 80% of people don't take the time to learn how their car seat
works,
Exactly. This is why an idiot proof solution that was built into
the car would be the safer way to go. No (or less) chance of
operator error. And we don't want this because our current
system
has the child seat manufacturers lobbying against it and the auto
manufacturers lobbying against it. The built in system will
probably pass simply because the car seats are too easy to
improperly install. A built in system would not add a lot of cost
either. The only car seats that should be required are infant
seats. Once a child in front facing, the existing seat and
restraint system with a 5 point harness could be designed to
accommodate a child. You sound like you have an infant and these
seats will always be needed. In Florida, a law was recently put
fourth that would require children to be in a seat until 10 years of
age. This is nuts. I think over 1-2 years old a built in system
could work better than the existing system.
> then buckle it in properly. I spent half an hour buckling our
baby's
> new car seat in just the other day. It took so long because I had
to
> make sure I was doing it right. And this was AFTER reading the
manual.
So, since 80% of the people are idiots and can't put the seat in,
we
should have a law that requires everyone with a seat to take it in
to an inspection center and have it properly installed for them.
Then we could have laws that require an annual inspection too. This
is how our laws get out of control. A law to make another law
better and them more laws to make that one better. It never ends.
Let's make the law right the first time.
Back to the Home of PROJECT VIXEN