For the North County Times
"As the new California child safety seat law takes effect, elementary school officials statewide are bracing for massive demonstrations by outraged first- and second-graders, ignominiously returned to 'little kid' status after briefly tasting the freedom of booster-seat-free riding."
---- Fake headline, Jan. 3, 2012
As usual, California's parents rang in 2012 with a headache. But this time, it was our Legislature, not nighttime revelry, that was responsible, as a new law entered into force requiring children younger than 8 to sit in a vehicular safety restraint.
According to the new law, as posted on the California Highway Patrol website, "children *MUST* be secured in an appropriate child passenger restraint (safety seat or booster seat) IN THE BACK SEAT OF A VEHICLE until they are at least 8 YEARS OLD or 4' 9" in height."
Nothing like all-caps warnings and fearsome asterisks to do wonders for a post-New Year's hangover.
The site also contains a "Frequently Asked Questions" page, which unhelpfully explains the supposed reason for the extension of the maximum booster seat age from 6 to 8: "Children are at greater risk when riding in the front seat. A child's injury risk is reduced by 33% when moved from the front seat to the back seat."
Let's assume this is true. But if so, why must 6- and 7-year-olds be restrained in booster seats? Why not just ride in the back wearing seat belts, as they've been doing for decades?
To answer that question, look no further than notorious nanny-stater Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, the co-sponsor of Senate Bill 929, which passed both chambers mostly along party-lines.
"Seat belts are not designed for small children," Evans declared by way of justifying her legislation. "That's why we need booster seats to make sure they are safe in cars."
Without quibbling over the definition of "small" children (and my six-year-old would certainly take exception to being considered "small"), Evans' statement fails to explain why, after years and years of a 6-year-old maximum age, the state now needs to shift to an 8-year-old limit.
Will the new law save lives? The Santa Rosa Press-Democrat reported that "113 children ages 6 and 7 died in motor vehicle crashes from 2000 to 2009 in California." Recognizing that every life is precious, this statistic means that roughly 11 6- and 7-year-olds perished in auto accidents every year in our state, a vanishingly small number. But more to the point, nothing about these numbers indicate that a booster seat would somehow have saved any of these kids' lives.
Still, why not err on the side of being overcautious? As one Sonoma resident trumpeted, "I think it's great. It's a chance to keep kids safer a little longer."
But with all due respect, nothing has prevented her from maintaining the safety of her children; she should feel free to keep her kids in booster seats until they leave for college, for all I care, just don't make me do it, too.
In addition, the new law's supposed safety focus is belied by certain loopholes, such as if "the child passenger restraint system cannot be installed properly in the rear seat" or if "all rear seats are already occupied by children seven years of age or under." If the state truly perceived a safety risk, it would have prohibited sub-eight-year-olds from traveling in vehicles in such exceptional circumstances.
In my particular case, my 6-year-old was distraught at having to return to her booster seat after nine blissful months of freedom. But worse than that, I now have to jam her booster seat in tight between her 4-year-old brother's booster and her 2-year-old sister's car seat in the back-seat of my sedan. Any gains in safety provided by her extended booster-seating have been instantly erased by the increased likelihood of a dangerous accident caused by the maddening distraction of the resultant backseat bickering.
But there may be a silver lining to our latest descent into nanny-statism; the new law has stimulated at least one dormant industry: car-seat manufacturers. I snapped up the last few boosters during my trip over the weekend to my local Target to grudgingly comply with the new regulation.
The Gracos and Evenflos of the world are laughing all the way to the bank while my kids, no safer, are about as miserable as I am.
---- Fake headline, Jan. 3, 2012
As usual, California's parents rang in 2012 with a headache. But this time, it was our Legislature, not nighttime revelry, that was responsible, as a new law entered into force requiring children younger than 8 to sit in a vehicular safety restraint.
According to the new law, as posted on the California Highway Patrol website, "children *MUST* be secured in an appropriate child passenger restraint (safety seat or booster seat) IN THE BACK SEAT OF A VEHICLE until they are at least 8 YEARS OLD or 4' 9" in height."
Nothing like all-caps warnings and fearsome asterisks to do wonders for a post-New Year's hangover.
The site also contains a "Frequently Asked Questions" page, which unhelpfully explains the supposed reason for the extension of the maximum booster seat age from 6 to 8: "Children are at greater risk when riding in the front seat. A child's injury risk is reduced by 33% when moved from the front seat to the back seat."
Let's assume this is true. But if so, why must 6- and 7-year-olds be restrained in booster seats? Why not just ride in the back wearing seat belts, as they've been doing for decades?
To answer that question, look no further than notorious nanny-stater Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, the co-sponsor of Senate Bill 929, which passed both chambers mostly along party-lines.
"Seat belts are not designed for small children," Evans declared by way of justifying her legislation. "That's why we need booster seats to make sure they are safe in cars."
Without quibbling over the definition of "small" children (and my six-year-old would certainly take exception to being considered "small"), Evans' statement fails to explain why, after years and years of a 6-year-old maximum age, the state now needs to shift to an 8-year-old limit.
Will the new law save lives? The Santa Rosa Press-Democrat reported that "113 children ages 6 and 7 died in motor vehicle crashes from 2000 to 2009 in California." Recognizing that every life is precious, this statistic means that roughly 11 6- and 7-year-olds perished in auto accidents every year in our state, a vanishingly small number. But more to the point, nothing about these numbers indicate that a booster seat would somehow have saved any of these kids' lives.
Still, why not err on the side of being overcautious? As one Sonoma resident trumpeted, "I think it's great. It's a chance to keep kids safer a little longer."
But with all due respect, nothing has prevented her from maintaining the safety of her children; she should feel free to keep her kids in booster seats until they leave for college, for all I care, just don't make me do it, too.
In addition, the new law's supposed safety focus is belied by certain loopholes, such as if "the child passenger restraint system cannot be installed properly in the rear seat" or if "all rear seats are already occupied by children seven years of age or under." If the state truly perceived a safety risk, it would have prohibited sub-eight-year-olds from traveling in vehicles in such exceptional circumstances.
In my particular case, my 6-year-old was distraught at having to return to her booster seat after nine blissful months of freedom. But worse than that, I now have to jam her booster seat in tight between her 4-year-old brother's booster and her 2-year-old sister's car seat in the back-seat of my sedan. Any gains in safety provided by her extended booster-seating have been instantly erased by the increased likelihood of a dangerous accident caused by the maddening distraction of the resultant backseat bickering.
But there may be a silver lining to our latest descent into nanny-statism; the new law has stimulated at least one dormant industry: car-seat manufacturers. I snapped up the last few boosters during my trip over the weekend to my local Target to grudgingly comply with the new regulation.
The Gracos and Evenflos of the world are laughing all the way to the bank while my kids, no safer, are about as miserable as I am.
MICHAEL M. ROSEN is an attorney in Carmel Valley. Contact him at michaelmrosen@yahoo.com.
Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/perspective/another-view-driving-down-the-road-to-nanny-state/article_5459165f-ec1f-59c1-96a3-01745a69f796.html#ixzz1it1HDX8i
Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/perspective/another-view-driving-down-the-road-to-nanny-state/article_5459165f-ec1f-59c1-96a3-01745a69f796.html#ixzz1it1HDX8i
