Bill Would Make It Illegal To Allow Children To Ride In Front Seat

[p0ink]

Bill would require young children to ride in back

(Sacramento-AP) -- A parent who allowed a young child to ride in the front seat of a car could be fined up to 250 dollars under a bill approved by the state Assembly.

Current law already requires children who are under age six or who weigh less than 60 pounds to ride in a child passenger restraint seat.

The bill by Assemblywoman Fran Pavley of Agoura Hills would require that those children also be carried in the back seat.

Supporters say the bill would reduce the risk of injury or death to the child when there's a traffic accident.

The bill would allow exceptions when the car doesn't have a back seat or is filled with other young children or when a child must ride in front for medical reasons.

Today's 58 to 11 vote sent the measure to the Senate.

©2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

[Big Jroy]

In order to get around raising taxes the US gov has implemented close to 400 new "fines" for various types of BS, and there are pleanty more fines just waiting in the wings to be approved. The gov has a website outlining all these new laws and fines, I'll see if I can find it. It's fucking insane!

Don't get me wrong , I'm all for child saftey.

 

[Frackal]

Boy this is non-invasive

 

[vinylgroover]

I don't understand your problem with this Poink.

Any parent who would put a child under the age of 6 unrestrained in the front seat of a car is fucked in the head and lacking in basic common sense.

Unfortunately, there are many out there who lack common sense, therefore, legislation is the only way to force common sense into people.

 

[Frackal]

That's not the philosophy that we embrace in the US though Vinyl.. invasive legislation like this has no place in a free society.

Now, this one isnt Soooo bad, but the general trend is bad.


"The more corrupt the government, the more numerous the laws."

 

[manny78]

California lawshit again ? wow, truly Cali is getting worse than Canada.....

 

[vinylgroover]

That's not the philosophy that we embrace in the US though Vinyl.. invasive legislation like this has no place in a free society.

Now, this one isnt Soooo bad, but the general trend is bad.


"The more corrupt the government, the more numerous the laws."

I hear you Frack, we too are over legislated down here as well, but there are some things that require legislation when common sense does not prevail.

Sometimes you have to look at the intent behind the legslation and say to yourself, is this legilation designed to exert more government control over citizens or is it a genuine attempt to minimise or reduce death by legislating something that should be common sense. In this case i think it is the latter.........no different to drink driving laws............it's common sense not to drink and drive, but without legisation to enforce it, the behaviour would continue unabated.

 

[p0ink]

I don't understand your problem with this Poink.

Any parent who would put a child under the age of 6 unrestrained in the front seat of a car is fucked in the head and lacking in basic common sense.

Unfortunately, there are many out there who lack common sense, therefore, legislation is the only way to force common sense into people.

i love how you non-americans think legislation and big government is the answer to everything.

i guess you dont subscribe to the idea of social darwinism. oh well.

oh yeah, this isnt about allowing unrestrained children to sit in the front seat (they already passed that legislation. this is about letting any child in the front seat, regardless of the safety precautions taken.

 

[vinylgroover]

i love how you non-americans think legislation and big government is the answer to everything.

i guess you dont subscribe to the idea of social darwinism. oh well.

oh yeah, this isnt about allowing unrestrained children to sit in the front seat (they already passed that legislation. this is about letting any child in the front seat, regardless of the safety precautions taken.

It's virtually impossible to fit a baby capsule in the front seat of a car and even harder to anchor it properly, therefore what other safety precautions can you take. It's dangerous to have any young child in the frot seat of the car.......you may appreciate that wen you have your own children.

 

[argent]

Who the hell is Bill?

 

[Ish]

What happens if you only own two seater cars?

 

[SeymourCuts]

Unfortunately, some people live with their heads in the sand under the assumption that every parent makes fervent use of both their head and their heart in the raising of their children. Either that, or they just put a much greater value on some heartless philosophical ideal they've come to embrace more than the invidividuals who can be negatively affected by it all. A casual examination of the various statistics related to child abuse, how many adults are in counselling to deal with childhood molestations by a parent, how many parents put their children in the middle of their messy relationships and divorces and of course how many children are killed or seriously injured in car accidents as a result of not having been properly restrained or having been struck by a high-powered front airbag designed to protect adults should wake a few ignorant, heartless people up to reality.

There is nothing intrinsically evil about laws. Their individual worth and practicality is relative to the unrestrained actions of the individuals within a society. Large-scale anarchy has historically produced chaos and destruction of one another's persons and property. Result: loss of individual freedom for life enjoyment, progress and growth and ultimately societal regression. Therefore one of the jobs of government is to protect individuals from direct harm of the incompetant or ill-hearted actions of others. ("Don't steal...don't binge drink and drive...don't sneak into a family's home at night and chop them up with an axe...yadda yadda yadda.") As they are immature by all legal standards, there is also the responsibility to protect children from themselves. This responsibility is carried out through the legal guardian(s).

 

[basskiller]

I own a truck, It doesn't have a back seat.. I'm guessing that this would be exempt.

 

[Testosterone boy]

Funny thing.... people were healthier, happier, and had more common sense when safety rules and regulations did not dominate theri lives.


Cars are far superior now, we have seat belt laws, air bags, and a DUI is akin to child kidnapping. Yep people continue to have serious accidents and die in the tens of thousands.

Does legislation work? I feel claustrophobic with all of our rules and regulations.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Re: Re: Bill Would Make It Illegal To Allow Children To Ride In Front Seat

Unfortunately, some people live with their heads in the sand under the assumption that every parent makes fervent use of both their head and their heart in the raising of their children. Either that, or they just put a much greater value on some heartless philosophical ideal they've come to embrace more than the invidividuals who can be negatively affected by it all. A casual examination of the various statistics related to child abuse, how many adults are in counselling to deal with childhood molestations by a parent, how many parents put their children in the middle of their messy relationships and divorces and of course how many children are killed or seriously injured in car accidents as a result of not having been properly restrained or having been struck by a high-powered front airbag designed to protect adults should wake a few ignorant, heartless people up to reality.

There is nothing intrinsically evil about laws. Their individual worth and practicality is relative to the unrestrained actions of the individuals within a society. Large-scale anarchy has historically produced chaos and destruction of one another's persons and property. Result: loss of individual freedom for life enjoyment, progress and growth and ultimately societal regression. Therefore one of the jobs of government is to protect individuals from direct harm of the incompetant or ill-hearted actions of others. ("Don't steal...don't binge drink and drive...don't sneak into a family's home at night and chop them up with an axe...yadda yadda yadda.") As they are immature by all legal standards, there is also the responsibility to protect children from themselves. This responsibility is carried out through the legal guardian(s).

Nice legal positivist mentality, but unfortunately opens the doors to legislation for anything the mind can fathom. This idea allows for government control of food choices, recreational choices, sexual choices, etc. Anything that can be deemed harmful can therefore be restricted.

Freedom connotes responsibility. Organization demands regulation.

Either that, or they just put a much greater value on some heartless philosophical ideal they've come to embrace more than the invidividuals who can be negatively affected by it all

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

[SeymourCuts]

Re: Re: Re: Bill Would Make It Illegal To Allow Children To Ride In Front Seat

Nice legal positivist mentality, but unfortunately opens the doors to legislation for anything the mind can fathom. This idea allows for government control of food choices, recreational choices, sexual choices, etc. Anything that can be deemed harmful can therefore be restricted.

Freedom connotes responsibility. Organization demands regulation.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Recreational choices for yourself to play racquetball or dance or your son to play little league baseball or the piano is quite different than allowing him to go spray "N word" graffiti all over the local black church. Sexual choices between two consenting adults are quite different than the sexual choices of NAMBLA. In the presence of imperfections, diversity, and variation between strengths and weaknesses, for there to be Freedom, there have to be regulations. In riots, when there is a perception of anarchy, "common sense" does not rein supreme. Businesses, vehicles, and even individuals are desecrated, robbed and raped. The victims in these cases do not have a sense of freedom but the opposite. In the same way, an 8 year old kid who gets into the front seat of a car says he doesn't feel like putting on his seat belt and so his parent let's him get away with it then gets into an accident and becomes a paraplegic for the rest of his life does not become an adult with a great sense of freedom. Quite the opposite, in more than one respect.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Would Make It Illegal To Allow Children To Ride In Front Seat

Recreational choices for yourself to play racquetball or dance or your son to play little league baseball or the piano is quite different than allowing him to go spray "N word" graffiti all over the local black church. Sexual choices between two consenting adults are quite different than the sexual choices of NAMBLA. In the presence of imperfections, diversity, and variation between strengths and weaknesses, for there to be Freedom, there have to be regulations. In riots, when there is a perception of anarchy, "common sense" does not rein supreme. Businesses, vehicles, and even individuals are desecrated, robbed and raped. The victims in these cases do not have a sense of freedom but the opposite. In the same way, an 8 year old kid who gets into the front seat of a car says he doesn't feel like putting on his seat belt and so his parent let's him get away with it then gets into an accident and becomes a paraplegic for the rest of his life does not become an adult with a great sense of freedom. Quite the opposite, in more than one respect.

Not one thing you mentioned was even close to what I alluded to. Lets take your concept of legislating activities that are deemed harmful: an "unhealthy" diet, smoking, drinking, hang-gliding, mountain climbing, racing, football, guns, male homosexuality, etc. could all be easily argued to be "harmful" and therefore could be outlawed. Simply because one can show a statistical link to harm, does not grant the power to control actions.

 

[rsnoble]

Hey Pink, a bill I just introduced makes it illegal for some queer like you that cant bench their bodyweight more than 3 times to post anything anti-democrat. You conservative bush cock sucking faggot go fly a gold dipped kite.

 

[grlpwrd]

Well, there are some stupid, careless parents out there. Like VG stated Any parent who would put a child under the age of 6 unrestrained in the front seat of a car is fucked in the head and lacking in basic common sense.

Unfortunately, there are many out there who lack common sense, therefore, legislation is the only way to force common sense into people.

According to statistics the top reasons for child deaths are due to accidents with vehicular accidents being one of the top 3. Sometimes stupidity (mainly of some parents) has to be governed by legislation...

 

[WODIN]

I remember, as a small child, sleeping in the back window of my moms 67 Chevy Belair. It was two tone, white and green...nasty light green.

 

[SeymourCuts]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Would Make It Illegal To Allow Children To Ride In Front Seat

Not one thing you mentioned was even close to what I alluded to. Lets take your concept of legislating activities that are deemed harmful: an "unhealthy" diet, smoking, drinking, hang-gliding, mountain climbing, racing, football, guns, male homosexuality, etc. could all be easily argued to be "harmful" and therefore could be outlawed. Simply because one can show a statistical link to harm, does not grant the power to control actions.

You missed the entire point I was trying to make in my original post. I believe legislation of laws are necessary for there to be "individual freedoms." But I believe in "individual freedoms." That includes for doing things that could be personally harmful as most things that can be personally harmful/negative can also be personally helpful/positive depending on context, approach and amount, etc. "Drinking" is an example of an individual freedom. It should be legal. But "drinking and driving" has the distinct possibility of violating others' individual freedom, therefore it should be illegal. Homosexual sex between two consenting adults would be an expression of two people's individual freedom. But rape is a violation of another's individual freedom.

Parent/legal guardian-child relationship is another matter as well. You have to ask yourself whether the parents/legal guardians should have absolute freedom over a child. If you were a paraplegic right now because your mother allowed you to ride in the front seat without a seat belt when you were 8, you wouldn't be thinking "at least my mother was afforded the freedom and responsibility to raise me how she saw fit" you'd probably be thinking more along the lines of "I wish it had been fucking illegal for her to allow me to ride in the front seat without a seat belt." A best friend of my sister from when she was in school is in a wheel chair today because his parents were letting him ride in the bed of their truck unrestrained when they got into an accident. Outlaw a parent from beating their kid with a baseball bat, but allow them to make a choice for their child that puts him/her at a high risk of being paralyzed or killed? Or should a parent be afforded freedom to beat their kid with a baseball bat ignoring the fact that some parents are in prison today for just that?

Saying that laws are intrinsically evil within a society made up of imperfect individuals is absurdity.

 

[Y_lifter]

I remember, as a small child, sleeping in the back window of my moms 67 Chevy Belair. It was two tone, white and green...nasty light green.

I'm Sad to hear you weren't allowed to sleep in the house Dad...

 

[atlantabiolab]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill Would Make It Illegal To Allow Children To Ride In Front Seat

You missed the entire point I was trying to make in my original post. I believe legislation of laws are necessary for there to be "individual freedoms." But I believe in "individual freedoms." That includes for doing things that could be personally harmful as most things that can be personally harmful/negative can also be personally helpful/positive depending on context, approach and amount, etc. "Drinking" is an example of an individual freedom. It should be legal. But "drinking and driving" has the distinct possibility of violating others' individual freedom, therefore it should be illegal. Homosexual sex between two consenting adults would be an expression of two people's individual freedom. But rape is a violation of another's individual freedom.

I agree with laws restricting certain actions, such as seat belt laws, through the imposition of fines, etc., but in this case it is going to the next step. What is the relative risk of children, buckled in the front seat, to injury in car crashes? There are devices that harness the child safely, in front and back seats. After this law, what next restriction can we impose for the next "harmful" practice? Such idiocy is directly linked to the restriction of ephedra sales in some states, the restriction of PPA as an OTC medicine, the attempts at restricting pro-hormones, etc.. The risk is small, but can be sensationalized enough to place sufficient fear in the public mind.

As for homosexual men, the argument can be easily made that the transmission of a fatal disease was spread through their activities, and studies showed that the average lifespan of a gay man was significantly lower than his heterosexual counterpart. Why would these "harmful" activities not be regulated same as the desire to regulate every other aspect of human action?

Parent/legal guardian-child relationship is another matter as well. You have to ask yourself whether the parents/legal guardians should have absolute freedom over a child. If you were a paraplegic right now because your mother allowed you to ride in the front seat without a seat belt when you were 8, you wouldn't be thinking "at least my mother was afforded the freedom and responsibility to raise me how she saw fit" you'd probably be thinking more along the lines of "I wish it had been fucking illegal for her to allow me to ride in the front seat without a seat belt." A best friend of my sister from when she was in school is in a wheel chair today because his parents were letting him ride in the bed of their truck unrestrained when they got into an accident. Outlaw a parent from beating their kid with a baseball bat, but allow them to make a choice for their child that puts him/her at a high risk of being paralyzed or killed? Or should a parent be afforded freedom to beat their kid with a baseball bat ignoring the fact that some parents are in prison today for just that?

Your analogies are not equal. The parent beating the child with a bat is an example of intent to harm, while the seat belt issue is not. Parents who live in hillbilly areas of Mississippi do not have the same risk to life in a car as one in Los Angeles, and therefore the neglect would not be the same everywhere.

 

[Robert Jan]

i dont see whats so shocking.
not being allowed to drink till 21 now thats shocking.

and them drug laws and all that prudeness and shit