New York, Ohio and other states have recently added or updated their child passenger safety laws. All but a few states in the USA have relatively strict laws pertaining to the restraint of children in motor vehicles. Many of these are among the strictest in the world, requiring kids to be in a harness or booster until at least 8 years old . At the opposite end of the spectrum, some states like Florida have relatively lax laws, ending at 3 years of age. Some countries have no such laws at all, for kids or adults. In some cultures, it is normal for newborns sit on a nanny’s lap, having only luck or their parent’s faith to protect them. Is it better to rely on the lap of a nanny, or is it better to have our government nanny us all with restrictive laws?
The debate on motorcycle helmets is not entirely different. Both sides toss around statistics that make their case sound compelling. There are other issues, like cost, hassle and fun. Shouldn’t the driver have a choice? If their risk is higher without a helmet, aren’t they the party that should decide if they want to take the risk or not?
There is one difference with child seats. A legal driver of a motorcycle is presumably beyond the age of reason and their choice will not generally affect the well being of anyone else. Kids 8 and under aren’t even to the age of reason and certainly cannot be expected to decide upon matters of life and death for themselves. They require a responsible adult to make these choices for them. But what if the adult isn’t responsible? Perhaps they don’t know any better, perhaps they don’t care. Skeptics may simply hate goverment interference and seek out any isolated statistic showing that kids don’t need child restraints, allowing them to rationalize behavior contrary to accepted safest practice.
Whatever the reason, is it just OK to say that Darwin’s theory will tend to rid the gene pool of those who choose not to adequately protect themselves or their offspring? We have a lot of superfluous laws in the USA and its states. Is this just another one that wastes the time of law enforcement and the money of its citizens? Or is it one saving the lives of many children and also saving huge sums of money in medical and funeral expenses?
less taxes=fewer taxes. sigh.
I’m all for a nanny state. The more laws on child safety the better. Frankly, I don’t think even the strictest laws in the US are anywhere near good enough.
People who argue against a nanny state also tend to politically be aligned with those who want less taxes, less of THEIR money being taken by that nanny state. I like to point out that when a stupid, selfish parent fails to restrain their child, and that child ends up in a ventilator in a pediatric nursing home, the child’s care eventually become’s the state’s burden….and that comes directly out of the taxpayers’ pockets.
I think it should be up to an individual over 18 to make the decision to buckle up or not. However, I think the insurance companies should refuse to cover any claims from anyone who does not properly restrain themselves. I bet seatbelt use would go up if insurance won’t pay out for accidents without proper restraint. Children are unable to make the decision for themselves and there should be some laws to help keep children safe on the roads.
Lismama, what about when the unrestrained adult injures or kills the restrained children in the same vehicle? Should he or she have had the freedom to endanger them by exercising his freedom to not restraint him or herself? I know this has happened. In fact, there was an ad a few years ago in Montana (I live in WY, 20 mi from MT) about an unrestrained grandfather who killed his restrained granddaughter.
I’m a pretty staunch libertarian, and therefore abhor invasive laws. I believe that helmets and seatbelts (for people over 18) should be optional, not mandatory. If someone wants to splat their brains all over the pavement, go for it. However, I also believe that there need to be SOME laws in place to protect children in matters where there is a clear benefit, for the reasons stated in the blog post. Children cannot make the decision to keep themselves safe, and even if they can, they usually don’t have the means to do it. On top of that, many parents simply don’t understand the reasoning behind car seat/booster use. It’s not that they’re dumb and don’t want to protect their kids–they just don’t know how dangerous it is without them. So if the law keeps their kids in boosters, all the better.
Nathan and I sit on either side of this. I’m all for protecting children until they can make their own decisions, and I’ll call 911 about unrestrained children. Nathan says it’s there kids and their decisions, and hates when I interfere. Their kids to screw up.
One place I wish would have more regulations are the airplanes. Take away the lapbaby rule. I don’t want my child or myself injured because someone doesn’t have their child restrained properly. In that case it’s not just about their rights and desires; they can harm me and my family.