# Don't cops have anything better to do?



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

I don't want to debate peoples opinion's of booster seat laws and ages I just want to vent about a cop being ridiculous.

The booster seat law in Oregon is 6 years old or 60 lbs. I have yet to figure out if it is which comes first or last. Regardless DD is going to be 8 in six days and weighs 67lbs. DH just got pulled over because she wasn't in a booster seat.







: Hello!! Couldn't you find someone who was actually breaking a law to harass??? DD is by NO MEANS small for her age either. DH is 6'6" so she is among the tallest of her age group.

DH was told since she was borderline she should be in a booster seat. Two years over the age is boarderline????


----------



## Yoshua (Jan 5, 2006)

Nice

In washington your child wouldnt even be required to be in a booster seat

. 1 year of age or under or weighing less than 20 pounds:
a rear facing infant seat

. Between 1 - 4 years old or 20 - 40 pounds:
a forward facing child safety seat

. Between 4 - 6 years old or 40 - 60 pounds:
a booster seat with a lap and shoulder belt

. 6 years old or 60 pounds and greater:
a seatbelt or a booster seat with a lap and shoulder belt


----------



## Clarinet (Nov 3, 2005)

If the law is 6 years and 60 pounds, I'd fight the ticket. It's all about perception, I suppose, but when it comes down to it, the law's the law and since your husband was following the law, he deserves no trouble.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Clarinet* 
If the law is 6 years and 60 pounds, I'd fight the ticket. It's all about perception, I suppose, but when it comes down to it, the law's the law and since your husband was following the law, he deserves no trouble.

Did he get a ticket?


----------



## Clarinet (Nov 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
Did he get a ticket?


Oh, I don't know. I just assumed.


----------



## ~ATenthMuse~ (Mar 16, 2003)

I know you're venting, but since you put it out there...

no, I can't think of a better thing for them to be doing. Making sure a child is properly restrained is part of their job... I guess you'd be surprised how many people DO NOT abide by the carseat laws. I'm happy to know that if my husband sees someone with a child that appears to need to still be in a carseat/booster, he'll pull them over and check. A few minutes of wasted time for your dh, but for the next person, it may save a child's life. I think if you asked anyone that has scooped a child up off the street after an accident what they thought, they'd agree.

I think that making sure they are good with the weight & age limit is the best way to go. If my daughter is less than 60 lbs at 10, she'll still be in her carseat.

ETA: My dd is 4, right at 40 lbs and she's in her Marathon.

I don't want to argue, just wanted to add another viewpoint.

One more thing, I don't think he should have gotten a ticket.


----------



## wende (Oct 4, 2003)

I'm in Oregon too and that law irks me. I have a house full of skinny kids. My ds is also 8years old but he only weighs 50lbs. It could take him until he's 10, or longer, before he's 60lbs at the rate that he gains weight. He's the only one of his friends who's still required to sit in a booster seat and he gets embarrassed. Not that safety doesn't come first, but still...

I don't know if your dh got a ticket, but I'd definately fight it if he did. I can't believe that he even got pulled over for that.


----------



## joesmom (Nov 19, 2001)

it does suck that he got pulled over, when i see babies in arms or tiny kids standing in backseats of cars, but as long as he wasn't actually ticketed, i think it is a good thing that the cops in your area actually care about making sure the kids are safe.

my ex is giving me a hard time at the moment that joe is still using a booster seat. he will be eight in feb. and weighs somewhere between 55-60 pounds. there are commercials airing here that say 4'9'' is the magic number- but i am just committed to keeping him in the booster till feb. when he turrns eight.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

I think it's 8 and 80 lbs here. I don't think it's a big deal, DS2 is going to be 8 this month but is about 50 lbs. He sits in his booster seat, he's not tall enough for the seatbelt to fit him properly without it. I don't think weight should be the issue but rather height, a lot of little people meet the "requirements" but still need a booster for safety reasons.


----------



## whateverdidiwants (Jan 2, 2003)

80 pounds? I didn't reach 80 until 8th grade!


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

I'm sorry but I don't think that's a bad use of police time. I understand your annoyance, though.


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

I've been pulled over by an Oregon cop for the same thing (no ticket). I'm sorry, but after being failed so miserably by the Oregon police when I was getting beat up, I can't help but think they don't have anything better to do. Donuts and harrassing moms, that's their job.

(hoping no one here has an Oregon cop DH







If so, we'll exclude him for the sake of saving me from tomatos being thrown at me)


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

Ok, here is the law here (I guess they can be out of a booster seat if they are 4'9 and less than 80 lbs) DS1 is only 4' ish so he has a long way to go still

Effective August 28, 2006, Missouri law will require children to be transported in a booster seat
if they:
• weigh at least forty pounds, regardless of their age, or
• are at least four years of age but less than eight years; or
• weigh at least forty pounds but less than eighty pounds; or
• are less than 4 feet 9 inches tall.
If there is no combination lap and shoulder belt to accommodate a booster seat, then the child
otherwise required to ride in a booster seat may be transported in the back seat with only a lap
belt.
When there are more children in the driver's immediate family than available seating positions,
their children who are not able to be restrained using a child safety restraint device must sit in
the back seat.


----------



## LDSmomma6 (Oct 31, 2003)

It's 8 and 80 lbs here too. My almost 12 yr old TALL daughter is only 67. She is not about to sit in a booster.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yoshua* 
Nice

In washington your child wouldnt even be required to be in a booster seat

. 1 year of age or under or weighing less than 20 pounds:
a rear facing infant seat

. Between 1 - 4 years old or 20 - 40 pounds:
a forward facing child safety seat

. Between 4 - 6 years old or 40 - 60 pounds:
a booster seat with a lap and shoulder belt

. 6 years old or 60 pounds and greater:
a seatbelt or a booster seat with a lap and shoulder belt

She is not required to be in one in Oregon either, and only until June Yoshua:

Quote:

Washington's New Child Restraint Law
The Washington legislature also updated their child passenger safety law with House Bill 1475. This is a primary law and the fine is $101. *It will take effect June 1, 2007.*

The law has three provisions:

Requires children to use a child safety seat or booster seat up until age eight unless they are four foot nine inches tall.
Requires children under 13 to be seated in the back seat when practical to do so.
Provides liability protection for Child Passenger Safety (CPS) technicians.
The liability protection for CPS Technicians reads: A person who has a current national certification as a CPS technician and who in good faith provides inspection, adjustment, or educational services regarding child passenger restraint systems is not liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission in providing the services, other than acts or omissions constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
Until I read the effective date I thought we had broken the law several times. DH works in Vancouver so we go up there occasionally. But since it is not in effect yet, and DD#1 recently turned 13 and DD#2 is soon to be 8 I don't think we have a problem. The little ones will be in car seats for some time to come yet anyway.

And no DH did not get a ticket but DD was late for school.


----------



## spero (Apr 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *joesmom* 
it does suck that he got pulled over, when i see babies in arms or tiny kids standing in backseats of cars, but as long as he wasn't actually ticketed, i think it is a good thing that the cops in your area actually care about making sure the kids are safe.

ITA. I _wish_ cops around here would pull people over for the "little" things - what, it's been three, four years since the "no cell handset while driving" law was enacted here, and I STILL see idiots *every day* yammering away on their







: cells and doing 75 on the highway.







: But of course the cops aren't gonna see them, 'cause they're going *85* (non-emergency). Argh.

And then I see the unrestrained kids climbing around in cars, the moms driving with their babe in a Bjorn, the carseats that are NOT properly installed and/or buckled (loose straps, chest plate threaded wrong)...

Ugh, I digress. OP - if your H didn't get ticketed, I see nothing wrong with the cop being extra cautious.

But then, 1/2 of my family was involved in a bad accident and I know firsthand the utmost importance of proper restraint (not to mention, smaller kids being in the back seat whenever possible).


----------



## a~...Mamacitaa~... (Sep 18, 2004)

we have the same law in Cali..I have no idea what the law is here in TX..Anyone know?? but hello 60lbs or 6y/o..i would fight it...my son was out of his booster sit when he was 5 cuz he weighed 65lbs.. i would have asked to cop to pulll a scale out of his car and weigh DD..but thats just me.


----------



## Joannarachel (Dec 10, 2005)

He sounds like my kind of cop. He cares enough to pull people over for driving around with unrestrained children.

Children really need to be in booster seats until 4'9" and 80 lbs, minimally. Regardless of what your law is, please consider the officer's advice. Please put your dd in a booster seat.


----------



## AMum (Nov 30, 2001)

Sharlla ~ Do you have a link? My Doc had a poster up in her office that Missouri is now 8 & 80lbs. Perhaps the poster is simplified? Just curious. I'd love to witness a legitimate pull over for lack of carseat use. Just the other day I saw three intelligent, fun loving young women driving along. The woman in the back was holding a tiny baby and the carseat sat alongside her, empty. I'm not even sure if the carseat was installed.







: They were chatting, smiling, having a great time. It really takes so little to injure a baby, just a fender bender







:

When I worked as a bank teller we'd see people come through the drive through with unbelted children of all ages.







: We had an 800 # we'd call to report, not sure if the reports were ever followed up on though.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a

It's on page 3


----------



## momz3 (May 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *skellbelle* 
ITA. I _wish_ cops around here would pull people over for the "little" things - what, it's been three, four years since the "no cell handset while driving" law was enacted here, and I STILL see idiots *every day* yammering away on their







: cells and doing 75 on the highway.







: But of course the cops aren't gonna see them, 'cause they're going *85* (non-emergency). Argh.

And then I see the unrestrained kids climbing around in cars, the moms driving with their babe in a Bjorn, the carseats that are NOT properly installed and/or buckled (loose straps, chest plate threaded wrong)...

Ugh, I digress. OP - if your H didn't get ticketed, I see nothing wrong with the cop being extra cautious.

But then, 1/2 of my family was involved in a bad accident and I know firsthand the utmost importance of proper restraint (not to mention, smaller kids being in the back seat whenever possible).


I'm in 100% agreement with you on this. My motto, better safe than sorry. They were just doing their job. This is how we reduce the amount of fatalities in children in fatal car crashes.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

I just looked our laws up b/c I thought they were 6 yrs and 60 lbs. Apparently, they are 4 and 40. They are looking to change legislation in our state to 8 and 80.

My crew are in boosters still. My oldest is 11 and weighs under 70 lbs. My nine year old is the only one who is out of the booster some as she is 82 lbs. My eight year old is around 73 lbs. They are the same height and the seat belts in our van don't fit right unless they are sitting still at all times, which rarely happens. My five year old is still in a five point car seat.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Yes I do think it's a waste of police time. If the child was completely unstrapped then go for it. But clearly this was at most a borderline judgement call on even questioning it since the child was strapped in and is over the weight and age limit.


----------



## amityfree (Jul 23, 2005)

I wish cops around here would stop for improperly restrained children as well. I see it all the time, and I'm reminded of one accident on the highway recently. A woman rolled her car and had her 2 year old daughter in a properly fitting carseat in the back. Mom was flown away in critical condition. Daughter was FINE, except for some facial lacerations due to glass. Incredible.

It's not so much the law that you have to worry about... it's the safety of your children. Your kids could be within the parameters of the law, but if the seatbelt is fitting improperly, it could cost you their health, or their life. For your almost 8 year old, and inexpensive $20 backless booster will make her seatbelt fit better.

Just chalk this up to 'information is power'.


----------



## a~...Mamacitaa~... (Sep 18, 2004)

i agree too.. i wish the cops around here would care enough to stop cars..I se cars with ppl piled in them.. like 4 ppl in the cab of a truck..and ppl rideing unrestraind in the bed of a pick up..in cali you aren;t allowed to do that.. i was shocked..her you don't have to wear a helmet either...







:


----------



## amityfree (Jul 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini* 
I just looked our laws up b/c I thought they were 6 yrs and 60 lbs. Apparently, they are 4 and 40. They are looking to change legislation in our state to 8 and 80.

My crew are in boosters still. My oldest is 11 and weighs under 70 lbs. My nine year old is the only one who is out of the booster some as she is 82 lbs. My eight year old is around 73 lbs. They are the same height and the seat belts in our van don't fit right unless they are sitting still at all times, which rarely happens. My five year old is still in a five point car seat.









You rock!


----------



## mothragirl (Sep 10, 2005)

you can send those police here, i see kids out of seatbelts everyday! i call 911 everytime, but i can't imagine they always respond.


----------



## momz3 (May 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by **MAMACITA** 
i agree too.. i wish the cops around here would care enough to stop cars..I se cars with ppl piled in them.. like 4 ppl in the cab of a truck..and ppl rideing unrestraind in the bed of a pick up..in cali you aren;t allowed to do that.. i was shocked..her you don't have to wear a helmet either...







:


Yeah here there are ALOT of ppl (mainly soldiers) who ride w/out helmets. The dealers here are even selling cycles without a license...thats why there are so many wrecks here.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LDSmomma6* 
It's 8 and 80 lbs here too. My almost 12 yr old TALL daughter is only 67. She is not about to sit in a booster.

I make my 9 year old sit in a booster. If they don't weigh enough the seatbelt won't lock ( quick enough) in case of an accident. I don't care if it's uncool.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joannarachel* 
He sounds like my kind of cop. He cares enough to pull people over for driving around with unrestrained children.

Children really need to be in booster seats until 4'9" and 80 lbs, minimally. Regardless of what your law is, please consider the officer's advice. Please put your dd in a booster seat.

I agree. 15 pounds to go ...


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joannarachel* 
He sounds like my kind of cop. He cares enough to pull people over for driving around with unrestrained children.

Children really need to be in booster seats until 4'9" and 80 lbs, minimally. Regardless of what your law is, please consider the officer's advice. Please put your dd in a booster seat.

As I said, I am not going to get into a debate about other's personal opinions of what age/pounds children need to be in car seats.

My child was NOT unrestrained, she had her seatbelt on. We were WELL WITHIN the law.

I think instead of the ever changing car seat laws and the bigger and bigger car/booster seats, car manufacturers should be held accountable and forced to put seatbelts into cars that better fit a wider variety of people

I have 5'4", my car has supposedly adjustable seatbelts and my peddles move back and forth so I can have my seat farther back. But since I have a chest, ever five minutes the seatbelt rides up and goes across my neck and chokes me. I am FOREVER readjusting the stupid seatbelt. Now if these things were REALLY adjustable they would better fit shorter adults and children and there would be no need for booster seats. Of course I am sure the car seat manufacturers would be upset about that.


----------



## Electra375 (Oct 2, 2002)

How about safety?
If I used booster seats in my van, the seat only kind, the child's head would be above the back of the seat and pose a serious risk of whip lash or broken neck if I were in a collision. I drive a 15 passenger van.
Honestly, I don't even know the law here in VA anymore. It was changed and then changed again. IMO if a child can ride a school bus at age 5 without a car/ booster seat, then my child age 5 and up can ride in my van with a seatbelt. I think the age is 6 and under in a restraining seat of some sort.

The 6yrs and 60lbs thing would have my 8 yr old still in a booster seat, but be too tall for the regulations of the seat!







:

VENT AWAY!!! I'd be venting too...


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

My DD is 5'4" as well, way to big to be in a booster, and the seatbelt would choke her if we ever got in a bad accident. The laws they have are rediculous, and I totally agree about modifying seat belts.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Electra375* 
How about safety?
IMO if a child can ride a school bus at age 5 without a car/ booster seat, then my child age 5 and up can ride in my van with a seatbelt.

Correct me if I am wrong.

The reason that children can ride in buses at five without restraints is due to the height of the seats and the padding of the seats.

Honestly, my children rarely ride a bus anyway b/c they do not have restraints. They have been on a bus occassionally for a field trip when they wanted to be with their friends, but I really don't feel buses are safe at all.


----------



## spero (Apr 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
car manufacturers should be held accountable and forced to put seatbelts into cars that better fit a wider variety of people

I completely agree!

Maybe we should start an MDC lobbying group


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini* 
The reason that children can ride in buses at five without restraints is due to the height of the seats and the padding of the seats.
.

Ever hit your head on that padding? OWW!!... Besides high seats and padded backs are not going to stop children from flying all over the bus and our out the windows were it to get into a bad accideint.


----------



## papayapetunia (Feb 6, 2006)

I guess they didn't have any paranoid-schizophrenics to beat to death that day.


----------



## momz3 (May 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
As I said, I am not going to get into a debate about other's personal opinions of what age/pounds children need to be in car seats.

My child was NOT unrestrained, she had her seatbelt on. We were WELL WITHIN the law.

I think instead of the ever changing car seat laws and the bigger and bigger car/booster seats, car manufacturers should be held accountable and forced to put seatbelts into cars that better fit a wider variety of people

I have 5'4", my car has supposedly adjustable seatbelts and my peddles move back and forth so I can have my seat farther back. But since I have a chest, ever five minutes the seatbelt rides up and goes across my neck and chokes me. I am FOREVER readjusting the stupid seatbelt. Now if these things were REALLY adjustable they would better fit shorter adults and children and there would be no need for booster seats. Of course I am sure the car seat manufacturers would be upset about that.


some vehicles have already installed child restraints. My dads van (forget model) has some. WHen my kids go with him, we never have to remember to hand over the boosters and carseats.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

I don't think it was a bad thing that he stopped your dh to check it out. I wish they did that around here. It's horrible here, really. Some people just don't get it. I am not saying you, just others, like my BIL and SIL. SIL had their ds on her lap in the front seat when he was just 18 - 24 months and they hit a deer. He got slammed into the dashboard and hurt his hand pretty bad. We are all lucky that nothing worse happened to him, but they still didn't bother to use the carseat after that for him or their dd they had after him.









WI law says

Quote:

Citations may be issued starting in January of 2007

Second and subsequent violations during the grace period are citable.

In basic terms:

* Children must be in a car seat until they reach age 4 and in a booster seat until they reach age 8
* Tiered structure now applies:
o Less than 1 year old, or less than 20 lbs. must be in a rear-facing child seat in the back seat (if so equipped)
o Age 1 to age 4, or less than 40 lbs. must be in a forward-facing child seat in the back seat (if so equipped)
o Age 4 to age 8, between 40-80 lbs., and no more than 4 ft. 9 ins. must be in a booster seat
* The fines remain the same, although tiered for ages 0-4 and ages 4-8
* The exemption allowing temporary removal of a child from a restraint to attend to personal needs has been removed
* The exemption for physical, medical, or body size condition still applies to booster seats and seat belts
So, in the state of WI, your dd must be in a booster, unless she is 4' 9" or over.

I am glad your dh didn't get a ticket, because you are within the law. Even though it was a bit of a pain, the cop really was looking out for your dd's safety here. I hope that he has been able to make things safer for some other children who were not restrained according to the laws.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
Ever hit your head on that padding? OWW!!... Besides high seats and padded backs are not going to stop children from flying all over the bus and our out the windows were it to get into a bad accideint.

I completely agree with you....I was asking in reference to someone who posted if five year olds can ride in a bus unrestrained then they were safe in their vehicle.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Electra375*
IMO if a child can ride a school bus at age 5 without a car/ booster seat, then my child age 5 and up can ride in my van with a seatbelt.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *papayapetunia* 
I guess they didn't have any paranoid-schizophrenics to beat to death that day.

Well it is only 11am. Who knows what the rest of the day will hold. I can't believe the number of police shootings/beatings that go on around here. Seems so much more than when we lived in the Bay Area.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Why does everyone keeping comparing this to stopping people with unrestrained children? Her child was not unrestrained and no one here supports kids being unrestrained yet I've repeatedly seen people post that they think it's fine that her husband was stopped because there are so many unrestrained kids.

2 different things


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna* 
Why does everyone keeping comparing this to stopping people with unrestrained children? Her child was not unrestrained and no one here supports kids being unrestrained yet I've repeatedly seen people post that they think it's fine that her husband was stopped because there are so many unrestrained kids.

2 different things

A child that is improperly restrained for their age/weight/height is dangerous too.


----------



## momz3 (May 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tayndrewsmama* 
A child that is improperly restrained for their age/weight/height is dangerous too.

YES! My friend had her baby restrained...but the seat was in the wrong way AND he was facing the wrong direction. She couldn't figure out "What the big deal was.."







:


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tayndrewsmama* 
A child that is improperly restrained for their age/weight/height is dangerous too.

According to state law, she was not. She is not even borderline.


----------



## FreeThinkinMama (Aug 3, 2004)

I don't see a problem with the officer pulling over your husband in the first place. Age and weight are incredibly hard to estimate when someone is driving by, heck even if they're right in front of you.

But once he realized that your child was well over the limits he should have apologized and left it at that. 7 pounds and 2 years over is not borderline IMO.


----------



## Jennifer Z (Sep 15, 2002)

I am a mean mom. My kids will be in booster seats until they are 4'9", no matter what their age. If for some reason they are shorter than that when they are wanting their driver's liscence, we will have the car altered to accomodate them. They will stay in the actual car seat until they grow out of it, and that won't be until either 65 or 100lbs (we are only at 43 right now, so I don't have the info in my head). Most of the other kids at preschool are just in boosters.

Cars are simply not safe for anybody under that. The safety devices are not designed to keep them safe smaller than that. Plus, as the age limits have gone up, the booster seats have gotten much more "kid fashion sense" friendly. A lot of the boosters look downright cool.

I can deal with being the 'bad guy' a whole lot better than greiving the injury or loss of a child when there was an easy solution for it to not happen.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
According to state law, she was not. She is not even borderline.

I didn't say that she was. I even said that I am glad he didn't get a ticket because you guys are within the law on this. My response was not to say that your dd was improperly restrained, it was to explain another reason for an officer to pull someone over besides for a child who is completely unrestrained.


----------



## momz3 (May 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jennifer Z* 
I am a mean mom. My kids will be in booster seats until they are 4'9", no matter what their age. If for some reason they are shorter than that when they are wanting their driver's liscence, we will have the car altered to accomodate them. They will stay in the actual car seat until they grow out of it, and that won't be until either 65 or 100lbs (we are only at 43 right now, so I don't have the info in my head). Most of the other kids at preschool are just in boosters.

Cars are simply not safe for anybody under that. The safety devices are not designed to keep them safe smaller than that. Plus, as the age limits have gone up, the booster seats have gotten much more "kid fashion sense" friendly. A lot of the boosters look downright cool.

I can deal with being the 'bad guy' a whole lot better than greiving the injury or loss of a child when there was an easy solution for it to not happen.


You aren't a mean mom lol


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momz3* 
You aren't a mean mom lol

















: Dd has spent the last 45 minutes sitting in her new Regent that the UPS man just brought for her. 5 point harness to 80 lbs baby!!







I found a closeout price on a specific fabric.


----------



## ~ATenthMuse~ (Mar 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *papayapetunia* 
I guess they didn't have any paranoid-schizophrenics to beat to death that day.

You know, I understand exactly what you're trying to say, but still, I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that the majority of cops are out just to kick some ass. I think the wives and other relatives of police officers/ leo on MDC would agree.


----------



## momz3 (May 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mum2a&a* 
You know, I understand exactly what you're trying to say, but still, I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that the majority of cops are out just to kick some ass. I think the wives and other relatives of police officers/ leo on MDC would agree.

Yes as my BIL is a state trooper and is a damned good one.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mum2a&a* 
You know, I understand exactly what you're trying to say, but still, I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that the majority of cops are out just to kick some ass. I think the wives and other relatives of police officers/ leo on MDC would agree.


I completely agree with you. I found this statement highly offensive.


----------



## LDSmomma6 (Oct 31, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
I make my 9 year old sit in a booster. If they don't weigh enough the seatbelt won't lock ( quick enough) in case of an accident. I don't care if it's uncool.


Yeah, but 9 isn't 12. When you were 12 would you have sat in a booster? I didn't think so.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LDSmomma6* 
Yeah, but 9 isn't 12. When you were 12 would you have sat in a booster? I didn't think so.

My oldest is 11.5 and sits in a booster seat everyday. He doesn't complain or gripe about it. He knows that is the safest place for him and he doesn't even question it. I have yet to encounter an issue with friends or relatives even saying anything to him about it.


----------



## Live~Laugh~Love (Dec 21, 2004)

I am 160 lbs, and 5'5''.... I wish I could be in a carseat, i can barely see over my steering wheel...LOL

My ex had my DS out of a carseat at 3 years old, I am still fighting for custody... OOOOh how I wish he'd been caught.


----------



## LDSmomma6 (Oct 31, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini*
My oldest is 11.5 and sits in a booster seat everyday. He doesn't complain or gripe about it. He knows that is the safest place for him and he doesn't even question it. I have yet to encounter an issue with friends or relatives even saying anything to him about it.


Great, that's awesome.


----------



## bobandjess99 (Aug 1, 2005)

here, you do not have to ride in a booster if you meet ANY ONE of the criteria...80 pounds, 8 years old, or 4'9"

So, technically, an 80 pound 4 year old doesn't have to ride in a booster....
Neither does a tiny, 45 pound 8 year old (which we had one of....lol)

sigh
trying to talk dh into a regent right now....


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LDSmomma6* 
Great, that's awesome.

Yes, it is. I am glad he is able to understand the importance of safety in the car and realizes the consequences that could occur by not being as safe as possible when riding in a vehicle.


----------



## RiverSky (Jun 26, 2005)

I'm glad the OP's DH didn't get a ticket, but even if he did, it would have been fairly easily defended.

We have the Britax booster seats, they are well padded, comfy and they have true side impact protection...sitting in a car regularly, with a regular lap & shoulder belt are not nearly as safe. Plus, the maximum weight for the Britax booster is 100 lbs. You also need to pay attention to where the shoulder belts lie in each position of the vehicle. We have a Honda Odyssey and actually, in the middle row, the seat belts are quite adjustable and can accommodate a large child pretty well, meaning they do not cut into their neck, but in the third row, the seat belts do not do that. I have a 10 year old nephew who is only 60 lbs and he is very short for his age and on the rare occasion when he is in my car, I make sure he sits in the second row, where the seat belt can actually be adjusted to accommodate his small size, despite his being 10..

My children will sit in their boosters until they are at least 4'9" and perhaps until they reach 100 lbs. It's just so much safer and will reduce injuries in any accidents that we might have. Our family has been rear-ended a couple of times in the last couple of years, through absolutely not fault of ours, so I know well what pain and misery comes from being in an accident and how important proper safety restraints are.

I think a lot of people are just really complacent about accidents, thinking they will never be in one. I have never been in one (I was not there for either accident) but since I've seen first hand all the turmoil and havoc and pain those accidents caused, I will never take car seat safety for granted again.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Yeah, I pretty much agree that ideally, a police officer should have something better to do than to pull people over who aren't breaking the law in order to share his or her opinion. In this case it was probably a traffic cop who wasn't sure if you were beaking the law until after he pulled your DH over, but you can't help but feel frustrated by all the law breaking that goes by undetected, and it's normal to wonder if this was the best allocation of his time. I might see it as comforting that it was a slow enough day that he had time to give to something that he might have given a pass on on another day. But I have experienced police officers going beyond the scope of their duties at times, to the detriment of the people on the other end, so that tends to influence my opinion on this topic.

I will say that this served at least the purpose of making me aware of the 4'9" rule. I had honestly not heard that. My older daughter is legally able to ride without a booster, but she is shorter than 4-9. She recently stopped riding in her booster when it got moved to another car, and I didn't put the booster back because the seatbelt fits properly against her torso without the seat. It doesn't with me--it always rides up against my neck. I was going by fit and the law, not by height, but I'll revisit the topic now after reading this.


----------



## Jennifer Z (Sep 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LDSmomma6* 
Yeah, but 9 isn't 12. When you were 12 would you have sat in a booster? I didn't think so.

If it was the only way my mom would have driven me anyplace I would have.


----------



## joesmom (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jennifer Z* 
If it was the only way my mom would have driven me anyplace I would have.










Exactly. Joe fights me on some things that he thinks are unfair- I can't think of an example right now, but ykwim- typical seven year old stuff- but he does not argue about the booster because he knows it is non negotiable. (Although his dad is getting on my nerves of late, telling HIM and me that Joe does not NEED to be in a booster according to state law. We are on the border of two states, the state he lives in is 6 & 60, the state Joe & I live in is 8 & 80, so I am going by MY state lol... either way it is only a few more months.)


----------



## rabrog (Dec 20, 2005)

The way the laws work (my understanding) is this: when DD turns 6yo, you weigh her. If she is still under 60 pounds, she's still in a booster seat. If she is under 6yo and over 60 pounds, she's still in a booster seat.

You were okay on both fronts. I'd keep a copy of her birth certificate and a recent stats sheet (height/weight) in the car for this type of BS.

And yes, that's what cops are there for. However, when a cop is told the child is over the weight and age minimum, he should say "okay, I was just checking" and MOVE ON!

Jenn


----------



## GearGirl (Mar 16, 2005)

Well it depends on where you are. The way I read the California law is that it is 6 years or 60 pounds. That means that if you are six years old you no longer need a booster even if you weigh 40 pounds. If you are 60 pounds and three years old, no booster needed by law. It doesn't say 6 years and 60 pounds, it says or. For rear facing infants the law is usually something like rear facing until one year old and at least 20 pounds, so in that case both are needed (although after the Britney Spears case it seems CA does not have this law...). I'm not agreeing with the 6 or 60, because my 6 year old is tiny and just because he can go without doesn't mean he should, but reading the little excerpt of the law he is legally ok to ride without at 45 pounds. I haven't studied the law, but I quickly reviewed it when he turned 6, and it was definitely an OR. In this case the op met both, so definitely not borderline, I think borderline are the kids that meet one without the other, but even they are within the law. I am glad the police are checking for this though, I hope it saves some lives.


----------



## Joannarachel (Dec 10, 2005)

Just because you were 'within the law' of your state, OP, does not mean you were within the laws of physics. Laws change from state to state. The laws of physics don't.

Your husband got pulled over because the cop thought your daughter may have been improperly restrained. GOOD FOR HIM. THANK GOD for cops who take their jobs seriously. He didn't get a ticket. I don't know WHAT you are complaining about.

According to the laws of physics, your dd should still be in a booster. You learned something today. Spend the 20 bucks and buy the girl a booster. She'll be safer.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joannarachel* 
Just because you were 'within the law' of your state, OP, does not mean you were within the laws of physics. Laws change from state to state. The laws of physics don't.

Your husband got pulled over because the cop thought your daughter may have been improperly restrained. GOOD FOR HIM. THANK GOD for cops who take their jobs seriously. He didn't get a ticket. I don't know WHAT you are complaining about.

According to the laws of physics, your dd should still be in a booster. You learned something today. Spend the 20 bucks and buy the girl a booster. She'll be safer.

Yea for the third time, my intent was not to debate other peoples OPINIONS of car seat laws, but to vent about a cop wasting everyones time and making my DD late for school when we were WELL WITHIN THE LAW. I also had never heard of this 4'9" thing until this thread. DD is 4'3".

And when they start designing cars that you can put multipal carseats/booster seats into maybe I will think about it. Until then, the children who don't need them, don't ride in them so I can fit the ones that do in. Of course I still say they should simply make seatbelts that can be used by everyone. Most adults can't use them properly.

Oh and California law is 6 years old or 60 lbs, whichever is FIRST. (Native Californian here.)


----------



## Joannarachel (Dec 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
Yea for the third time, my intent was not to debate other peoples OPINIONS of car seat laws, but to vent about a cop wasting everyones time and making my DD late for school when we were WELL WITHIN THE LAW. I also had never heard of this 4'9" thing until this thread. DD is 4'3".

And when they start designing cars that you can put multipal carseats/booster seats into maybe I will think about it. Until then, the children who don't need them, don't ride in them so I can fit the ones that do in. Of course I still say they should simply make seatbelts that can be used by everyone. Most adults can't use them properly.

Oh and California law is 6 years old or 60 lbs, whichever is FIRST. (Native Californian here.)

Has nothing to do with opinions. This is researchable, verifiable fact. It's not a secret that a child under 4'9" isn't safe in a car seat. You keep listing lots of shouldas/oughttas, but the facts remain the same.

I'm really only interested in this post in regards to the safety of your dc. I don't feel that the cop did anything wrong. In fact, I admire his dedication to your child's safety.

You've been educated as to the laws of physics (again, the laws of California are somewhat irrelevant). Now that you are aware your dd isn't safe, won't you just buy her a booster?


----------



## wende (Oct 4, 2003)

It's amazing to me that so many of you say that you'd keep your child in a booster seat until they are 100lbs. I weighed 98lbs until I was 22 years old. It took my THIRD child to push me over the 100lb mark. I'm quite certain that I'd not have sat in a booster until I was 22 years old. I'm only 110lbs now, and 5'7" tall. Who's to say that if I were to get into an accident that my seatbelt would lock up properly or would it assume that I should be broader?

Also, and I wish I had the info here, my oldest dd takes a child development class in high school where she recently learned that carseats really reach their maximum efficiency at 2 years of age. A 50lb 8yo would be no safer in a booster seat than in a seatbelt according to this study. I don't know how accurate it is, and I'm certainly abiding by the law and my own comfort level when it comes to carseats but it's an interresting thing to consider.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Not debating anything, but I thought this was interesting:

Quote:

Seatbelt/Child Restraint Laws
The following are general descriptions of Oregon's safety belt and child restraint laws. Specific wording of statutory requirements can be found at ORS 811.210 - 811.225. (Note: You will have to scroll down to the appropriate statute number).

ADULT BELT LAW: Oregon law requires that all motor vehicle operators and passengers be properly secured with a safety belt or safety harness. Limited exemptions are allowed under ORS 811.215. Vehicle owners are required to maintain belt systems in working order.

CHILD RESTRAINT LAW: Child passengers must be restrained in approved child safety seats until age four OR forty pounds.

*BOOSTER SEAT LAW: Once a child has attained four years of age OR forty pounds in weight, then the child must be restrained in a booster seat until age six AND sixty pounds. This means the booster requirement would apply to children older than six if they have not yet attained sixty pounds, and likewise would apply to a child over sixty pounds IF they have not yet reached age six. The booster law does not apply to vehicles with lap-only belts in the rear seat.*

NATIONAL "BEST PRACTICE" RECOMMENDATIONS: USDOT National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends the following for maximizing your child passengers' safety:

Child Seats. Children should ride in a child safety seat with a harness until their shoulders are above the top set of strap slots (usually until they are 4 years old). The harness provides upper torso, head, and neck protection.

*Booster Seats. When children have outgrown their safety seat, they should ride in an age/size appropriate restraint, such as a belt-positioning booster seat. In general, children who have outgrown child safety seats should be properly restrained in booster seats until they are at least 8 years old. However, children who reach a height of 4 feet 9 inches before their eighth birthday may be ready for adult safety belts.*

Back Seating. Children aged twelve and under should ride in rear seating positions. Research indicates that such rear positioning reduces the risk of crash injury by 37% for that age group.
From the Oregon Department of Transportation.

I wonder why they put the recommendations on there. It's great that they do, but if they think it's important enough to list right below the Oregon laws, why not just make it the law?


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wende* 
It's amazing to me that so many of you say that you'd keep your child in a booster seat until they are 100lbs. I weighed 98lbs until I was 22 years old. It took my THIRD child to push me over the 100lb mark. I'm quite certain that I'd not have sat in a booster until I was 22 years old. I'm only 110lbs now, and 5'7" tall. Who's to say that if I were to get into an accident that my seatbelt would lock up properly or would it assume that I should be broader?

But, you are missing the part about being 4' 9". At that point, they don't need to be in there. I think most of the posters here are aware of that, but maybe some aren't.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wende* 
Also, and I wish I had the info here, my oldest dd takes a child development class in high school where she recently learned that carseats really reach their maximum efficiency at 2 years of age. A 50lb 8yo would be no safer in a booster seat than in a seatbelt according to this study. I don't know how accurate it is, and I'm certainly abiding by the law and my own comfort level when it comes to carseats but it's an interresting thing to consider.

I am really curious to know how to locate this study and how old it is. What kind of seats is it based on and so on?


----------



## Joannarachel (Dec 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tayndrewsmama* 

I am really curious to know how to locate this study and how old it is. What kind of seats is it based on and so on?


I am sure the study referred to that bogus load-of-poop done by the so-called "Freakonomics" professor (who is, btw, an economist and has no knowledge of child safety).

He has been roundly criticized for poorly interpretting his data. He failed to take into account the number of carseats which were improperly installed. His statistical analysis is therefore irrelevant.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joannarachel* 
I am sure the study referred to that bogus load-of-poop done by the so-called "Freakonomics" professor (who is, btw, an economist and has no knowledge of child safety).

He has been roundly criticized for poorly interpretting his data. He failed to take into account the number of carseats which were improperly installed. His statistical analysis is therefore irrelevant.

Well, the other thing I was thinking of is race car drivers. Aren't they in harnesses too? I find it highly unlikely that they are out of the loop, so to speak, on safety restraints.


----------



## GearGirl (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joannarachel* 
Has nothing to do with opinions. This is researchable, verifiable fact. It's not a secret that a child under 4'9" isn't safe in a car seat. You keep listing lots of shouldas/oughttas, but the facts remain the same.

I'm really only interested in this post in regards to the safety of your dc. I don't feel that the cop did anything wrong. In fact, I admire his dedication to your child's safety.

You've been educated as to the laws of physics (again, the laws of California are somewhat irrelevant). Now that you are aware your dd isn't safe, won't you just buy her a booster?

Joannarachel - while I definitely agree with your opinion wholeheartedly, and I don't think the officer was wrong to check, I have to say that I think the point is that even if research supports your position, the police are there to enforce the law, not an opinion of what the law should be. If laws need to be changed that has to be done at the legislative level, and police can not decide that the law should be XYZ and therefore stop someone based on their own interpretation. That would be chaos, obviously. In this case the OP was simply stating that in her opinion her child clearly met the law and she felt they shouldn't have been stopped. I think it is hard to judge size and age, and I'm glad the police care enough to stop people to check, but I don't think that is the same as saying that the police are right to stop her because it is unsafe. They might be right to stop because they couldn't tell if she was old enough or big enough, but if they knew she was (and I'm sure they didn't) they would have no basis for the stop.


----------



## FreeThinkinMama (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jennifer Z* 
I am a mean mom. My kids will be in booster seats until they are 4'9", no matter what their age. If for some reason they are shorter than that when they are wanting their driver's liscence, we will have the car altered to accomodate them. They will stay in the actual car seat until they grow out of it, and that won't be until either 65 or 100lbs (we are only at 43 right now, so I don't have the info in my head). Most of the other kids at preschool are just in boosters.

Cars are simply not safe for anybody under that. The safety devices are not designed to keep them safe smaller than that. Plus, as the age limits have gone up, the booster seats have gotten much more "kid fashion sense" friendly. A lot of the boosters look downright cool.

I can deal with being the 'bad guy' a whole lot better than greiving the injury or loss of a child when there was an easy solution for it to not happen.

Do you really think a booster seat makes your child completely safe? There's no such thing as a safe person of any age riding around in a car. I don't care how long you keep them in a booster seat, how many air bags your car has etc, there are no guarantees in life.


----------



## Irishmommy (Nov 19, 2001)

As this has turned into a carseat informatin thread, I'm going to go ahead and move it to Parenting.


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LDSmomma6* 
Yeah, but 9 isn't 12. When you were 12 would you have sat in a booster? I didn't think so.

Haven't read the rest of the thread yet...but I am JUST old enough to remember the total and complete embarassment I experienced when my parents so cruelly forced me to wear a seatbelt when that became law...I think I was around 12.

Nasty ass parents I had, just HORRIBLE. I am still in therapy today about the trauma they caused me.

Guess what...I got over it.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
Haven't read the rest of the thread yet...but I am JUST old enough to remember the total and complete embarassment I experienced when my parents so cruelly forced me to wear a seatbelt when that became law...I think I was around 12.

Nasty ass parents I had, just HORRIBLE. I am still in therapy today about the trauma they caused me.

Guess what...I got over it.


----------



## Canadianmommax3 (Mar 6, 2006)

:


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FreeThinkinMama* 
Do you really think a booster seat makes your child completely safe? There's no such thing as a safe person of any age riding around in a car. I don't care how long you keep them in a booster seat, how many air bags your car has etc, there are no guarantees in life.

Where has anyone said it was a guarentee--it's all about being as safe as you can and as is reasonable. Should we also decide that bike helmets are silly because they can't make your child completely safe if he collides with a transport truck??
Sorry, I find this to be a completely nonsensical statement. Hey, I have an idea, why don't we all hire rehabilitated pedophiles as babysitters, after all, do we really think we're guarenteed of a safe sitter just because they didn't have a criminal record before taking care of our children??


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Oh dear Shannon, you're killing me.







: Thanks, I really needed that.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
According to state law, she was not. She is not even borderline.


Most state laws suck big time....doesn't mean that your child is still safe to ride in a vehicle without a child restraint, when all cars are built for an average adult. That's the reason behind booster seat use. Boosters retrofit a vehicles lap and shoulder belt to fit our kids by raising them so that the belt stays put and lies on their body correctly. If your DC can pass the 5 step test AND meets state law criteria, then she doesn't have to be in a booster seat at all. Keep in mind that just because a child passes the 5 step test in one car, doesn't mean they will in all cars. Every car is different and must be tested individually.

Check this out:
http://www.carseat.org/Boosters/630.htm

Dallaschildren
CPS Instructor and momma to 2 sons in seats


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by **MAMACITA** 
we have the same law in Cali..I have no idea what the law is here in TX..Anyone know?? but hello 60lbs or 6y/o..i would fight it...my son was out of his booster sit when he was 5 cuz he weighed 65lbs.. i would have asked to cop to pulll a scale out of his car and weigh DD..but thats just me.


Texas law as of Sept. 2005 is the child must be in a child restraint (includes booster seats) until 5 years old AND 36" in height. Lobbying to change that at present and will be back in Austin soon.

Dallaschildren
CPS Instructor and momma to 2 sons in seats


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Just a few very real facts about booster seat use and subsequent injury without their use:

Children ages 2-5 who are prematurely graduated to safety belts are four times more likely to suffer a serious head injury in a crash than those restrained in child safety seats or booster seats.
Estimates show that booster seats reduce the risk of injury by 59 percent compared with the use of an adult safety belt alone.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have child restraint laws. In 36 states and the District of Columbia all children younger than 16 are covered by either safety belt laws or child restraint laws.
As of November 1, 2005, 36 states and the district of Columbia had upgraded their child restraint laws to require the use of booster seats or other appropriate child restraint device by children up to as old as 9.

Booster seats are the most under used, yet most needed category of child restraints.

Dallaschildren
CPS Instructor and momma to 2 sons in seats


----------



## Amylcd (Jun 16, 2005)

Does anyone know the Ohio state law on this? I've heard it was 4 years and 40 pounds... that just seems way too small to stop using a booster. My friend always brings up the "law" when I mention that her kid is way too short and skinny to be sitting in the regular seat.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
I don't want to debate peoples opinion's of booster seat laws and ages I just want to vent about a cop being ridiculous.

The booster seat law in Oregon is 6 years old or 60 lbs. I have yet to figure out if it is which comes first or last. Regardless DD is going to be 8 in six days and weighs 67lbs. DH just got pulled over because she wasn't in a booster seat.







: Hello!! Couldn't you find someone who was actually breaking a law to harass??? DD is by NO MEANS small for her age either. DH is 6'6" so she is among the tallest of her age group.

DH was told since she was borderline she should be in a booster seat. Two years over the age is boarderline????

I haven't seen where you mentioned he was given a citation for it. Was he? And if so, and she meets your state criteria, simply take a copy of her BC and a note from a doctor stating her current weight, and fight the ticket. Was the officer doing his job? Yes. I wish more officers would care like that. If he was wrong, then simply get the ticket dismissed.

Dallaschildren
CPS Instructor and momma to 2 sons in seats


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mum2a&a* 
I think if you asked anyone that has scooped a child up off the street after an accident what they thought, they'd agree.

Word, been there, done that, still have nightmares. It's true, there is NOTHING that officer could have been doing that would be more important than checking up to make sure a child is properly restrained.

My youngest Godson is 21, when he was here in August we lent him our truck to visit a friend. He was pulled over...TWICE because an officer thought he looked to young to be driving. Both times the officer called us to ensure that we knew he had our truck and both times I thanked that officer for being concerned. It's true, Mark, while 6'3 looks like he's about 14. I'd rather have them say "Sorry to bug you" than say "Can you identify this body?"


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amylcd* 
Does anyone know the Ohio state law on this? I've heard it was 4 years and 40 pounds... that just seems way too small to stop using a booster. My friend always brings up the "law" when I mention that her kid is way too short and skinny to be sitting in the regular seat.

Here are the current laws in every state as of Sept. 2005.

http://nhtsa.gov/people/injury/airba...aintschart.pdf

I need to note that TEXAS is incorrect. It says 4 and 36"....but shortly after this came out from NHTSA, our bill was passed increasing the age to 5 yo AND 36". Just wanted to clarify that. So basically, re-verify these laws with your local PD.

Dallaschildren
CPS Instructor and momma to 2 sons in seats


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amylcd* 
Does anyone know the Ohio state law on this? I've heard it was 4 years and 40 pounds... that just seems way too small to stop using a booster. My friend always brings up the "law" when I mention that her kid is way too short and skinny to be sitting in the regular seat.

Well, if by regular seat, you mean with no booster seat, it appears that your friend is mistaken. Ohio carseat and booster laws I can't quote it because it is a pdf document though.


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Btw, we recently purchased this booster for ME. http://www.canadiantire.ca/browse/pr...=1162522691487
I am 5' tall and for our new van I was quite aware that I was NOT tall enough for the seatbelt
I expect I'll get teased horribly by my fellow 30 something'ers.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
Btw, we recently purchased this booster for ME. http://www.canadiantire.ca/browse/pr...=1162522691487
I am 5' tall and for our new van I was quite aware that I was NOT tall enough for the seatbelt
I expect I'll get teased horribly by my fellow 30 something'ers.

Ack! I can't see it. It's asking me for a postal code. US codes apparently are invalid.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Nevermind, I just put in one of the examples they gave. Wow, I have never seen one of those before. My mom should totally have one of those! I'd look up more info on it, if it wasn't in French!







I have no idea what it says.


----------



## joesmom (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wende* 
It's amazing to me that so many of you say that you'd keep your child in a booster seat until they are 100lbs. I weighed 98lbs until I was 22 years old. It took my THIRD child to push me over the 100lb mark. I'm quite certain that I'd not have sat in a booster until I was 22 years old. I'm only 110lbs now, and 5'7" tall. Who's to say that if I were to get into an accident that my seatbelt would lock up properly or would it assume that I should be broader?

I am 33 and weigh 94ish pounds. I am only 5'3''. When I sit in the front seat of my parent's Elantra, the air bag sensor turns the air bag off; I think it thinks I am 10 years old!







However, I don't need a booster seat. I am old enough to sit properly in the car, so that the seat belt lies where it is supposed to. If you look at this link:

http://www.carseat.org/Boosters/630.htm

which Dallaschildren posted, there are five questions asked:

Quote:

The 5-Step Test.

1. Does the child sit all the way back against the auto seat?
2. Do the child's knees bend comfortably at the edge of the auto seat?
3. Does the belt cross the shoulder between the neck and arm?
4. Is the lap belt as low as possible, touching the thighs?
5. Can the child stay seated like this for the whole trip?
_Most_ adults can pass this test, even if they are short in stature.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tayndrewsmama* 
But, you are missing the part about being 4' 9". At that point, they don't need to be in there. I think most of the posters here are aware of that, but maybe some aren't.

Yep. It might take Joe awhile to get to 80 pounds, but he is definitely pushing 4'9''... When he was born I assumed he'd be out of a booster when he turned four- but times have definitely changed. I am glad they have, too. I would much rather have the MINOR inconvenience of carting a booster seat wherever we go, than having to deal with the consequences of an improperly restrained child in a crash. I wish so much that joesdad would feel this way!!


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joannarachel* 
Has nothing to do with opinions. This is researchable, verifiable fact. It's not a secret that a child under 4'9" isn't safe in a car seat. You keep listing lots of shouldas/oughttas, but the facts remain the same.

I'm really only interested in this post in regards to the safety of your dc. I don't feel that the cop did anything wrong. In fact, I admire his dedication to your child's safety.

You've been educated as to the laws of physics (again, the laws of California are somewhat irrelevant). Now that you are aware your dd isn't safe, won't you just buy her a booster?

Someone was asking about the California law, I was informing them what it was.

I also don't feel my DH was pulled over for any sort of care about my child's safety but for an opertunity to fill the county coffers with money via a ticket. If the cop cared about DD's safety he might have stated current research says this that or the other. Instead, when he found out dd was legal, he whined that she was boarderline and should be in a booster seat even though she is no where near boarderline.

Off to read the rest of the posts while I was gone.....


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tayndrewsmama* 
Ack! I can't see it. It's asking me for a postal code. US codes apparently are invalid.










Well then, you can use my postal code
L0P 1J0


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tayndrewsmama* 
Not debating anything, but I thought this was interesting:

From the Oregon Department of Transportation.

I wonder why they put the recommendations on there. It's great that they do, but if they think it's important enough to list right below the Oregon laws, why not just make it the law?

They tired to pass it as law in Calfornia several years ago and it failed. They were only able to pass the 6 or 60lbs. Maybe the same thing happened here.

Thanks for letting me know it was AND and not OR however. Of course I don't think it will matter since I am sure the laws will change again before my next reaches that age.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dallaschildren* 
I haven't seen where you mentioned he was given a citation for it. Was he? And if so, and she meets your state criteria, simply take a copy of her BC and a note from a doctor stating her current weight, and fight the ticket. Was the officer doing his job? Yes. I wish more officers would care like that. If he was wrong, then simply get the ticket dismissed.

Dallaschildren
CPS Instructor and momma to 2 sons in seats

No he did not get a ticket, but fighting a ticket is a big pain in the butt as you have to take time off work to go to court, THEN they schedule you a court date and you have to take MORE time off work.

We are finding this out fighting a parking ticket that dh should not have gotten.

They make it as difficult as possible. They just want money.


----------



## Bartock (Feb 2, 2006)

Here in British Columbia Canada the law is 80lbs *Psst, I always breck the law)* DS is 4ft 65 lbs, and he complains that his booster hurts his legs, if we do an outta town trip he has to sit in it and he's cool with that part of sitting in it.


----------



## joesmom (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovemy2ds* 
Here in British Columbia Canada the law is 80lbs *Psst, I always breck the law)* DS is 4ft 65 lbs, and he complains that his booster hurts his legs, if we do an outta town trip he has to sit in it and he's cool with that part of sitting in it.


Most accidents happen close to home though.







:

I have never heard a kid say the boosters are uncomfortable. The ones Joe & my nephews have are nice & comfy. (I sit in Joe's sometimes, but only when it is not in the car!







)


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

Well, I see this as a bigger issue with the police state. I don't think it's okay for cops to pull you over just to check if you're breaking the law. How is that any different from CPS demanding entry to your house just to check if you're beating your children? I think we should be just as safe from search, seizure, and detainment in our automobiles as in our homes. Guess I'm getting too out there for MDC these days.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
They tired to pass it as law in Calfornia several years ago and it failed. They were only able to pass the 6 or 60lbs. Maybe the same thing happened here.

Who would lobby against stricter child restraint laws? I can't think of a company that would benefit from lax laws, so I wonder what the reasons are for voting it down if the research is readily available that they should be stricter in the laws.







: I find it hard to believe that parents would be calling their reps and asking that they vote it down. It just seems that anyone paying attention to those laws enough to call about it would likely be in favor of it. I guess I am getting way too far off track now though.







:


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *joesmom* 
Most accidents happen close to home though.







:

I have never heard a kid say the boosters are uncomfortable. The ones Joe & my nephews have are nice & comfy. (I sit in Joe's sometimes, but only when it is not in the car!







)









Yes they do. 11 years ago I was in a really bad accident less than 5 minutes from home. I was in the head trauma unit for 3 days and wasn't even concious for half the time. A friend's dh was killed in a horrible pile up less than 5 minutes from their home too.

I pretty sure that I recently read that if a booster seat causes pain of uncomfort to the child that it it not the right seat for them. I can't remember where it was though.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tayndrewsmama* 
Who would lobby against stricter child restraint laws? I can't think of a company that would benefit from lax laws, so I wonder what the reasons are for voting it down if the research is readily available that they should be stricter in the laws.







: I find it hard to believe that parents would be calling their reps and asking that they vote it down. It just seems that anyone paying attention to those laws enough to call about it would likely be in favor of it. I guess I am getting way too far off track now though.







:

Because it was felt they were TOO strict. The orginal law was 4 or 40 lbs. It changed in about 2002 just before DD turned 4. I remember because my niece is 5 months older than DD and we knew the law was changing but had not gone into effect yet. My brother still took his daughter out of the car seat at 4 in june and had to put her back into it in Jan. (Unless he ignored the law and never put her back, I lived 160 miles away.) I just never took DD out of the car seat as I knew she would just have to go right back in.

So stricter laws were passed. Just not AS strict as some were trying to pass.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
Because it was felt they were TOO strict.

Well, that's obvious, but based on what is what I am wondering.


----------



## wende (Oct 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
No he did not get a ticket, but fighting a ticket is a big pain in the butt as you have to take time off work to go to court, THEN they schedule you a court date and you have to take MORE time off work.

We are finding this out fighting a parking ticket that dh should not have gotten.

They make it as difficult as possible. They just want money.

HA! I'm getting ready to do the same thing. I got a parking ticket in SE Portland at one of the parks. I was there picking up my 11yo daughter who was there with friends. I sent my 8yo to go grab her for me because the babies were sleeping. It took them forever to get back because my ds decided it was a good opportunity to play. By the time they got to the car I had to pee so badly that I had them wait in the car with the little ones so I could run to the bathroom. When I got back I saw a parking cop (and are they actually cops??) leaving. My 11yo said "he stuck something on your window and he had a HUGE smile on his face like he thought it was funny". Sure enough, I had a $70 parking ticket for "parking in a clearly marked no parking zone". Thank God for cell phones that take pictures because I was clearly NOT parked in the no parking zone.

Sorry, totally off topic there, but I felt your pain.


----------



## Moochie Mamma (Jan 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jennifer Z* 
I am a mean mom. My kids will be in booster seats until they are 4'9", no matter what their age. If for some reason they are shorter than that when they are wanting their driver's liscence, we will have the car altered to accomodate them. They will stay in the actual car seat until they grow out of it, and that won't be until either 65 or 100lbs (we are only at 43 right now, so I don't have the info in my head). Most of the other kids at preschool are just in boosters.

Cars are simply not safe for anybody under that. The safety devices are not designed to keep them safe smaller than that. Plus, as the age limits have gone up, the booster seats have gotten much more "kid fashion sense" friendly. A lot of the boosters look downright cool.

I can deal with being the 'bad guy' a whole lot better than greiving the injury or loss of a child when there was an easy solution for it to not happen.











I totally agree. DS (6) is still in a 5-point seat (Britax Regent). He was in a booster for a while then I switched him back to the 5 pt. One of his friends recently commented that he's in a "baby seat". I told him that this is the kind of seat race car drivers and pilots sit it cause they are the safest. Next time this friend rode in our car he wanted the "race car driver seat" instead of his booster







. Also, DD will be rearfacing in her seat until she's 30lb (she's in a Marathon). She is now 15 months and 22lb but I'm keeping her in the safest position for as long as possible.


----------



## wende (Oct 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tayndrewsmama* 
Well, that's obvious, but based on what is what I am wondering.

Well, I'd start wondering where does it stop? Should it now be 10 years and 100lbs? What if the child never reaches 100lbs? What if they are over 4'9" and pass all 5 questions that are previously in the thread yet they are still not 100lbs at 10 years old? At what age is it acceptable to take them out? Could a police officer pull over a parent for having their 90lb 16 year old in the front seat of the car w/o a booster seat? Could that parent be ticketed? The law clearly states that it's 10 AND 100lbs...

I can absolutely see why it would be fought.


----------



## bobandjess99 (Aug 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amylcd* 
Does anyone know the Ohio state law on this? I've heard it was 4 years and 40 pounds... that just seems way too small to stop using a booster. My friend always brings up the "law" when I mention that her kid is way too short and skinny to be sitting in the regular seat.


It's only 4 and 40 in Ohio...it's the laxest seat belt law in the country, I think.......

So...while your friend might be correct about the law (assuming this kid is over 4), she is really risking her child's life. My state had the same law until a year ago, and then moved it to 8/80.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wende* 
HA! I'm getting ready to do the same thing. I got a parking ticket in SE Portland at one of the parks. I was there picking up my 11yo daughter who was there with friends. I sent my 8yo to go grab her for me because the babies were sleeping. It took them forever to get back because my ds decided it was a good opportunity to play. By the time they got to the car I had to pee so badly that I had them wait in the car with the little ones so I could run to the bathroom. When I got back I saw a parking cop (and are they actually cops??) leaving. My 11yo said "he stuck something on your window and he had a HUGE smile on his face like he thought it was funny". Sure enough, I had a $70 parking ticket for "parking in a clearly marked no parking zone". Thank God for cell phones that take pictures because I was clearly NOT parked in the no parking zone.

Sorry, totally off topic there, but I felt your pain.

Yea, they said DH was parked in a "restricted zone" that was only for PGE workers. Yet NO WHERE on the street was it marked restricted or reserved for PGE. PGE doesn't even have an office on that street!!!! This was downtown I think, because originally DH thought the ticket was because he put the stupid parking sticker on the wrong window.







:

It is slightly on topic because I believe DH was pulled over for no other reason that to get money for a big fat ticket that anyone caring about my daughter. Wrongful parking citations show a history of the PD doing exactly this. (Although DH was pulled over in Gresham but I think it is a state problem not a city problem.)


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Hopefully it stopps at a time when all children are safely contained in cars but that will evolve, it evolves wtih current driving conditions, it evolves as we know more--you know that old saying "when we know better, we do better"
I guess I just dont' get wanting it to "stop" I mean like I said earlier, I'm old enough to remember fighting with my parents about "Why on earth did I have to weat the stupid seat belt??", should it have stopped there?? As we evolve and equipement evolves, we adapt.
I train service dogs for a living, 15 yrs ago, when I got in a bite suit, even if it was a cruddy dog, I had bruises for weeks. Now I'm on major blood thinners in yet I can still work a bite dog, the equipement had evolved. Sure I could be a dork and say "Well come on guys, where does it stop, 30 yrs ago they on ly used leather gauntletts" or I could suit up in my suit that provides adequate protection to reduce my risk of injury.
Where does it stop?? Hopefully not before we have changed the fact that the most common cause fo death for a child is accident.


----------



## FreeThinkinMama (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
Where has anyone said it was a guarentee--it's all about being as safe as you can and as is reasonable. Should we also decide that bike helmets are silly because they can't make your child completely safe if he collides with a transport truck??
Sorry, I find this to be a completely nonsensical statement. Hey, I have an idea, why don't we all hire rehabilitated pedophiles as babysitters, after all, do we really think we're guarenteed of a safe sitter just because they didn't have a criminal record before taking care of our children??

I put my child in a car seat and pretty soon she'll be moved into a booster seat. That's not what I'm saying at all. I was responding to a specific comment that seemed to indicate the poster thought her child was SAFE not safer but safe as long as they were in a booster seat. That's simply not true. I wear my seat belt because it makes me safer. It doesn't make me safe though. There is no such thing as anyone who is completely safe in an automobile.


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Well frankly I don't think any poster on this entire has even implied that their child is totally safe just becaust it's in a booster, like I said before, it's a case of being as safe as possible and safe as possible is a BOOSTER until the child is OVER 4'9"
Again, I don't think ANYONE, ever implied on this thread that their child would be 100% safe in a booster. Nobody (I hope) is dumn enough to think a booster guarentees safety--it does howver guarentee a SAFER child. That is what matters. Again, your post made no sense (at least not common sense) We all know we take risks everytime we walk out of our house. It's part of the life as a first responder.


----------



## wende (Oct 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
Hopefully it stopps at a time when all children are safely contained in cars but that will evolve, it evolves wtih current driving conditions, it evolves as we know more--you know that old saying "when we know better, we do better"
I guess I just dont' get wanting it to "stop" I mean like I said earlier, I'm old enough to remember fighting with my parents about "Why on earth did I have to weat the stupid seat belt??", should it have stopped there?? As we evolve and equipement evolves, we adapt.
I train service dogs for a living, 15 yrs ago, when I got in a bite suit, even if it was a cruddy dog, I had bruises for weeks. Now I'm on major blood thinners in yet I can still work a bite dog, the equipement had evolved. Sure I could be a dork and say "Well come on guys, where does it stop, 30 yrs ago they on ly used leather gauntletts" or I could suit up in my suit that provides adequate protection to reduce my risk of injury.
Where does it stop?? Hopefully not before we have changed the fact that the most common cause fo death for a child is accident.

I had that same argument with my parents. The fact of the matter is, I don't think that we should have laws that regulate every facet of our lives. I don't think that I should get a $500 fine if _I_ choose not to wear my seatbelt. I would never, ever get into a car w/o wearing my seatbelt, reguardless of the fine, but it shouldn't be something that I'm required to do. I'm an adult. We've moved from making it illegal for children to be in a car w/o a seatbelt to all adults being forced to wear them as well. For all we know in 10 years all adults will be forced to sit in child safety seats as well. It SHOULD stop somewhere. Children are NEVER going to be safely restrained in cars and children will continue to die in car accidents restrained or not. That doesn't mean that all people should have their own safety regulated to death...to a point where we have no freedoms and no choices about our own bodies.


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Tell ya what Wendy--respond to a few calls where there is a dead child because he/she was not appropriately restrained. Do that for a while, have the nightmares, have the flashbacks. Hold back a screaming mother because the fender bender at low speeds her family was just in killed both her little baby--because after all it was stop and go traffic and he was screaming in the seat and her husband because when they got bumped from behind that baby hurled into the back of dad's head and killed him instantly when it snapped his neck. I for one will never loose the image of that car with very little damage but 2 dead people, it will be with me forever.
Frankly, I don't give a rat's hind end what adults do, but parents should NOT have the right to knowingly endanger a childs life. No way, no how. History has shown that most people are less than bright. They place their children at risk everyday--if society was smarter maybe there would be no need for laws to protect children, but that is not the world we live in.
No, there will likely NEVER be a way for anyone to 100% safe in a fast moving piece of metal, but we can make them safer, when we know better, we do better. Period.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
No he did not get a ticket.


Then I can't frankly understand why you are so peeved? He was stopped and the cop checked on the safety of your daughter. Part of a cops job is to enforce the child restraint laws in your state and I am betting you weren't the first and will not be the last. So this is an issue why?
ETA: Nevermind...I just re-read all the posts and see your DH got a citation for something unrelated to how your DD was restrained. I understand now.

DC


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wende* 
I had that same argument with my parents. The fact of the matter is, I don't think that we should have laws that regulate every facet of our lives. I don't think that I should get a $500 fine if _I_ choose not to wear my seatbelt. I would never, ever get into a car w/o wearing my seatbelt, reguardless of the fine, but it shouldn't be something that I'm required to do. I'm an adult. We've moved from making it illegal for children to be in a car w/o a seatbelt to all adults being forced to wear them as well. For all we know in 10 years all adults will be forced to sit in child safety seats as well. It SHOULD stop somewhere. Children are NEVER going to be safely restrained in cars and children will continue to die in car accidents restrained or not. That doesn't mean that all people should have their own safety regulated to death...to a point where we have no freedoms and no choices about our own bodies.


Quite frankly, I don't want to pay for the health costs and property damage costs associated in MVC because the person felt they had a right to chose not to be restrained. And the thought that adults would be required to sit in a CRS is ludicrous at best. You're really reaching with that one. Vehicle restraints are built for the average adult in cars, not kids. Consequently CPS laws apply and they should. Of coarse there are collisions where restrained correctly or not, someone dies. But when the statistics show unequivocably that restrained passengers are hurt less and die less than someone who is not, why would any intelligent person dispute that? Do you think that these stats are just pulled out of thin air?

DC


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Pilesoflaundry just posted this clip in another other thread here and it is incredible. WARNING: VERY SAD. Death mentioned.





DC


----------



## Canadianmommax3 (Mar 6, 2006)

now i'm bawling


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
History has shown that most people are less than bright.

That's nice, really nice.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Let's just make it illegal to have children in cars at all. After all, we can never make them 100% safe...


----------



## NameThatMama (Oct 26, 2004)

I actually thought it was rather generous.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

I really am at a loss as to why people balk at safety issues. I really don't get it. Of course, it is up to each person to do what they think is right for their family, but I don't get why anyone would risk it.

I have a story I could tell of a family who were just going from one house to another.....twenty minute ride that ended with a dead 2.5 year old as well as a dead mother and grandmother. The only survivor was the baby in the carseat who spend three weeks in the hospital. I have other stories of deaths or injuries as well. Really no point in details though. Either people will be safe or they won't...nothing I can say will change that.

Noone expects it....noone plans it.....noone can prevent an accident from happening if they are the ones hit by another person. Why even risk it once? I don't get it. My kids are worth a hell of a lot more than that.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
Let's just make it illegal to have children in cars at all. After all, we can never make them 100% safe...

Actually, there is a lot of truth to this. Cars are deadly to everyone, including children. It's highly unfortunate that our society has become so dependant on this form of transportation.

If a disease kills half this many people a year, it gets national attention, tons of funding and there are public service announcements on it all of the time. yet, somehow it never occurs to us that driving a car is incredibly dangerous (statistically speaking) and maybe that needs to change a bit.

Just my thoughts though.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NameThatMama* 
I actually thought it was rather generous.

And may we presume that you are immune to the rampant stupidity that afflicst the rest of the human race?


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz* 
Actually, there is a lot of truth to this. Cars are deadly to everyone, including children. It's highly unfortunate that our society has become so dependant on this form of transportation.

If a disease kills half this many people a year, it gets national attention, tons of funding and there are public service announcements on it all of the time. yet, somehow it never occurs to us that driving a car is incredibly dangerous (statistically speaking) and maybe that needs to change a bit.

Just my thoughts though.

Car safety for children DOES get national attention...thus the LAWS that we're all talking about.
If society as a whole was as brilliant as you figure it is, we would not need laws to protect children--people would just never question if it's worth making their child do the safe thing. We would not need laws about drinking and driving--people would just KNOW better. We wouldn't need to control certain substances--people would just KNOW better. I think history does make it pretty darned obvious that far too many people simply do NOT know better and need to be pushed to do the right thing.
This thread in and of itself proves that--not the OP really, but the people who can't imagine making a child do something that is proven, repeatedly to be the safer option.
I live in the middle of nowhere, I'd love not to rely on my vehicle, but that's not an option--until I get that super safe jet pack to cart me the 25 kms into town, I'll continue to just ensure that I do everything in MY power to make my daughter as safe as possible in this unsafe world.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz* 
Actually, there is a lot of truth to this. Cars are deadly to everyone, including children. It's highly unfortunate that our society has become so dependant on this form of transportation.

If a disease kills half this many people a year, it gets national attention, tons of funding and there are public service announcements on it all of the time. yet, somehow it never occurs to us that driving a car is incredibly dangerous (statistically speaking) and maybe that needs to change a bit.

Just my thoughts though.

Actually, I agree 100%. That's why I live in the city, it minimizes the time spent in cars for the whole family. Improved public transportation and decreased reliance on private cars would do more to save lives than any carseat.


----------



## Oka-san (Jan 3, 2006)

It’s become a recurrent fantasy of mine to live in a place where I never have to drive a car ever ever again. As it is DD will remain in her 5-point harness as long as humanly possible.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

I agree w/Shannon. It is NOT practical for the great majority of people in the US to be without personal transportation. I do believe that we should be researching and striving towards legitimate alternatives for a million reasons, but until that time, we have to make do with what we have. And since we know that there are dangerous, unsafe ways to use vehicles, and that there are safer ways to use them, we should err on the side of safety.

I think it would be good if while driving people around in our cars, we had the mindset of a commercial driver -- how differently would we drive if we were transporting total strangers rather than our own loved ones? Sadly, most of us would take greater care of strangers and their children than of our own.

That said, I think that many people are immensely frustrated with the ever changing laws plus the poor interaction between the car makers and the child seat industry. Child seats are not cheap, they're extremely limited in their reusability, they don't fit all cars in the same way, and they don't fit with each other in predictable ways. Just when someone thinks that they're "finished" with the child seat aspect of parenting, then the law is updated, and they're paying for yet another seat(s). While child safety is extremely important, and the majority of parents take it to heart, it's understandable if some of them grumble while doing it.

And as to why people "balk" at safety issues, well, everyone has a different level of acceptable risk, and while there are certain broad things that most people can come together on (children shouldn't be working in factories with dangerous equipment, as an obvious example), sometimes the other things begin to look invasive. I think that car safety is a HUGE deal, and I would talk to anyone who doesn't have a young child in an appropriate seat, but if someone tried to legislate whether or not I could drink coffee (caffeine) while pregnant or co-sleep or not vax, I would be beyond miffed --







: . And whether you think so or not, the lines between legislating one kind of safety and another are not inviolable. And then there is distinguishing between risk levels -- not vaccinating one's child is as risky in some people's minds as taking a car ride without a booster seat. Safety issues are rarely as cut and dried as "don't run with scissors".

And yes, I think that most of the time cops have better things to do than to pull over cars in which children are wearing seat belts. Maybe while chatting with the dad and making the daughter late for school, he missed the guy that ran the red light or the kids who were crawling all over the car with no restraints, or the woman who was talking on her cell phone while turning in the intersection and almost ran over the pedestrian trying to use the crosswalk. I've seen all of these situations this week alone, and frankly if I knew that an available officer was harassing someone about an already restrained child while these other things were happening, I would be angry as h*ll.


----------



## wende (Oct 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
Tell ya what Wendy--respond to a few calls where there is a dead child because he/she was not appropriately restrained. Do that for a while, have the nightmares, have the flashbacks. Hold back a screaming mother because the fender bender at low speeds her family was just in killed both her little baby--because after all it was stop and go traffic and he was screaming in the seat and her husband because when they got bumped from behind that baby hurled into the back of dad's head and killed him instantly when it snapped his neck. I for one will never loose the image of that car with very little damage but 2 dead people, it will be with me forever.
Frankly, I don't give a rat's hind end what adults do, but parents should NOT have the right to knowingly endanger a childs life. No way, no how. History has shown that most people are less than bright. They place their children at risk everyday--if society was smarter maybe there would be no need for laws to protect children, but that is not the world we live in.
No, there will likely NEVER be a way for anyone to 100% safe in a fast moving piece of metal, but we can make them safer, when we know better, we do better. Period.

I never disputed that young children should be properly restrained. I was just responding to the question of why anyone would fight a law requiring children to be 8 years old AND 80lbs before they are able to be removed from their child safety seat. A few years ago it would have been considered quite the stretch that we would make it a LAW for ADULTS to wear seatbelts. My 8yo is still in his booster seat because he is only 50lbs. He's been begging me since his 6th birthday to let him sit in the car w/o it. I won't allow him to because he doesn't weigh enough. My 19mo is still rear facing in her carseat. My 3.5yo will be in his 5point Britax until he grows out of it (I think 60lbs). I am not disputing CHILD SAFETY here. I don't know where you got the impression that I was. I am simply saying that there has to be a line drawn somewhere. There are 16 year olds who don't yet weigh 80lbs. They are old enough to drive but would the mother get a ticket for having her in the front seat of the car w/o a booster seat? The law is falible and police officers should have better things to do than to pull over a father with a child inside who is properly restrained and well within the law.


----------



## shimmerMom (Nov 25, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RiverSky* 
My children will sit in their boosters until they are at least 4'9" and perhaps until they reach 100 lbs. It's just so much safer and will reduce injuries in any accidents that we might have.


Sorry I just had to laugh at the imagine of me with my booster seat taking my driving test.







I only weighted 95 lbs when I graduated from high school.

Sarah


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I am pretty lax about a lot of safety issues discussed on MDC. I do not always haul a carseat onto a plane. I do not have outlet covers. I taught dd to use a knife. I let her play at the beach (carefully supervised) without a life jacket. But car safety is something I do not compromise. It is a statistical fact that most people living in the U.S. will be in at least one car accident in thier lifetime and many are in multiple accidents. I myself have been in a car that was in an accident 5 times in my life and I am only 31 yo. I was not driving in any of those cases. Regardless, with accidents beign as common as they are, I really do not see why people on here call it an "acceptable" risk to allow children (regardless of age) that are too small to be protected properly by a seatbelt to go without a booster. I do not care if it is uncool. I do not care if the laws 20 years ago did not require anyone to wear seatbelts. I do not care what the actual laws are. I see so many posters coming on here joking about how thier kids think it is uncool or that they themselves would fall into the catagory of needing a booster. It suprises me. There is a very good chance that most children on here will be in a crash sometime during their carseat/booster years. Why not make sure that time is as harm-free as possible. If I myself were either too short or too light to be properly protected by a regular seatbelt, I would not hesitate to buy an adult booster or belt positioner. And I would not think it was funny. And my own child will be in a 5-pt harness until she is too big for them (which I suspect will be 6 yo and beyond) and then she will be in a booster until she meets the criteria for being safe in a regular seat belt. Even if that means I have to move the booster from my car into her boyfriend's for a date. Why would anyone not want to use a $20 safety item that could mean the difference between life or death? It does not take any more effort for the child to buckle up with a booster. It does not cost much. It does not take up much space in the seat. What's the deal?

That said, I am not in favor of excessive legilation. I think the laws are pretty adequate right now. I do think easy to understand info should be out there for all parents to make their own decisions. But as is, yes I do think it was OK for the cop to pull over the OP's dh. He thought he saw something that was in violation of the law. He was wrong. But I am sure, even if he was trying to fill a quota, that he would not have just done it for fun as obviously it was a waste of his time. I wish the cops around here would take notice of carseat safety. I know many people that have improperly restrained children in their cars on a daily basis and none have ever been called on it.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Ya know, I have to ask now that this has been stewing around in my brain for a bit (it's a little murky in there, I admit







), but if the child had her seatbelt on, what would cause the cop to pull the father over in the first place? I mean, ds#1 uses a booster, and I'm certain from the outside of the car that it would look like he was just wearing a seat belt. Unless something about the body position would indicate that he's in a booster? DYKWIM?


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

I wanted to address the 16 yo who may not even weigh 80 pound argument...why are they not in a booster? Or the adults who may weigh around that much. What about them?
Well, weight and height come into play, but so does *skeletal maturity*, *ligament strength, tendon strength, formation of the illiac spines, etc. etc*. These parts of the body are *not* fully formed or mature until puberty. So that argument or point doesn't hold water. You cannot compare crash dynamics and subsequent injury or death by comparing an adult body to that of a child or infant. Your child or infant WILL NOT be able to sustain the same amount of crash force without a higher degree of injury or death, compared to an adult. Will not. Hence the importance of keeping your child in a 5 point restraint for as long as possible. It gives their body time to mature.

Dallaschildren
CPS Instructor and momma to 2 sons in seats


----------



## wende (Oct 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dallaschildren* 
I wanted to address the 16 yo who may not even weigh 80 pound argument...why are they not in a booster? Or the adults who may weigh around that much. What about them?
Well, weight and height come into play, but so does *skeletal maturity*, *ligament strength, tendon strength, formation of the illiac spines, etc. etc*. These parts of the body are *not* fully formed or mature until puberty. So that argument or point doesn't hold water. You cannot compare crash dynamics and subsequent injury or death by comparing an adult body to that of a child or infant. Your child or infant WILL NOT be able to sustain the same amount of crash force without a higher degree of injury or death, compared to an adult. Will not. Hence the importance of keeping your child in a 5 point restraint for as long as possible. It gives their body time to mature.

Dallaschildren
CPS Instructor and momma to 2 sons in seats


True, but I read recently that children under the age of 14 should not be allowed to sit in the front seat for that very reason. Does that make a case for a 70lb 13.5 year old to sit in a booster seat? Should I be putting my almost 12yo in a booster seat because she only weighs 70ish pounds?


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 

That said, I am not in favor of excessive legilation. I think the laws are pretty adequate right now. .

I disagree. Most state laws are woefully inadequate and nowhere near universally written. Why is it that Texas law may be stricter than let's say Arizona? Are the kids in Texas more important than those in Arizona? Nope. Yet every state law is different and some better than others. And I know the answer as to why, but just wanted to throw this out here as something else for all people to think about.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
I do think easy to understand info should be out there for all parents to make their own decisions. .

YES. Definately yes. No easily accessible, correct info; no informed choices.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
But as is, yes I do think it was OK for the cop to pull over the OP's dh. He thought he saw something that was in violation of the law. He was wrong. But I am sure, even if he was trying to fill a quota, that he would not have just done it for fun as obviously it was a waste of his time. I wish the cops around here would take notice of carseat safety. I know many people that have improperly restrained children in their cars on a daily basis and none have ever been called on it.

Until I re-read where the OP stated her DH got a citation for a parking violation, I was a bit surprised that the PO knew enough to pull him over for a suspected restraint violation because she was plainly restrained. But it appears as if the PO cited him for a totally different violation and while he was there, he brought up the subject of correctly or lawfully restraining their DD. Big difference.

Dallaschildren
CPS Instructor and momma to 2 sons in seats


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wende* 
True, but I read recently that children under the age of 14 should not be allowed to sit in the front seat for that very reason. Does that make a case for a 70lb 13.5 year old to sit in a booster seat? Should I be putting my almost 12yo in a booster seat because she only weighs 70ish pounds?


It's not "just" about a booster seat and how much your child weighs. There's a bigger picture to consider here. Ok let's throw these out here....*Air bags* and *Safest* statistically speaking *seating position* in a car. By sheer nature, the rear center seating position is statistically the safest place in the car. Why? In a nutshell, more room all the way around the passenger which will aid in better protecting said passenger from encroaching objects (another car, tree, light pole, etc.).

With relation to child restraints: Here is some passenger seating position information I took from past threads as they applied then and they still do now:

Many parents ask me the question..."where is the safest place in the car for my child to be?" What types of crashes happen most often?

The suggested placement of your child (assuming one) is in the middle rear passenger seat. For 2 or more children....the forward facing youngest child is safest in the middle rear. The rearfacing child (and other remaining occupants) should be placed in either of the rear outboard positions. Technically, if you are in a crash, the side of impact becomes the less safe side of the two...so it becomes 50/50 when trying to choose between the rear passenger side vs. the rear driver's side. It was once thought the passenger side outboard position was slightly safer than the driver's side rear outboard, however the percentage is slim.
It is further thought that the rearfacing child is better protected due to the postition they face, coupled with the design of the shell of the seat which "cocoons" them, thus the recommendation to put them in an outboard position when securing more than 1 child.

There are four types of crashes. Frontal, Lateral, Rear-end, and Rollover.

The frontal crash is not necessarily the most severe, but is the most frequent type of crash. The lateral (or T-bone crash) crash is typically the most deadly. There is typically less space between the encroaching vehicle and the occupants of the struck vehicle, thus more severe injuries can occur. There are minor differences between fatalities between the right and left side of the vehicle...it just depends on where the impact takes place.
The rear-end crash accounts for just 3 1/2% of fatalities. Typically these types of crashes occur when both vehicles are moving forward, or when the front vehicle is stopped.
The roll over crash involves the vehicle rolling over onto its side or top, one time or many times. This type of crash is typically fatal as it often results in ejection from the vehicle. Ejected occupants are 4 times more likely to die.

Air Bags: 1st generation air bags deployed at approximately 200 mph. So that could possibly equate to millions of vehicles on the road whose airbags fit this criteria. The younger the person in that seat, the less mature physically to withstand the force of said air bags which logically will equate with more cases of serious injury. That's why you do not see cars being manufactured with "1st or 2nd" generation air bags any longer. We were seeing that most of the injuries occured when the air bag deployed and not from the crash itself. With time has also come updates in technology and stricter crash standards.

There are 2 different types of occupant protection "systems". In plain terms our cars are built with passive protection...features built in that do not need any outside action by the person, and there is active protection...as the name implies this requires the person to do something.
Passive examples: automatic safety belt systems, and all air bags.
Active examples: Manual safety belt systems, and child restraint systems (safety seat).

First generation air bags deployed at the same speed (200 mph or over) and hurt and killed quite a few people. Technological advances brought us second generation bags which deployed at about half of the original rate of speed. But that obviously still was not safe enough....today's airbags detect your seating position at the time of impact (like if you were bending over to pick up something you dropped) and adjusts the speed of deployment accordingly. There are sensors in each seat that enable it to do this. Also with the newest generation of bags, the sensors will tell it whether the seat is even occupied so a bag will not deploy at all if it's not.

The air bags function is passive. They are designed to work in conjunction with and not exclusive of, your vehicle safety belts.
There are frontal air bags and side impact air bags. When one speaks of a side impact air bag, technically this also encompasses the "curtain" because technically speaking it is a side air bag device. I did not make that clear enough in my prior post.
Frontal air bags are typically for the driver, the front passenger, and/or the knee.
Side impact bags consist of the chest (door OR seat mounted), the chest/head combo (seat mounted), and the head only (roof rail mounted and is typically referred to as THE CURTAIN air bag.

Currently, crash testing shows the head only air bag (THE CURTAIN) has minimal interaction with kids seated in the outboard positions. As long as your CRS's are properly installed, there is little if any safety risk to your child when the CURTAIN deploys.

I want to reiterate that side impact air bags (EXCLUSIVE OF THE CURTAIN STYLE) should not be used if your children are seated in safety seats in outboard positions.
This is based on current crash testing. Someday this may change with the advent of new technological advances, but not for now.

The auto industry has developed voluntary test protocol for assessing these safety risks. Some of the info comes FROM the vehicle manufacturer's so use your own discretion. Check this out:

http://twg.iihs.org/
SCROLL DOWN TOWARDS THE BOTTOM. Pay particular attention to each of the files whose authors are the vehicle manufacturers. Interesting stuff if you have time to read all of it.

And lastly...here are some warning acronyms you may find in your vehicle and what they mean:
SRS - Supplemental Restraint System
SIR - Supplemental Inflatable Restraint
Air Bag
SIPS - Side Impact Protection System
SIAB - Side Impact Air Bag
IC - Inflatable Curtain

**Most of the above excerpts were taken from threads stickied at the top of the Parenting forum entitled Car Seat Safety Resources.

Dallaschildren
CPS Instructor and momma to 2 sons in seats


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini* 
I really am at a loss as to why people balk at safety issues.

It's not a safety issue; it's a matter of the powers that be trying to have their cake and eat it too. If they want to harass people whose children are properly restrained about "borderline", maybe they should pass a law to up the limits. I'd be pretty angry if a cop clocked me doing 34 in a 35 and pulled me over and told me to slow down because that was "borderline." They can't be going around trying to enforce laws that *ought to* be on the books. Heck, if that's the case, I'm going to become a cop and start arresting circumcisors, OBs with high c-section rates, and Nestle representatives left and right.


----------



## CrunchyMamaOf3 (Apr 7, 2006)

Seems stupid and a waste of time to me..


----------



## Katana (Nov 16, 2002)

I think it's sounds like someone needed to make a ticket quota.

If the age is 6, and she's 8, and she had a seatbelt on, what was the big deal? It's not like she was hanging out the window, throwing things at passing cars.

Does your dh drive a red or black car, by chance? I read some crazy insurance thing a while back that red and black cars get pulled over a lot.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dallaschildren* 
Until I re-read where the OP stated her DH got a citation for a parking violation, I was a bit surprised that the PO knew enough to pull him over for a suspected restraint violation because she was plainly restrained. But it appears as if the PO cited him for a totally different violation and while he was there, he brought up the subject of correctly or lawfully restraining their DD. Big difference.


The parking violation was a month ago. The reason I even shared it was to point out that you can't simply take a birth certificate into the court and "fight" a ticket around here. They make it a PIA to fight tickets, AND they want you to pay them then they will reimburse you if you are found innocent at some later date in time that could be up to six months!!!

It was also to point out that the parking ticket was bogus, and as another posted posted, it seems that bogus tickets are not unusal around here at all.

DH WAS pulled over for no other reason than because the cop decided DD should have been in a booster seat even though she had her seatbelt on. He was being a butt and then whined that she was borderline when he realized she was 2 years and 7lbs ABOVE the age for a boster.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wende* 
True, but I read recently that children under the age of 14 should not be allowed to sit in the front seat for that very reason. Does that make a case for a 70lb 13.5 year old to sit in a booster seat? Should I be putting my almost 12yo in a booster seat because she only weighs 70ish pounds?

Actually, my almost 12 year old is in a booster b/c he doesn't meet the height or weight requirements.


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
Actually, I agree 100%. That's why I live in the city, it minimizes the time spent in cars for the whole family. Improved public transportation and decreased reliance on private cars would do more to save lives than any carseat.

Ya know, I can see what you're saying, but it's a completely unrealistic goal. If everyone lived in the city and public transportation was perfect, how do you propose to feed your family?? Farming on cement doesn't tend to work really well. Without those of us who live in the sticks, city folk wouldn't eat.
Another thing to consider--there are aspects of country life that are significantly safer than city life--so while I may take more risks by placing my daughter in her Britax seat that is properly installed to drive around, I'm taking less risks in other areas than a person who lives in the city. There is give and take to everything.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

My mistake AniT. I did not catch that the parking ticket was pre-restraint check stop. I am still perplexed why if you didn't get a citation for the restraint check stop, why does it make you so mad?
In general, PO's are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I wouldn't begin to imagine what if any his ulterior motives may have been. It sounds like he gave a crap enough about your child, to stop your DH and make sure she was safe. No ticket for it, so your DH is out a few minutes of time. If the officer incorrectly stated the law to your DH....then report him. I am certain their entire exchange was most likely recorded. A PO enforces the law. He/she needs to know it. FWIW, just because they enforce the law, doesn't automatically equate with knowing how to install car seats or child passenger safety information, outside the scope of what is law.

DC


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dallaschildren* 
My mistake AniT. I did not catch that the parking ticket was pre-restraint check stop. I am still perplexed why if you didn't get a citation for the restraint check stop, why does it make you so mad?
In general, PO's are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I wouldn't begin to imagine what if any his ulterior motives may have been. It sounds like he gave a crap enough about your child, to stop your DH and make sure she was safe. No ticket for it, so your DH is out a few minutes of time. If the officer incorrectly stated the law to your DH....then report him. I am certain their entire exchange was most likely recorded. A PO enforces the law. He/she needs to know it. FWIW, just because they enforce the law, doesn't automatically equate with knowing how to install car seats or child passenger safety information, outside the scope of what is law.

DC

Because my child is no where near borderline and he made her late for school. DH was pulled over in a known speed trap. They were LOOKING to pull people over.


----------



## crazydiamond (May 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
DH WAS pulled over for no other reason than because the cop decided DD should have been in a booster seat even though she had her seatbelt on. He was being a butt and then whined that she was borderline when he realized she was 2 years and 7lbs ABOVE the age for a boster.

Have you entertained the thought that perhaps the reason for pulling your DH over had nothing to do with your daughter's restraint but for other [undisclosed] reasons?

Cops can't pull people over without probable cause so if there is any suspicion of unlawful behavior, they often make up "bogus" reasons to do so.

For example, when I was a child my mom got pulled over to verify that I had my seatbelt on (no booster seat required at that time). I did, so there was no ticket issued. However, after a few minutes of talking he finally admitted that he had seen my mom swerve and was concerned she might have been drunk. But after she explained that she was avoiding an animal in the road, he said all was well and let her go.

And last week I was driving home at 2am and a cop pulled me over because the light over my license plate was out. No biggie, didn't get a ticket or anything. But I'm almost certain he just was making sure I wasn't drinking.

Since your DH didn't get a ticket, my first inclination is that the cop was checking for something else. To see if he was drunk, or high, or whatever. But since they can't just pull someone over on suspicion like that, they just came up with something else.


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

My 14 year old sister wasn't 4'9" till last year









love and peace.


----------



## boobybunny (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Synthea™* 
Donuts and harrassing moms, that's their job.

(hoping no one here has an Oregon cop DH







If so, we'll exclude him for the sake of saving me from tomatos being thrown at me)


does an ex husband count... and you are right.... with a few exceptions, the oregon cops are not what you would hope them to be.
***

***now back to reading the rest of the thread


----------



## boobybunny (Jun 28, 2005)

having read the whole thread now, I can honestly say that I believe the State tooper pulled him over to have a "look see".

I have never been pulled over when I am driving either our newish(2005) truck or our new hybrid escape..... However, I was pulled over driving my inlaws "farm truck".....an early 80's old ford, my parents "farm truck" a PIECE of junk isuzu, and twice in my husband's STi.... all for basically "look see" stops....
it was to check seatbelts... on the trucks, they only have lap belts.
and with the STi... it was because it was two am, and I was getting off work.

There is a "type" of vehical they look at interms of insurance, and well, drug searches... If your car in within 10 years old, clean, and without tons of stickers... you fit the "profile" of a clean stop... anything that deviates from that is an open invitation to search.


----------



## Jennifer Z (Sep 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wende* 
Well, I'd start wondering where does it stop?

IMHO, it stops when they reach the size that the safety equiptment in the car accomodates the person safely. Physics doesn't care what age you are, or what opinion somebody has...it is just pure science. Unless the car manufacturers start making the safety equiptment on board the car to accomodate those smaller than 4'9", as the current standard states, then everybody smaller than that will need to have assistance to reach the standard of safety of those who exceed 4'9".

Then, once they meet the physical requirements, you evaluate if they can meet the maturity/developmental requirements to be able to sit appropriatly for extended periods of time in the seat so that the safety equiptment is allowed to work correctly.

Just like I can't reach the top shelf of my kitchen without assistance but my dh can easily. It doesn't matter that I am older than him, or use the kitchen more, it simply can't happen. There is no way for me to stretch up there without some sort of assistance. It's just physics.


----------



## wende (Oct 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jennifer Z* 
IMHO, it stops when they reach the size that the safety equiptment in the car accomodates the person safely. Physics doesn't care what age you are, or what opinion somebody has...it is just pure science. Unless the car manufacturers start making the safety equiptment on board the car to accomodate those smaller than 4'9", as the current standard states, then everybody smaller than that will need to have assistance to reach the standard of safety of those who exceed 4'9".

Then, once they meet the physical requirements, you evaluate if they can meet the maturity/developmental requirements to be able to sit appropriatly for extended periods of time in the seat so that the safety equiptment is allowed to work correctly.

Just like I can't reach the top shelf of my kitchen without assistance but my dh can easily. It doesn't matter that I am older than him, or use the kitchen more, it simply can't happen. There is no way for me to stretch up there without some sort of assistance. It's just physics.

Except that the law doesn't include height. It only includes age and weight. The height is a "recommendation". Different children are more physically able to sit correctly at different ages. Weight shouldn't be a factor if this is based on car manufacturing because that would mean that a 70lb 16 year old should be sitting in a booster. If it is about safety regulations and being 4'9" or taller than THAT should be the law regardless of age or weight.


----------



## Jennifer Z (Sep 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wende* 
If it is about safety regulations and being 4'9" or taller than THAT should be the law regardless of age or weight.

You are right. It should be included in the law. If there is a weight (and there probably is, but I haven't a clue what it is) threshhold where the safety equiptment is designed to work better, then that should also be a part of the law.

I think the age requirement for the really super-restraining things has to do with the physical development of humans, as mentioned by a more knowledgeable PP, but I think the restrictions should be extended to acknowledge that there is a threshhold where it is significantly safer to be in a vehicle, and if you don't meet that, you should make accomodations to get there.

For the record, I have several relatives who did have to have their cars modified to accomodate them because they did not (and do not) meet the 4'9" restriction.


----------



## Terabith (Mar 10, 2006)

Looking at the list of seat belt laws by state, does anyone know anything about Tennessee? It says that children 8 and under need to be in child safety devices and ages 9-16 either in a booster or a seat belt. Does that mean that all eight year olds need to be in a five point harness? (That's awesome, but I know many many 8 year olds don't fit in most five point harnesses; other than perhaps the Regent. Personally, I'd buy the Regent, but I'm just trying to understand what it's saying.) Or is it saying that 8 and under need to be in some form of child safety device, including booster?


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dallaschildren* 
I am still perplexed why if you didn't get a citation for the restraint check stop, why does it make you so mad?

Well, I don't want to answer for aniT, but I would guess because being detained and questioned when you've done nothing wrong is pretty violating.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crazydiamond*
Have you entertained the thought that perhaps the reason for pulling your DH over had nothing to do with your daughter's restraint but for other [undisclosed] reasons?

I wonder about that too. What race is your DH? Does he have long hair? A beard? Wear a baseball cap or bandana?


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boobybunny* 
having read the whole thread now, I can honestly say that I believe the State tooper pulled him over to have a "look see".

I have never been pulled over when I am driving either our newish(2005) truck or our new hybrid escape..... However, I was pulled over driving my inlaws "farm truck".....an early 80's old ford, my parents "farm truck" a PIECE of junk isuzu, and twice in my husband's STi.... all for basically "look see" stops....
it was to check seatbelts... on the trucks, they only have lap belts.
and with the STi... it was because it was two am, and I was getting off work.

There is a "type" of vehical they look at interms of insurance, and well, drug searches... If your car in within 10 years old, clean, and without tons of stickers... you fit the "profile" of a clean stop... anything that deviates from that is an open invitation to search.

DH was driving his 1989 Mazda pickup. It is beat all the hell and it is our "spare" car. (Besides, you always need a truck for SOMETHING.) His other car has been broke since Aug., due to an electrical problem he has not yet had the time or the knowledge to find.

So what you are saying is, he might have been pulled over simply to make sure he had insurance because he "looked poor?" I am not sure that makes it better or worse.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paquerette* 
Well, I don't want to answer for aniT, but I would guess because being detained and questioned when you've done nothing wrong is pretty violating.

I wonder about that too. What race is your DH? Does he have long hair? A beard? Wear a baseball cap or bandana?

While Dh is 1/2 mexican he LOOKS 100% his 1/4 Scottish. He is 6'6" with light brown hair and he had a small beard but keeps it trimmed.

I "guess" if he had been being followed for a bit the cop could have run his plate before pulling him over and pulled him over because of the Mexican last name. I will have to ask DH if he came from behind or if he had passed him in the "speed trap."

Of course there is also the pp who said Oregon police like to pull over old cars just to "check" on them.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
Because my child is no where near borderline and he made her late for school. DH was pulled over in a known speed trap. They were LOOKING to pull people over.


So, file a complaint. If you think it wasn't a valid stop and feel in someway discriminated against, file a complaint. Like I said earlier, law enforcement is damned if they do their job and damned if they don't.

DC


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

I agree with DC, if you really feel he stopped your dh for reasons of discrimination, then file a complaint. If however you think he pulled your dh over just to make SURE your dd was safe, why be angry. Your dh could have been late that day for MANY reasons, if there had been an accident in front of him he'd have been late, if they'd been doing a general carseat check (we have those all the time around here and BOY am I glad!) he'd have been late. I'm guessing that if he didn't write a ticket that probably didn't keep you for longer than 5, maybe 10 minutes, there are SO MANY reasons for a 5 or 10 minute delay in getting somewhere.
You can't even imagine how hard it is to tell from the outside of a car how old or how large a child in the backseat is, so frankly, 2 yrs or 7 lbs, from the outside of a vehicle that is MOVING is INDEED borderline. Maybe, just MAYBE, that officer had recently been to an accident where a child your dd's approximate size had been killed or seriously injured. He's a HUMAN, he's NOT perfect and frankly, it wouldn't surprise me in the LEAST to read a thread right HERE in the next few weeks to the effect of "Stupid cop, that kid didn't look old enough to not be in a safety seat, jerk was more interested in eating his donut than in child safety!"
Cut the guy a break, really, you're trashing the guy because he was bloody asinine enough to have the safetey of YOUR child in his best interests. Yep, he's a jerk allright.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
Cut the guy a break, really, you're trashing the guy because he was bloody asinine enough to have the safetey of YOUR child in his best interests. Yep, he's a jerk allright.


Arrggg, for the fourth+ time, I don't believe for a SECOND he had the best interest of my dd at heart. He was looking to make a ticket quote and drum up more revenue for his city.

Cops around here are always doing stupid crap and getting away with it. Often it cost people their lives. No one in charge seems to care.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
Arrggg, for the fourth+ time, I don't believe for a SECOND he had the best interest of my dd at heart. He was looking to make a ticket quote and drum up more revenue for his city.

Cops around here are always doing stupid crap and getting away with it. Often it cost people their lives. No one in charge seems to care.

Then why not call your local city council member, or the police chief in your city and talk to them about it. YOUR tax dollars pay for these services. And with anything in life, if you think there is something wrong with the system, don't stew by yourself, take action. I understand your frustration. I honestly do. But again, you can very easily be involved or at the very least be heard.

DC


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

ok, instead of only quoting part of the post, if you feel that he only stopped your dh for discrimating reasons, do something about it, file a complaint. Fact is though, you don't KNOW.
Honestly, in an old pickup that's beat all to shit, if he was only pulling your husband to meet a quota, he probably would have found a reason to write a ticket....cops looking to meet a quota don't pull someone over and not write a ticket, that sort of defeats the whole "pull em over to meet the quota" thing--especially if it's so hard to fight a ticket in your area. If he really wanted that, he'd have written the ticket and made you come to court to prove that your dd was over weight and over age laws (unless I missed where he had a scale in his cruiser)

Sorry, yes, I work with cops but I also know LOTS of lousy ones and if he pulled your dh to meet a quota, he'd have been able to think up a reason to write a ticket--even if it was a ticket he knew damn well would have been thrown out in court.


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Another thing to keep in mind, local speedtraps are often known as speed traps BECAUSE of numerous accidents or numerous complaints in that area--setting up a speed trap repeatedly in an area where people don't do illegal things is a waste of time. Checking on the safety of a child is NEVER a waste of time.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Yup, my problem with the proliferation of seatbelt and restraint laws is that they provide probable cause to pull over anyone you want to. Which, IMHO, is unamerican. Car restraints cut non-fatal injuries, not fatalities in children. When they were first passed in my state, they were not probable cause to pull someone over. They were a "secondary" offense, which the officer could cite if s/he pulled over a driver for probable cause. Then they changed the laws....


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
ok, instead of only quoting part of the post, if you feel that he only stopped your dh for discrimating reasons, do something about it, file a complaint. Fact is though, you don't KNOW.
Honestly, in an old pickup that's beat all to shit, if he was only pulling your husband to meet a quota, he probably would have found a reason to write a ticket....cops looking to meet a quota don't pull someone over and not write a ticket, that sort of defeats the whole "pull em over to meet the quota" thing--especially if it's so hard to fight a ticket in your area. If he really wanted that, he'd have written the ticket and made you come to court to prove that your dd was over weight and over age laws (unless I missed where he had a scale in his cruiser)

Sorry, yes, I work with cops but I also know LOTS of lousy ones and if he pulled your dh to meet a quota, he'd have been able to think up a reason to write a ticket--even if it was a ticket he knew damn well would have been thrown out in court.


ITA. I volunteer patrol with local law enforcement and the above is pretty accurate. Most "quota" programs have been dissolved and done away with and actually in some departments, never existed to begin with.

DC


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
Arrggg, for the fourth+ time, I don't believe for a SECOND he had the best interest of my dd at heart. He was looking to make a ticket quote and drum up more revenue for his city.

Cops around here are always doing stupid crap and getting away with it. Often it cost people their lives. No one in charge seems to care.

Then you need to start complaining, and so does everyone else who feels the same as you. I'd call the local news about it then. I'd also start calling my reps and blow a rod about my tax dollars being wasted too. If you really feel it's total BS, you need to do something.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
Another thing to keep in mind, local speedtraps are often known as speed traps BECAUSE of numerous accidents or numerous complaints in that area--setting up a speed trap repeatedly in an area where people don't do illegal things is a waste of time. Checking on the safety of a child is NEVER a waste of time.

The speed trap is at the county line. Yes, people speed. The limit is so rediculously low in this state, in many areas that people are always going at least 5 mph over the speed limit. So it is not because of accidents or complaints but becuase they know they WILL catch people going over 55mph on the highway.

And dh didn't get a ticket because he WASN'T DOING ANYTHING WRONG. There is no law against a dented up truck. We HAVE car insurance (which is what a pp suggested they were looking for.) The registration IS current. There was NOTHING to write a ticket for.

And since Dh did not get a name or badge number filing a complaint wouldn't do any good.


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
Yup, my problem with the proliferation of seatbelt and restraint laws is that they provide probable cause to pull over anyone you want to. Which, IMHO, is unamerican. Car restraints cut non-fatal injuries, not fatalities in children. When they were first passed in my state, they were not probable cause to pull someone over. They were a "secondary" offense, which the officer could cite if s/he pulled over a driver for probable cause. Then they changed the laws....


Can you point to ANY evidence that car seats do NOT reduce fatalities in accidents??? Having myself "bagged" a few children who DIED after minor accidents that they MOST CERTAINLY would have survived had they been appropriately restrained, I find this comment to be really, REALLY out there.

I do agree with you on one thing though, the basic protection of children does tend to be a very "unamerican" concept.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
Sorry, yes, I work with cops but I also know LOTS of lousy ones and if he pulled your dh to meet a quota, he'd have been able to think up a reason to write a ticket--even if it was a ticket he knew damn well would have been thrown out in court.

That is a very good point.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 

And since Dh did not get a name or badge number filing a complaint wouldn't do any good.

Not necessarily true. Have you got the date, approximate location and time of the stop? Then you can report it. Law enforcement keeps detailed records on EVERYTHING. And as I mentioned before, your DH's entire stop was probably recorded. In addition, before he even got out of his patrol car the officer already called your tags in and if he hadn't already known your DH's record was clear (not wanted, car not stolen, etc.) by the time he got to your car, he likely found out while talking to your DH via dispatch. It is part of SOP.

DC


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
And since Dh did not get a name or badge number filing a complaint wouldn't do any good.

No, if he calls in and tells them the location of the stop, the day and the time, they should easily be able to find out who that was. Cops don't just drift wherever they feel like it with no one knowing their whereabouts for 8 hours.


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
The speed trap is at the county line. Yes, people speed. The limit is so rediculously low in this state, in many areas that people are always going at least 5 mph over the speed limit. So it is not because of accidents or complaints but becuase they know they WILL catch people going over 55mph on the highway.

And dh didn't get a ticket because he WASN'T DOING ANYTHING WRONG. There is no law against a dented up truck. We HAVE car insurance (which is what a pp suggested they were looking for.) The registration IS current. There was NOTHING to write a ticket for.

And since Dh did not get a name or badge number filing a complaint wouldn't do any good.

COMPLETELY and totally UNTRUE. That ENTIRE stop was recorded before that officer EVER got out of his cruiser. All you need to file a complaint is the time of the stop (even approximate is totally fine, actually you don't even need THAT) and your dh's licence plate. That is ALL you need.
Frankly, if it's a GIVEN that they WILL catch people speeding there and he was trying to meet quotas, why the hell would he have wasted his time with a pull that wasn't a "sure ticket" often at locations like this, they don't even pull unless it's a "sure court case". A cop meeting quotas doesn't waste his time pulling someone that wasn't doing something wrong. That said, a cop that saw a kid die last week, most definitely would have wasted his time with a stop that wasn't a "sure ticket"


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
Can you point to ANY evidence that car seats do NOT reduce fatalities in accidents??? Having myself "bagged" a few children who DIED after minor accidents that they MOST CERTAINLY would have survived had they been appropriately restrained, I find this comment to be really, REALLY out there.

I do agree with you on one thing though, the basic protection of children does tend to be a very "unamerican" concept.

I don't disagree for the need of car seats for younger children. I was rearended by a semi with my two year old in the car. (Ironically the same DD that is in question now.) While I spent months going to the chiro for whiplash, DD was fine. Which of course the chiro said was because of her car seat.

This whole complaint was about being pulled over even though we WERE complying with the law. I think this poster (the one you quoted) was complaining about cops being able use restraint laws as an excuse to pull people over simply so they can SEE if they are breaking other laws when in reality they have no real reason to pull them over in the first place. (did that make sense?)


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
COMPLETELY and totally UNTRUE.

Huh? What is completely and totally untrue?


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 

And since Dh did not get a name or badge number filing a complaint wouldn't do any good.


I think Shannon's post was specifically refering to this comment.

DC


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

OK seriously, WTF kind of game are you playing with only quoting the bits of a post that suit you??? Had you read BEYOND those first words it would have been MORE than a little obvious that what was "COMPLETELY and totally UNTRUE." was that a complaint couldnt' be made because your dh didn't get a badge number and a name.
Give me a break.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
OK seriously, WTF kind of game are you playing with only quoting the bits of a post that suit you??? Had you read BEYOND those first words it would have been MORE than a little obvious that what was "COMPLETELY and totally UNTRUE." was that a complaint couldnt' be made because your dh didn't get a badge number and a name.
Give me a break.

Well apparently I am stupid because it was NOT obvious to me.

And I am not playing ANY kind of game. I only quote the part of a post that "suits me" because quoting the ENTIRE post only adds confusion when you are only addressing ONE point of a post. Why quote parts that are irrelevant?


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
I don't disagree for the need of car seats for younger children. I was rearended by a semi with my two year old in the car. (Ironically the same DD that is in question now.) While I spent months going to the chiro for whiplash, DD was fine. Which of course the chiro said was because of her car seat.

This whole complaint was about being pulled over even though we WERE complying with the law. I think this poster (the one you quoted) was complaining about cops being able use restraint laws as an excuse to pull people over simply so they can SEE if they are breaking other laws when in reality they have no real reason to pull them over in the first place. (did that make sense?)

No, this poster specifically said that carseats and boosters only reduce NON fatal injuries and frankly, that is completely untrue. Using restraint laws as an excuse to pull people over is a huge waste of police time--even if you figure that police are all out looking to meet a quota. If that's their "cause" I can guarentee you that they picked a cause where they would be able to write the fewest tickets possible--especially righteous tickets.

How about considering this. Maybe that officer has recently been called to an accident where a child close to YOUR child's age has died. Maybe while at that accident where he noticed that everyone else in the car had survived with minor injuries he realized that the child he had to stand over and wait for the coroner to "pronounce" probably would have lived had she been properly restrained. Maybe, just maybe, your dd had the same colour hair, or the same length or whatever and maybe that caused a flashback for him that made him feel the need to check on your daughter. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, he wasnt' an asswhole afterall, maybe he was a father who'd seen a child die and it was eating him up inside. Maybe.


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
Well apparently I am stupid because it was NOT obvious to me.

And I am not playing ANY kind of game. I only quote the part of a post that "suits me" because quoting the ENTIRE post only adds confusion when you are only addressing ONE point of a post. Why quote parts that are irrelevant?

Well gee, I don't know, how bout because if you read beyond that first sentence the second sentence answered the question you were addressing???


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Wow, a person was looking out for your daughter's safety and all you can do is complain about it. Seems very odd to me. Last time I checked being late to school wasn't life threatening, being improperly restrained however, that's another story.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
How about considering this. Maybe that officer has recently been called to an accident where a child close to YOUR child's age has died. Maybe while at that accident where he noticed that everyone else in the car had survived with minor injuries he realized that the child he had to stand over and wait for the coroner to "pronounce" probably would have lived had she been properly restrained. Maybe, just maybe, your dd had the same colour hair, or the same length or whatever and maybe that caused a flashback for him that made him feel the need to check on your daughter. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, he wasnt' an asswhole afterall, maybe he was a father who'd seen a child die and it was eating him up inside. Maybe.

This stuff happens more often than the average person can ever comprehend. Dh has just started having flashbacks from an accident that he was one of the first two to respond to. It was a 51 car pileup and 10 people were burned alive, including a friend's dh. As much as other people don't care, it will affect him for the rest of his life, especially every single time the fog rolls in. He doesn't get over cautious to be a PITA, it's because he has seen first hand what can happen. It was four years ago on Oct 11th. Dh does better than most of the other guys. Three of them can't even watch cartoons with their kids 'cause they start getting flashbacks of the victims that were on fire walking out the mess before they collapsed. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/Midw...ash/index.html

If, just if, that cop saw something even 1/100th of what this was, I would never suggest that he had anything other than the safety of a child on his heart and his mind unless I had solid proof. They aren't all jerks.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
Wow, a person was looking out for your daughter's safety and all you can do is complain about it. Seems very odd to me. Last time I checked being late to school wasn't life threatening, being improperly restrained however, that's another story.

Yet again, I DON'T agree that he was looking out for my daughter's safety. I believe he was LOOKING for a reason to write a ticket but couldn't find one and just used it as an excuse.

Being late for school is not life threatening BUT according to schools around here , this would NOT be an excused tardy and if you reach three the CHILD is punished.

Also, again, my daughter was NOT IMPROPERTLY RESTRAINED.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
Yet again, I DON'T agree that he was looking out for my daughter's safety. I believe he was LOOKING for a reason to write a ticket but couldn't find one and just used it as an excuse.

Being late for school is not life threatening BUT according to schools around here , this would NOT be an excused tardy and if you reach three the CHILD is punished.

Also, again, my daughter was NOT IMPROPERTLY RESTRAINED.

What is it that makes you feel so strongly that he didn't care about your dd's safety since you weren't even there?


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

You know, I have yet to see anyone address when "looking out for others' safety" goes too far. How is this any different than some fascist police state government putting cameras on every corner, searching us in our homes with no warrant or warning, controlling the goods we can buy, disallowing us from travelling with more than 3 oz. of shampoo, etc? I remember when I was a kid and "papers, please" was a phrase out of stories my grandfather told about "those damn commies", ie, the Soviet Union and China. Now it's a reality of the country I live in.







: And all because people gave an inch and the Dubya administration took a mile. I can't believe I'm seeing people on MDC cheering this sort of thing. What are you going to do when "for your kids' safety" they force you to vax, hospital birth, public school?


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tayndrewsmama* 
What is it that makes you feel so strongly that he didn't care about your dd's safety since you weren't even there?

Because dh said once he was informed of DD's age and weight he simply whined that she was borderline, (which she is NOT) and should be in a booster.

If he felt it WAS for her safety he should have said something to the effect that while the law is this, research says this and maybe you should research it or something.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paquerette* 
What are you going to do when "for your kids' safety" they force you to vax, hospital birth, public school?

Then I would be in trouble since I no longer vax, I am waiting for a homebirth, (notice today's due date,) and I am home schooling the younger kids.









I totally agree that in the name of protection government has gone/is going too far.


----------



## monkaha (Jan 22, 2004)

I just want to thank shannon0218 for her replies in defense of the cop.

Quote:

How about considering this. Maybe that officer has recently been called to an accident where a child close to YOUR child's age has died. Maybe while at that accident where he noticed that everyone else in the car had survived with minor injuries he realized that the child he had to stand over and wait for the coroner to "pronounce" probably would have lived had she been properly restrained. Maybe, just maybe, your dd had the same colour hair, or the same length or whatever and maybe that caused a flashback for him that made him feel the need to check on your daughter. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, he wasnt' an asswhole afterall, maybe he was a father who'd seen a child die and it was eating him up inside. Maybe.
Wonderfully put, an excelent point.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
Because dh said once he was informed of DD's age and weight he simply whined that she was borderline, (which she is NOT) and should be in a booster.

If he felt it WAS for her safety he should have said something to the effect that while the law is this, research says this and maybe you should research it or something.

Maybe he's not all that articulate with the whole "studies say" speech. If that's really the only basis that he was harassing your dh, I don't think it would go very far in filing a complaint.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
Yet again, I DON'T agree that he was looking out for my daughter's safety. I believe he was LOOKING for a reason to write a ticket but couldn't find one and just used it as an excuse.

Being late for school is not life threatening BUT according to schools around here , this would NOT be an excused tardy and if you reach three the CHILD is punished.

Also, again, my daughter was NOT IMPROPERTLY RESTRAINED.


You don't know he was looking for a reason to write a ticket. I'm sorry but cops have better things to do.

I disagree about your daughter being improperly restrained, that's my opinion and I will continue to state it as such.


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

As a rule, what makes a good cop is not the ability to communicate emotions.
TBH, I've been there, I've had the flashbacks, after one accident that I described here, I didn't sleep for 13 days, when I went to the doctor for drugs to MAKE me sleep, I was unable to articulate what was going on in my brain. It's unfortunate but the qualities that make a person a GOOD first responder, also tend to mean they are downright lousy at articulating what is going on in their heads. I am better able to describe over the internet what the potential of a child in an accident makes me feel than I could EVER do in person. I've been in the "game" long enough to know that's normal.
Ya know, I remember, a few years ago a thread like this came up, I was not yet a mother but pregnant. I'd been a volunteer fire fighter (in these parts that means a first responder) and a SAR dog handler for a few years though. There was a thread, someone's neighbor repeatedly leaving the house (or office or whatever) with their children unrestrained. I brought up a call I'd been on.
Young child, he was tired when she picked him up, he wanted to sleep in the back seat....mom let him. NOW as a mom, I have sympathy for her, at the time, I had nothing but hatred. I responded to a car in the ditch/personal injury call. It was on my road, so I was there before any other responders. I arrived to find a frantic mother, a fairly undamaged car and an unlocatable toddler. I looked at the car and there was a hole in the right hand side of the windshield.
I took down info, I did a preliminary search. When the rest of my team got there we decided that the SAFEST way to search for this child was with a K9 unit. The angle of the hole in the windshield suggested where the child was, we knew that a human looking through that brush may result in one of us, all over 150 lbs stepping on the child. I was asked to return to my house and pick up my search dog. I ask you now to put yourself in the position of one of us. A toddler was MISSING. What is your main response?? FIND him, find him NOW. But your training tells you there is a safer way...that safer way requires time...only 10 minutes, but TIME none the less. As a first responder the # one thing you've been trained in is that TIME is your enemy...but you have to weigh the difference between a 150 lb human stepping on the child to find him with the possibility that the dog would find him and alert without ever touching him. Then question yourself for months...years even as to wether he'd have lived if you'd searched before that dog got there (and having a volunteer on the unit...that's HUGE...a dog was brought to that scene within 25 minutes of the accident...it's usualy closer to 90 minutes)

I posted to that thread that I was ANGRY at the mother, I posted how mad I was that I had been reprimanded for yelling at the crying mother. At the time all I could think of was that I knew my search dog would not eat for a good week now. The ONLY mental reference I had to this was the reaction of my dog. I know now as a parent, how cruel I was to be SO angry at a mother who simply didn't want to wake her child....however, all these years later, what is still in my mind?? Sleeping on the floor with my dog because he found a dead child. I'm STILL angry. That child wasn't unrestrained because she couldnt' afford a car seat..there was one in the car, that child was unrestrained for convenience reasons. Convenience reasons that 19 times out of 20 would have never resulted in ANYTHING, but this time, it resulted in a lifetime of blame for a mother, a lifetime of flashbacks and nightmares for a first responder, a week of no eating for DOG...a dog that had NO responsibilty to anyone in the equation. That was SO many years ago and I still have nightmares.
THAT is how that one split second choice affected ME. I can't even IMAGINE how it affected that mother. Now that I'm a parent, I can totally see her reasoning....but I know of 9 people and one dog that were forever changed by that night.
Is it SO out there that maybe this horrible cop was in fact truley worried about your dd???


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood* 
You don't know he was looking for a reason to write a ticket. I'm sorry but cops have better things to do.

I disagree about your daughter being improperly restrained, that's my opinion and I will continue to state it as such.

Well according to the LAW she was not and in this post that is all that matters.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
Well according to the LAW she was not and in this post that is all that matters.

...and according to you, your dh didn't get a ticket and all that was lost was a few minutes of time, which harmed no one.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
Is it SO out there that maybe this horrible cop was in fact truley worried about your dd???

Yes, to me it is, because my dd was NOT improperly restrained. Furthermore for those of you who claim it is too hard to tell an age accurately in a moving car, how is it he would know that she wasn't in a booster seat? The seat would have been out of his line of sight anyway.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
As a rule, what makes a good cop is not the ability to communicate emotions.
TBH, I've been there, I've had the flashbacks, after one accident that I described here, I didn't sleep for 13 days, when I went to the doctor for drugs to MAKE me sleep, I was unable to articulate what was going on in my brain. It's unfortunate but the qualities that make a person a GOOD first responder, also tend to mean they are downright lousy at articulating what is going on in their heads. I am better able to describe over the internet what the potential of a child in an accident makes me feel than I could EVER do in person. I've been in the "game" long enough to know that's normal.
Ya know, I remember, a few years ago a thread like this came up, I was not yet a mother but pregnant. I'd been a volunteer fire fighter (in these parts that means a first responder) and a SAR dog handler for a few years though. There was a thread, someone's neighbor repeatedly leaving the house (or office or whatever) with their children unrestrained. I brought up a call I'd been on.
Young child, he was tired when she picked him up, he wanted to sleep in the back seat....mom let him. NOW as a mom, I have sympathy for her, at the time, I had nothing but hatred. I responded to a car in the ditch/personal injury call. It was on my road, so I was there before any other responders. I arrived to find a frantic mother, a fairly undamaged car and an unlocatable toddler. I looked at the car and there was a hole in the right hand side of the windshield.
I took down info, I did a preliminary search. When the rest of my team got there we decided that the SAFEST way to search for this child was with a K9 unit. The angle of the hole in the windshield suggested where the child was, we knew that a human looking through that brush may result in one of us, all over 150 lbs stepping on the child. I was asked to return to my house and pick up my search dog. I ask you now to put yourself in the position of one of us. A toddler was MISSING. What is your main response?? FIND him, find him NOW. But your training tells you there is a safer way...that safer way requires time...only 10 minutes, but TIME none the less. As a first responder the # one thing you've been trained in is that TIME is your enemy...but you have to weigh the difference between a 150 lb human stepping on the child to find him with the possibility that the dog would find him and alert without ever touching him. Then question yourself for months...years even as to wether he'd have lived if you'd searched before that dog got there (and having a volunteer on the unit...that's HUGE...a dog was brought to that scene within 25 minutes of the accident...it's usualy closer to 90 minutes)

I posted to that thread that I was ANGRY at the mother, I posted how mad I was that I had been reprimanded for yelling at the crying mother. At the time all I could think of was that I knew my search dog would not eat for a good week now. The ONLY mental reference I had to this was the reaction of my dog. I know now as a parent, how cruel I was to be SO angry at a mother who simply didn't want to wake her child....however, all these years later, what is still in my mind?? Sleeping on the floor with my dog because he found a dead child. I'm STILL angry. That child wasn't unrestrained because she couldnt' afford a car seat..there was one in the car, that child was unrestrained for convenience reasons. Convenience reasons that 19 times out of 20 would have never resulted in ANYTHING, but this time, it resulted in a lifetime of blame for a mother, a lifetime of flashbacks and nightmares for a first responder, a week of no eating for DOG...a dog that had NO responsibilty to anyone in the equation. That was SO many years ago and I still have nightmares.
THAT is how that one split second choice affected ME. I can't even IMAGINE how it affected that mother. Now that I'm a parent, I can totally see her reasoning....but I know of 9 people and one dog that were forever changed by that night.
Is it SO out there that maybe this horrible cop was in fact truley worried about your dd???









Thanks for sharing this Shannon. That couldn't be easy to write out.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tayndrewsmama* 
...and according to you, your dh didn't get a ticket and all that was lost was a few minutes of time, which harmed no one.

Being pulled over for bogus reasons so a cop has an excuse to see if he can find something else is harmful. It is an abuse of power.


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Again, since you constantly fail to even acknowledge it. Can you PLEASE just consider for a freakin SECOND that the officer may have recently experienced something that caused him to react the way he did.
Like I said before, cops that are looking to ticket someone for the sake of ticketning someone....they have something in mind before they EVER turn their lights on.
And AGAIN, if you REALLY feel that there was no excuse for this stop, DO something about it. Decide to make a difference. Decide to be the change you want to see. I can assure you that bitching here about those terrible cops isn't going to change the way the police do business in your state.


----------



## tayndrewsmama (May 25, 2004)

So, are you or are you not going to pursue filing a complaint about this?


----------



## boobybunny (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dallaschildren* 
ITA. I volunteer patrol with local law enforcement and the above is pretty accurate. Most "quota" programs have been dissolved and done away with and actually in some departments, never existed to begin with.

DC

"quotas" are gone, but if you do not meet "productivity" levels, you can and will get written up, not promoted, and if it continues.... fired.
You have to prove what you have been up to on your shift....there have been many officers, in many departments that have been "caught" doing things that are not good... look up "Lara, Eugene PD." if you want examples.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aniT* 
Being pulled over for bogus reasons so a cop has an excuse to see if he can find something else is harmful. It is an abuse of power.


An abuse of power? Please. He didn't even write you a ticket. You have no proof he was pulling you over as an "excuse" to find something harmful. That's just a theory of yours and I don't believe it for a second.


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boobybunny* 
"quotas" are gone, but if you do not meet "productivity" levels, you can and will get written up, not promoted, and if it continues.... fired.
You have to prove what you have been up to on your shift....there have been many officers, in many departments that have been "caught" doing things that are not good... look up "Lara, Eugene PD." if you want examples.

Yep, and pulling over someone without a reason to write a ticket pretty much offers proof of doing something "not good" thus the reason that lazy cops don't pull over someone without having a ticket already to be written before their lights go on.
Sorry, it just doesn't add up.


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Terabith* 
Looking at the list of seat belt laws by state, does anyone know anything about Tennessee? It says that children 8 and under need to be in child safety devices and ages 9-16 either in a booster or a seat belt. Does that mean that all eight year olds need to be in a five point harness? (That's awesome, but I know many many 8 year olds don't fit in most five point harnesses; other than perhaps the Regent. Personally, I'd buy the Regent, but I'm just trying to understand what it's saying.) Or is it saying that 8 and under need to be in some form of child safety device, including booster?

I dont know if anyone answered you or not but here is what the law in tn is and means:

Child seat laws July 1, 2005

Quote:

Children under 1 year of age OR weighing less than 20 pounds must be in a child restraint ["car seat"] in a rear facing position (in the rear seat if available).

Children 1 through 3 years of age AND weighing more than 20 pounds must be in a child passenger restraint ["car seat"] system in a forward facing position (in the rear seat if available).

Children 4 through 8 years of age AND measuring less than 4 feet 9 inches in height must be in a belt positioning booster seat system (in the rear seat if available).

Children 9 through 12 years of age AND measuring at least 4 feet 9 inches in height must use a seat belt system [vehicle seat belts] meeting federal motor safety standards (in the rear seat if available).

Children 13 through 15 years of age must use a passenger restraint system [vehicle seat belts] meeting federal highway standards.
My translation of the above law:
Children *under 1 year of age and weighing under 20 pounds* *OR* *weighing less than 20 pounds but over a year old*, must be in a child restraint ["car seat"] in a rear facing position (in the rear seat if available).

Children *1 through 3 years of age AND weighing more than 20 pounds must be in a child passenger restraint ["car seat"] system in a forward facing position (in the rear seat if available).*

Children *4 through 8 years of age AND measuring less than 4 feet 9 inches(57in.)* in height must be in a belt positioning booster seat system (in the rear seat if available).

Children *9 through 12 years of age AND measuring at least 4 feet 9 inches in height must use a seat belt system [vehicle seat belts]* meeting federal motor safety standards (in the rear seat if available).

Children 13 through 15 years of age must use a passenger restraint system [vehicle seat belts] meeting federal highway standards.

In other words if you child is over 9-12yo but isnt 4ft 9in tall they still have to be in a booster.

Quote:

*Independent of regulations, children between the ages of 4 and 8, or weighing under 80 lbs, should sit in a booster seat.* So if your child is under 80pds but over 8yo they still need to be in a booster.

Quote:

Safety advocates recommend keeping children in booster seats until they are about 57 inches tall. The child's height is the best predictor of proper seat belt fit.

The wording of the law needs to be made more easy to understand. It is confusing to the avg person ie ME and I had to read and reread and then type it out the way I think it should have been put into the law.


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shannon0218* 
Again, since you constantly fail to even acknowledge it. Can you PLEASE just consider for a freakin SECOND that the officer may have recently experienced something that caused him to react the way he did.
Like I said before, cops that are looking to ticket someone for the sake of ticketning someone....they have something in mind before they EVER turn their lights on.
And AGAIN, if you REALLY feel that there was no excuse for this stop, DO something about it. Decide to make a difference. Decide to be the change you want to see. I can assure you that bitching here about those terrible cops isn't going to change the way the police do business in your state.

I have not failed to acknowledge it. I don't BELIEVE IT. There is a huge difference. As far as filing a complaint, my DH would have to do it since HE was the one pulled over and he doesn't think it is worth the effort.

BTW, I wasn't "bitching" I was venting about something I felt was ridiculous. But thanks for reducing my concerns to nothing but "bitching." (In a completely different forum to begin with. The only reason it was moved was because OTHERS changed the intent of the thread.)

Now if you don't mind, I have better things to do than to trade barbs with you. Like going back to waiting for this baby to come out.


----------



## shannon0218 (Oct 10, 2003)

Actually Tina, you have failed to acknowledge it, acknowleging it would mean saying "yeah, sure, maybe last week he bagged a kid that looked a lot like my dd but by the way my dh explained it the officer was just a jerk"
You haven't acknowledged that there could possibly be any other reason than a quota seeking jerk of a cop. Sorry, you did acknowledge that perhaps that cop was also racist or classist....you never once acknowledged that he may have had genuine reasons for pulling over your dh.
Honestly, from that last post I get that your dh....the one pulled over didn't think it was any big deal, no ticket was written, no damage was done (other than a late student...and I'm guessing a quick trip into the office or even a phone call later explaining the situation would have erased that issue)
You are unwilling to make a complaint, siting various excuses why that would not work (and you actually CAN make a complaint even if you were not the one driving....it just takes a letter like "The other day my dh was pulled over for NO reason") so frankly...yes, it was bitching. Honestly, I see NOTHING wrong with bitching, nothing at ALL. I have a major lead foot, I've been pulled over and I've bitched about it, even when I knew I was technically in the wrong. The problem I have is that you do indeed refuse to even consider that this officer may have had a very valid reason for the pull over---even if that reason was not articulated to your dh at the time. If you are so certain that infact he is just a racist, classist idiot, I'm assuming you've also done some checks to see that he's brand new out of the academy and has never had any involvement in an accident where a child was killed....ummmm yeah, I didn't think so.
Really, I've always found you to be a very level headed poster, pretty straight forward but I quite honestly found your view of this officer to be really offensive. I found it more offensive that any alternative to what you felt even though you weren't there was met with "nope, not possible"
I hope the baby comes out soon, I can certainly understand that making even little things far more stressful than normal. I just don't think an officer's career needs to be lambbasted without actual facts.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boobybunny* 
"quotas" are gone, but if you do not meet "productivity" levels, you can and will get written up, not promoted, and if it continues.... fired. .

Not in my city PD. Can't speak to any other city nor can you.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boobybunny* 
You have to prove what you have been up to on your shift....there have been many officers, in many departments that have been "caught" doing things that are not good... look up "Lara, Eugene PD." if you want examples.

There are bad seeds that are cops. No where did I mention there weren't. Cases such as Eugene happen all over unfortunately. I still think about Rodney King. But this thread isn't about that. Or is it? There seems to be the feeling from a few posters including the OP, that the police have too much power and that all of them abuse it.
Reminds me of some of the "I got a speeding ticket and don't deserve it, how can I get out of it? type of threads. Only in this case, there was NO ticket. And the OP is really peeved. Yet will not file a report and when told that she really should, she comes up with excuses as to why she can't.

AniT....you've lost me on this one. There's more to this story than what you are telling us.
At any rate, since you are due any day now, I'd probably stop reading this thread and save yourself any stress. You have been around long enough to know that most venting threads, turn into debate.









DC


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dallaschildren* 
AniT....you've lost me on this one. There's more to this story than what you are telling us.
At any rate, since you are due any day now, I'd probably stop reading this thread and save yourself any stress. You have been around long enough to know that most venting threads, turn into debate.









DC


Yea. I'm done.









We will just have to agree to disagree over some of these issues.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Here's to a happy healthy baby AniT.









DC


----------



## aniT (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dallaschildren* 
Here's to a happy healthy baby AniT.









DC

Thanks


----------

