or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Don't cops have anything better to do?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Don't cops have anything better to do? - Page 7

post #121 of 205
I actually thought it was rather generous.
post #122 of 205
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.
post #123 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by choli View Post
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.
post #124 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameThatMama View Post
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?
post #125 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by KristiMetz View Post
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.
post #126 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by KristiMetz View Post
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.
post #127 of 205
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.
post #128 of 205
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.
post #129 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by shannon0218 View Post
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.
post #130 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverSky View Post
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
post #131 of 205
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.
post #132 of 205
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?
post #133 of 205
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
post #134 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by dallaschildren View Post
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?
post #135 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooper View Post

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 View Post
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 View Post
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
post #136 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by wende View Post
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
post #137 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houdini View Post
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.
post #138 of 205
Seems stupid and a waste of time to me..
post #139 of 205
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.
post #140 of 205
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dallaschildren View Post
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Don't cops have anything better to do?