Re: (Illinois) Car-seat law aims to protect children

[Thumbunny]

"silvasurfa" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> Additionally, the driver
> > is now responsible for ensuring that children 8 to 15 are wearing safety
> > belts.
>
> There are parts of the world where drivers are responsible for all their
> passengers of whatever age wearing seat belts. If they aren't buckled up,
> you don't set the car in motion.
>
that was the rule when I was growing up, that and no kicking the back of the
seats. :)

[silvasurfa]

"Tom Enright" > wrote in message
om...
> ==Daye== > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Well, let's assume that you are a very low income worker. You
> > work at McD's making $5.50 an hour. Before taxes, you make about
> > $220 a week.
> >
> > For the situation above, yes, a booster seat could be an
> > expensive investment.
>
> Why exactly someone making $5.50 an hour would have children

Had the kids then lost their job and had to take a low paid job just to feed
themselves?

[bobb]

"dragonlady" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "bobb" > wrote:
>
> > More stupid laws. First, consider how many people had to buy a larger
> > vehicle, perhaps even an SUV, in order to fit three or four car seats.
>
> Skipping the rest of your message . . .
>
> When my twins were born, we drove a 4 passenger Mazda hatch back. We
> had to install a third seatbelt in the back seat. (Fortunately, there
> was room on the same posts as the other seatbelts, so it was safe.)
>
> We fit two infant seats and a toddler seat in the back seat, side by
> side by side. The twin stroller fit (barely, but it fit) in the
> hatchback. Less than a year later, we had three toddler seats side by
> side by side in the back seat. We got by with this car until it was
> stolen (then we bought an old beat up station wagon -- a BIG one, but
> because we wanted to be able to transport the kids' friends, too, not
> because we needed one to fit the car seats.)
>
> It would have been more comfortable, perhaps, if we'd had a bigger car,
> but it was entirely possible in a small car.
>
> So THIS part of your argument is pure crap.
>
> meh
> --
> Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
>

Thanks for your observation... but I'm sure others can see the merit of my
comment. Cramming a small vehicle such as yours, and particularly a
hatch-back, is an invitation for disaster. In event of an accident the
strollers, diaper bags, toys and other cargo become flying ojects subject to
doing serious injury to passengers and driver, without or without car
seats. A crushing accident, say a side impact, makes for another dangereous
situation, and a roll-over makes it almost impossible to get the children
out of the wrecked vehicle. Police and fireman now carry knives and
special sissors to cut the seat restraints free. What you see as nothing
but 'crap' deserves more attention, after all, it is your children at risk.
I am not suggesting car seats be abandoned, no matter the reason, but I do
object to a government mandate that does not allow free choice for those who
do not accept the legislative findings, particularly when the government's
own studies, as well as others, do not support such legislation.

bobb

[Dan Sullivan]

"bobb" > wrote in message
...
>
> "dragonlady" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "bobb" > wrote:
> >
> > > More stupid laws. First, consider how many people had to buy a larger
> > > vehicle, perhaps even an SUV, in order to fit three or four car seats.
> >
> > Skipping the rest of your message . . .
> >
> > When my twins were born, we drove a 4 passenger Mazda hatch back. We
> > had to install a third seatbelt in the back seat. (Fortunately, there
> > was room on the same posts as the other seatbelts, so it was safe.)
> >
> > We fit two infant seats and a toddler seat in the back seat, side by
> > side by side. The twin stroller fit (barely, but it fit) in the
> > hatchback. Less than a year later, we had three toddler seats side by
> > side by side in the back seat. We got by with this car until it was
> > stolen (then we bought an old beat up station wagon -- a BIG one, but
> > because we wanted to be able to transport the kids' friends, too, not
> > because we needed one to fit the car seats.)
> >
> > It would have been more comfortable, perhaps, if we'd had a bigger car,
> > but it was entirely possible in a small car.
> >
> > So THIS part of your argument is pure crap.
> >
> > meh
> > --
> > Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
> >
>
> Thanks for your observation... but I'm sure others can see the merit of my
> comment. Cramming a small vehicle such as yours, and particularly a
> hatch-back, is an invitation for disaster. In event of an accident the
> strollers, diaper bags, toys and other cargo become flying ojects subject
to
> doing serious injury to passengers and driver, without or without car
> seats. A crushing accident, say a side impact, makes for another
dangereous
> situation,

Think of it this way.

Would you prefer your child to get a direct hit from a baseball bat OR have
the bat strike the side of the carseat instead of your child.

> and a roll-over makes it almost impossible to get the children
> out of the wrecked vehicle. Police and fireman now carry knives and
> special sissors to cut the seat restraints free.

And if they didn't bother with the seatbelts the police and firemen could
scrap em off the pavement with a spatula!

> What you see as nothing
> but 'crap' deserves more attention, after all, it is your children at
risk.
> I am not suggesting car seats be abandoned, no matter the reason, but I do
> object to a government mandate that does not allow free choice for those
who
> do not accept the legislative findings, particularly when the government's
> own studies, as well as others, do not support such legislation.

And no helmets for motorcyclists either.

We gotta justify buying all those spatulas.

Dan

[Dan Sullivan]

"bobb" > wrote in message
...
>
> I just can't help but comment on the helmut laws, too. A number of states
> have eliminated previous helmut laws.

Which states did that?

> It's often thought that a helmut
> protects the head against contact with another object, such as the
pavement.
> Probably true, but studies show that neck and back injuries are caused by
> the helmut more often than preventing some type of head impact.

Which studies show that?

In how many murdercycle accidents are the drivers NOT thrown to the pavement
or into a guardrail or into another vehicle?

> Specifically, the neck is unable to support the additional weight. This
> occurs at the time the motorcycle is impacted and again when the rider is
> thrown to the ground. The clue comes from professional race car drivers
who
> now have their helmuts secured to the interior of the car with a wire or
> cord.

You mean the people who are racing cars at 200MPH?

> We've ranted and rave about this same issue with infant child seats and
> other forms of restraint. Most people beleive they are being protected
from
> being tossed from the vehicle but the fact is, those type accidents are
rare
> indeed. Those type of collisions are unlikely to be protected by any
kind
> restraint system. Additionally. it's rather difficult to determine
when
> the restraint system causes additional injury. (Seat belts were causing
> severe head injuries which gave rise to the shoulder harness)

See, bobb, they didn't throw out the seatbelts, they IMPROVED their
effectiveness!

And it wasn't the seatbelts that caused the injury.

It was the persons head hitting the steering wheel or the dashboard.

Of course without the seatbelt the driver could have been launched thru the
windshield.

> The more
> frequent accident is the mere collision and a resultant sudden stop or
> change of direction even at slow speed, both of which puts a strain the
> neck and back as the head is thrust forward or to the side. The infant's,
> or young child's larger head, with less than fully developed neck muscles
> put an undesirable strain on the neck and back as much as the race car
> driver or motorcyclist wearing a helmut. The newer child seats are now
> facing toward to rear to help prevent these types of injuries but it's
> highly unlikely you'll see a motorcylist riding backward!

Or a race car driver NOT using all the protection he can find.

Twenty some years ago I was hit from behind in my car.

Corolla VS Cadillac.

I was wearing a seatbelt with a shoulder harness.

And I did have neck and shoulder problems afterwards.

But I didn't go thru the windshield.

And I've seen my nephew fall off his bike head first to the pavement.

It sounded like a coconut hitting cement.

He just lay there motionless

I ran over to pick him up and take him to the Emergency Room.

Fortunately he was wearing a helmet and when he opened his eyes he BURST OUT
LAUGHING!!!

Best, Dan

[bobb]

"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "bobb" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "dragonlady" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "bobb" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > More stupid laws. First, consider how many people had to buy a
larger
> > > > vehicle, perhaps even an SUV, in order to fit three or four car
seats.
> > >
> > > Skipping the rest of your message . . .
> > >
> > > When my twins were born, we drove a 4 passenger Mazda hatch back. We
> > > had to install a third seatbelt in the back seat. (Fortunately, there
> > > was room on the same posts as the other seatbelts, so it was safe.)
> > >
> > > We fit two infant seats and a toddler seat in the back seat, side by
> > > side by side. The twin stroller fit (barely, but it fit) in the
> > > hatchback. Less than a year later, we had three toddler seats side by
> > > side by side in the back seat. We got by with this car until it was
> > > stolen (then we bought an old beat up station wagon -- a BIG one, but
> > > because we wanted to be able to transport the kids' friends, too, not
> > > because we needed one to fit the car seats.)
> > >
> > > It would have been more comfortable, perhaps, if we'd had a bigger
car,
> > > but it was entirely possible in a small car.
> > >
> > > So THIS part of your argument is pure crap.
> > >
> > > meh
> > > --
> > > Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you
care
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for your observation... but I'm sure others can see the merit of
my
> > comment. Cramming a small vehicle such as yours, and particularly a
> > hatch-back, is an invitation for disaster. In event of an accident the
> > strollers, diaper bags, toys and other cargo become flying ojects
subject
> to
> > doing serious injury to passengers and driver, without or without car
> > seats. A crushing accident, say a side impact, makes for another
> dangereous
> > situation,
>
> Think of it this way.
>
> Would you prefer your child to get a direct hit from a baseball bat OR
have
> the bat strike the side of the carseat instead of your child.
>
> > and a roll-over makes it almost impossible to get the children
> > out of the wrecked vehicle. Police and fireman now carry knives and
> > special sissors to cut the seat restraints free.
>
> And if they didn't bother with the seatbelts the police and firemen could
> scrap em off the pavement with a spatula!
>
> > What you see as nothing
> > but 'crap' deserves more attention, after all, it is your children at
> risk.
> > I am not suggesting car seats be abandoned, no matter the reason, but I
do
> > object to a government mandate that does not allow free choice for those
> who
> > do not accept the legislative findings, particularly when the
government's
> > own studies, as well as others, do not support such legislation.
>
> And no helmets for motorcyclists either.

I just can't help but comment on the helmut laws, too. A number of states
have eliminated previous helmut laws. It's often thought that a helmut
protects the head against contact with another object, such as the pavement.
Probably true, but studies show that neck and back injuries are caused by
the helmut more often than preventing some type of head impact.
Specifically, the neck is unable to support the additional weight. This
occurs at the time the motorcycle is impacted and again when the rider is
thrown to the ground. The clue comes from professional race car drivers who
now have their helmuts secured to the interior of the car with a wire or
cord.

We've ranted and rave about this same issue with infant child seats and
other forms of restraint. Most people beleive they are being protected from
being tossed from the vehicle but the fact is, those type accidents are rare
indeed. Those type of collisions are unlikely to be protected by any kind
restraint system. Additionally. it's rather difficult to determine when
the restraint system causes additional injury. (Seat belts were causing
severe head injuries which gave rise to the shoulder harness) The more
frequent accident is the mere collision and a resultant sudden stop or
change of direction even at slow speed, both of which puts a strain the
neck and back as the head is thrust forward or to the side. The infant's,
or young child's larger head, with less than fully developed neck muscles
put an undesirable strain on the neck and back as much as the race car
driver or motorcyclist wearing a helmut. The newer child seats are now
facing toward to rear to help prevent these types of injuries but it's
highly unlikely you'll see a motorcylist riding backward!

bobb








>
> We gotta justify buying all those spatulas.
>
> Dan
>
>

[bobb]

"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "bobb" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I just can't help but comment on the helmut laws, too. A number of
states
> > have eliminated previous helmut laws.
>
> Which states did that?
>
> > It's often thought that a helmut
> > protects the head against contact with another object, such as the
> pavement.
> > Probably true, but studies show that neck and back injuries are caused
by
> > the helmut more often than preventing some type of head impact.
>
> Which studies show that?
>
> In how many murdercycle accidents are the drivers NOT thrown to the
pavement
> or into a guardrail or into another vehicle?

Please do not confuse bodily injury with head injury.. the numbers are
significantly different. Head injuries are not the most common form of
hurt.. with, or without, helmults.


>
> > Specifically, the neck is unable to support the additional weight.
This
> > occurs at the time the motorcycle is impacted and again when the rider
is
> > thrown to the ground. The clue comes from professional race car drivers
> who
> > now have their helmuts secured to the interior of the car with a wire
or
> > cord.
>
> You mean the people who are racing cars at 200MPH?

Please do not confuse a 200 mph car with hgh velocity impacts. Hitting rail
or even other vehicle during a race is not as hurful as it seems. The sudden
change of direction after bouncing off the wall or stiking another race car
was responsbile for neck injuries... not the impact.

>
> > We've ranted and rave about this same issue with infant child seats and
> > other forms of restraint. Most people beleive they are being protected
> from
> > being tossed from the vehicle but the fact is, those type accidents are
> rare
> > indeed. Those type of collisions are unlikely to be protected by any
> kind
> > restraint system. Additionally. it's rather difficult to determine
> when
> > the restraint system causes additional injury. (Seat belts were causing
> > severe head injuries which gave rise to the shoulder harness)
>
> See, bobb, they didn't throw out the seatbelts, they IMPROVED their
> effectiveness!

While they didn't throw out seats belts they did not to 'improve' their
effectiveness. The shoulder harness was designed to prevent the serious
injuries 'caused' by the seat belt. Speciffically the forward head and
shoulder thrust as well as internal injuries. I would suppose you might
suggest air bags are an 'improvement' to the shoulder harness, huh?


The extreme force of a deploying air bag has caused deadly head and neck
trauma for about 100 children over the last decade, according to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Until automobile
manufacturers develop air bags that are safe for children under 12, the
legislators should intervene.

More recently, I think it was 48 hours that did an episode exposing the
number of adults being blinded by air bags, too. There are a lot of
unanswered questions... and debate on both sides.

I am suggesting people do not blindly follow protocals and mandates
established by the government.

Recall that most stats dwell only on the estimated, and I repeat...
estiminated... deaths seat belts and shoulder harnesses may have prevented.
They usually omit injuries.. injuries sustained as the result of wearing
or using a restraint.


>
> And it wasn't the seatbelts that caused the injury.
>
> It was the persons head hitting the steering wheel or the dashboard.

Yhat a strange way of looking at it. With the torso securely held in place
the head and shoulders move forward with such great velocity, even in low
speed impacts, the legs and arms cannot support the additional weight. The
shoulder harness was an obvious preventative measure... not an improvement.

>
> Of course without the seatbelt the driver could have been launched thru
the
> windshield.

You, like many others, look at the worse case venues and hope for the best.
There are few accidents that result in the possiblity of being thrown
through the windshield. We should be looking, not at the worse case, but
instead, the more typical accidents which are far more common and frequent.
It is these accidents that bring into question the injuries caused by seat
belts, shoulder harness, and air bags.


>
> > The more
> > frequent accident is the mere collision and a resultant sudden stop or
> > change of direction even at slow speed, both of which puts a strain the
> > neck and back as the head is thrust forward or to the side. The
infant's,
> > or young child's larger head, with less than fully developed neck
muscles
> > put an undesirable strain on the neck and back as much as the race
car
> > driver or motorcyclist wearing a helmut. The newer child seats are now
> > facing toward to rear to help prevent these types of injuries but it's
> > highly unlikely you'll see a motorcylist riding backward!
>
> Or a race car driver NOT using all the protection he can find.
>
> Twenty some years ago I was hit from behind in my car.
>
> Corolla VS Cadillac.
>
> I was wearing a seatbelt with a shoulder harness.
>
> And I did have neck and shoulder problems afterwards.
>
> But I didn't go thru the windshield.

Being hit from behind offers little chance of being thrown through the
windshield and it is doubful the seat belt or shoulder harness offered any
protectioin to you... however they would apply to the vehicle that struck
you from behind.

>
> And I've seen my nephew fall off his bike head first to the pavement.
>
> It sounded like a coconut hitting cement.
>
> He just lay there motionless
>
> I ran over to pick him up and take him to the Emergency Room.
>
> Fortunately he was wearing a helmet and when he opened his eyes he BURST
OUT
> LAUGHING!!!

Yep, those things happen, probably as you decribe. You might consider,
though, when someone falls they are usually able to keep their head above
ground level... but such an accomplishment become almost impossible with the
additional weight of a helmut. This is not to say helmuts do not offer some
protection but it is rare. Rare, too, because head injuries are not the
most common type of serious injury.

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is released the following bit
of trivia.... each year, there are about 900 bicycle-related deaths in the
United States and
another half a million bicycle-related injuries treated in hospital
emergency rooms.


>
> Best, Dan
>
>