Posted on 03/21/2011 12:07:48 PM PDT by Immerito
And up to 12 years old in booster seats for smaller kids.
My grandson is just 10 and only because he hit 100 lbs and got to fat did he get out of the stupid thing.
Well, of course! Seat belts could wrinkle your clothes and that was back in the day when almost everything had to be ironed!
I feel sorry for the two-year old, staring at a seat. How boring...I’m sure they’ll be squirming the entire time.
I got the old arm across the chest, a technique I became quite adept at using on my own kids. (As they constantly remind me.)
Rode ‘backwards’ in a limo once...came damn close to puking on the woman who was visibly annoyed that she had to ride in the same confined space with unrefined trash like my wife and I. In hindsight; I should have let ‘er rip on her lap instead of on the side of 94 several miles after we ditched her.
You are absolutely right. Having a daughter who aspirated a peanut at 13 months and a granddaughter who is prone to coughing/choking fits, I can tell you it's a real concern to a driving parent.
I know. I’ve seen several comments in this thread that leave me with the impression that there are actually people out there that would have children standing in the front seat so they could see over the dash. I admit it, I don’t get it, don’t want to get, and will likely never get it.
You’re absolutely right! How many children fall asleep and are left to die in a hot car because the child is not in full view of the parents who may be distracted in this economy! Before the law was changed, our daughter was in the car seat facing the back in the seat beside me. I could see her and tend to her if needed. We are sick and tired of the government being in our business 24/7!!!
My advice: Drive carefully and it doesn’t matter.
There are some parenting issues where parental discretion is best. Some examples might be how long and when your child sleeps, who cares for your child during the day, and where your child goes to school. You, as a parent, can observe how your child reacts to different situations and make the best decision based on that.
Car seat safety is another matter. Just because you have driven around for x many years with your child forward-facing, or sitting in the front seat, or riding in the back in a tricycle and you haven’t gotten into an accident doesn’t mean it’s safe or good! The statistics clearly show what the safest options are. Why would anyone blatantly disregard them?
I understand the desire to tend to you child in the car. But being able to pop a paci back in the baby’s mouth is not as important as having my child safe in case of an accident. If you have your child in a backseat with a mirror, tilt the child seat properly, and not have anything around that they could choke on, they will be safest.
FWIW, I am sure that far more children are injured or killed each year due to being improperly restrained than being left in the backseat because their parents forgot them. By your logic, why not drive with your child on your lap?
I feel like many on this thread toss this important advice out as a way of “sticking it to liberals,” or because they want to rationalize their own unsafe behavior.
Look at the statistics, read your car seat manual from cover to cover, and keep your child safe! car-safety.org is a good source of information.
There are safety precautions (using seat belts for older children and car seats for infants and toddlers) and there are excessive safety precautions.
If a parent chooses to abide by the new guidelines, based on their family’s peculiar needs, I have no problem with it.
But if the AAP’s recommendation is not as well-heeded as they would like, will they be satisfied with a mere recommendation or will they press to make their “recommendation” law?
Keeping a rear-facing car seat until age 2 may be perfect for some parents, depending on the age, weight, height and temperament of their children. However, if a parent gets into an accident BECAUSE he/she was startled by/distracted by what their rear-facing child was doing, then said accident defeats the purpose of the new recommendation, in my opinion.
It is all about making a judgment call based on your knowledge of your children and your family.
Then perhaps it is your impression that is at fault, and not the actual comments made by the other posters.
I said nothing about withholding information.
I’ve got a couple female friends who’d have been in booster seats except when preggo, then....
I haven’t seen anyone making that argument.
The argument I am seeing is that there are reasonable safety measures, and there are unreasonable measures taken in the name of safety.
An unhappy, bored toddler screaming in the back seat in his rear-facing car seat is a distraction to the parent/driver. It is counterproductive to employ a safety measure that is more likely to result in you being MORE distracted by your child and therefore paying LESS attention to other vehicles and the road ahead of you.
The correct answer to that question is: They press to make their “recommendation” law.
They ALWAYS do.
Future slugger or football star perhaps ;D! I don’t envy your grocery bill in the next 10 years. He’s a big fella.
Your argument is a twisting of the arguments those posters actually made.
#15 is reminiscing on the poster’s childhood. The poster makes no claim as to her current views on the subject of seatbelts.
#17 is another example of reminiscence. The poster again makes no claim as to her current views on the subject of seatbelts.
#18 is another example of reminiscence in the same vein as #15 and #17.
#49 is an injunction to drive carefully.
None of which is an example of the position you claimed they held. It seems that you have invented a position for them in lieu of responding to their actual positions or asking them, “What is your current position on automotive safety for children?”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.