Washington State: Kids could be stuck in booster seats until 16

The Everett Herald ^ | May 11, 2007 | Scott Pesznecker and Melissa Slager

[Stoat]

Thousands of Washington children will be forced back into car and booster seats next month when a change to state law takes effect.

On June 1, children will have to stay in the safety seats until they are at least 8 years old or 4 feet, 9 inches tall.

Violators face a $112 ticket.

About half of all children between 6 to 8 years old will be affected by the change, according to safety advocates.

"It's going to be a big challenge for those kids who have been out of the booster seat to get back," said Shawneri Guzman of Snohomish County SAFE KIDS, a nonprofit group that works to prevent childhood injuries.

The change means parents such as Renee Shonko, 44, of Lake Stevens must break the news to their children.

Daughters Lexi, 8, and Karly, 10, aren't exactly thrilled to be going back into booster seats.

"I don't like it," said Karly, who at 4-foot-8 (with shoes on) is taller than most of her classmates. But that's not tall enough for a seat belt to fit her properly.

Currently, children are required to ride in booster seats until they're 6 years old or weigh 60 pounds.

The changes also require children to use booster seats until they are 16 years old if a vehicle's seat belt does not properly fit the child.

Another change requires children younger than 13 to ride in the back seat whenever possible. They're allowed to ride in the front only if the vehicle has no lap-and-shoulder belts in the back seat.

 

[Maynerd]

Well, that ought to cut down on teens having sex....

LOL

[the OlLine Rebel]

LOL, you wish!

Sad truth is many of them will have melted brains watered down by liberalism, obediently chanting the mantra by that time.

[Madame Dufarge]

including 1 hitting the side of a moving car, me full speed.

Me, too - I was perfecting the "no hands, full speed" maneuver.

I was luckier than you though, just broke the bike.

[the OlLine Rebel]

“The safety officer said the children were statistically safer in the bright-yellow school bus than in Mom’s SUV. MANY parents were outraged. They wanted to shuttle their children to and from school.”

It’s probably true.

But apparently statistics only apply to “public” items.

Statistically, your chances of being in any kind of accident are slim.

Hence, there’s really not enough incentive to go through all this cost for a rare benefit.

[metesky]

Sure, sure sure... Drop one lousy letter and it's, "Ho, ho ho."
;O)

[Scotswife]

yes, before the booster seat craze we used to buy little gadgets that brought the shoulder strap down lower.
I don’t know why the booster seats are supposed to be any better than the inexpensive gadgets.

Somebody somewhere lobbied for this with a nice profit in mind.

[Gabz]

What a shame you won’t be able to assist your friends and neighbors, but I agree with you in regard to the expense not being justifiable.

I agree with all of the other posters in regard to how did any of us survive without the nanny state telling us how to live our lives.

It is really getting out of hand, but I don’t see how to stem the tide, as an entire generation is being brought up with the (mistaken) idea that the government is there to hold their hand........

[null and void]

That, and SUVs are legally trucks, while station wagons are legally cars.

Auto makers had to kill the station wagons because they hurt the passenger car CAFE requirements.

SUVs don’t count against the passenger car Corporate Average Fuel Economy stats.

So, in the name of saving fuel, the 25 MPG station wagon has been replaced by the 12 MPG SUV...

[Libertina]

I would have been in one until Hight School. ROTFLOL Fat chance ;)

[Libertina]

I thought there was a law on tinted windows as well...

[Red in Blue PA]

Only a matter of time before they take their cause to other heightened challenged people, regardless age. Because under the Equal Protection Clause everyone must be treated equally, no?

And I will reiterate was someone else here said....does this apply to schoolbuses as well?

[Stoat]

I would have been in one until High School. ROTFLOL Fat chance ;)

So, I gather then that you were ALSO a troublemaker in High School?

Scofflaw! 

"snicker"

 

[kerryusama04]

see post 80

[kerryusama04]

Here in MO you can do whatever you want to the back windows and the driver and passenger windows can only be 30%. We left CA to raise our kids here in God’s country for a reason. Maybe, just maybe, we have a shot at 5 more years of liberty, 10 if we can keep Blunt and company in office.

Let's take this up a notch. In the states with the draconian rules on tinting, it is because the cops are afraid of their lives for getting shot, et. al. Here in MO, not only can you tint the heck out of your back windows, and 30% of your front windows, you can carry a concealed weapon in you car, loaded and at the ready, if you are over 23 years old, with no permit whatsoever. Furthermore, we are about to get the Castle Doctrine, which extends our rights to our vehicles as well as our homes for the right of self defense. Now, please, if any of your neighbors in whatever leftist states you guys live in ever ask about moving to Missouri, please tell them:

there aint nothing but red-kneck, one tooth, Bible-thumping, hillbilly, losers living in Missouri and they would be better off living in Bagdad than Missouri. Tell them whatever they don't want to hear so they don't come here and eff it up.

[-YYZ-]

Well, as you probably know, head injuries are one of the leading causes of death and serious disabling injuries in car accidents. Mandatory helmet use by all car occupants could probably reduce deaths and serious injuries considerably. And a lot more cheaply, too, than all those side curtain airbags and such. No, I’m not seriously advocating it, but it does make a certain kind of sense.

[GatorGirl]

Actually, neither Lexi or Karly will have to use a seat (although apparently their idiot parents have already gone out to buy two) because they are both over the age of 8.

It’s age 8 OR over 4’9”. They would only be forced to use a seat if the law was written age 8 AND over 4’9”. Sounds like the parents are opting to use the 4’9” criteria as opposed to the age criteria. Their choice!

[AnAmericanMother]

Here it is, with my dog driving . . .

[ohioman]

I wouldn’t be surprised if these safety queens passed a law requiring kids to wear a helmut until the age of 16. That is, until scientists have perfected the inflatable body suit. Riding in the back of a pick-up will probably get you 10 years.

[ApplegateRanch]

The paragraph further down in the law, which deals with "children less than sixteen", catches the girls.

(b) A child who is ((six)) eight years of age or older ((or weighs more than sixty pounds, the child)) or four feet nine inches or taller shall be properly restrained with the motor vehicle's safety belt properly adjusted and fastened around the child's body or an appropriately fitting ((booster seat; and)) child restraint system.

Their GOTCHA is the "properly adjusted" part. The girls are "under 16", and "8 or older"; but are "under 4'-9", so their regular seat belts can't be "properly adjusted" to fit them: it rides too close to their necks, rather than across the center of the collar bone.

[Stoat]

Actually, neither Lexi or Karly will have to use a seat (although apparently their idiot parents have already gone out to buy two) because they are both over the age of 8.

It’s age 8 OR over 4’9”. They would only be forced to use a seat if the law was written age 8 AND over 4’9”. Sounds like the parents are opting to use the 4’9” criteria as opposed to the age criteria. Their choice!

 

Well, there's also this fascist catch-all:

"The changes also require children to use booster seats until they are 16 years old if a vehicle's seat belt does not properly fit the child"

I believe that by definition all conventional seat belts are "adult" belts and so would be automatically judged as 'not providing a proper fit' .

Actually, neither Lexi or Karly will have to use a seat (although apparently their idiot parents have already gone out to buy two) because they are both over the age of 8.

It’s age 8 OR over 4’9”. They would only be forced to use a seat if the law was written age 8 AND over 4’9”. Sounds like the parents are opting to use the 4’9” criteria as opposed to the age criteria. Their choice!