Amen. This is a brutal unintended consequence of a prissy nanny-state law. If I was a new parent and had to cart an infant around in the rear seat, I know that at first I'd be a dangerous driver. My mind wouldn't be on the road because I'd constantly be looking behind me or studying the rear-view mirror. Eventually to "be safe," I'd have to check that perfectly good and healthy instinct at the door and retrain my mind NOT to look. After awhile ... drive the vehicle, baby, errands ... out of sight, out of mind.
And this guy is going to have to live with himself. My god, what sadness. His first, natural, healthy impulse would have been to put the baby on the seat beside him. This death probably would not have occured if not for a nanny state rule.
Chuck Yeager describes the essence of all great Americans when he writes: "I've always said that the rules are made for people who aren't willing to make up their own." Americans with the true interests of their kids and future will conclude, "Screw the nanny state rules." The real rules are to put their kids first.
For every infant who cooks forgotten in the back seat, a dozen survive crashes that they probably would not have otherwise and escape serious injury.
Rejecting car seats in the back because a few children are forgotten is like refusing to wear a seatbelt because you’re planning to be thrown clear in case the car goes down a cliff.
Yes, let’s just blame everyone except the parents. Starting with the eeevil car companies.
A side note regarding the nanny state. When airbags were introduced, the specs in the US were for stopping an UNbelted adult travelling at a high rate of speed. So the impact on a small person, or in a slow-moving fender bender was catastrophic. In Canada, where compliance to wearing seat belts was much higher, the velocity of the airbag detonator was only half the strength of the ones required in US made cars..