OT - Parents in Michigan

Be aware of this law that will probably pass. And a big F U C K YOU to our Senate, and our Governor if it does. There's no way in Hell I'm putting my oldest son back in a booster. I got rid of it at 8, and I'm not buying another, just because he's a couple inches short. Go get f u c k e d Michigan Senate.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan-senate-plans-to-approve-updated-child-safety-seat-rules/30033290

Government regulations are only meant to keep us safe, bro. Didn't you know?

xsanguine wrote:Government regulations are only meant to keep us safe and stimulate the economy for our favorite donors, errr, consituents, bro. Didn't you know?

I added the part you left out. Hope you don't mind.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. He's getting at that age where he'll probably grow another two inches overnight. And anyway, those disfunctional fukcs couldn't get a bill through both houses if their lives depended on it.

4' 9" tall? I'm sure there are plenty of adults out there that don't meet that criteria, are they all required to be in booster seats while they drive?

if you have daughters, Forbin will gladly give them a ride..

Nommad2 wrote:Be aware of this law that will probably pass. And a big F U C K YOU to our Senate, and our Governor if it does. There's no way in Hell I'm putting my oldest son back in a booster. I got rid of it at 8, and I'm not buying another, just because he's a couple inches short. Go get f u c k e d Michigan Senate.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan-senate-plans-to-approve-updated-child-safety-seat-rules/30033290

Never been pulled over or questioned when pulled over about child safety restraint. Nanny state at its best. They are trying to rush this because the next state congress is even more conservative and less likely to pass this crap.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

Never been pulled over or questioned when pulled over about child safety restraint. Nanny state at its best. They are trying to rush this because the next state congress is even more conservative and less likely to pass this crap.

You know that this bill is sponsored by Conservatives, yes? Or did you not know that? I'm guessing you did not know that.

Look at their names here

I.B. Fine wrote:4' 9" tall? I'm sure there are plenty of adults out there that don't meet that criteria, are they all required to be in booster seats while they drive?

I knew some gymnasts at State that would be borderline.

This law is horseshit. I had to turn the car seat for my 18 month old around because it was such a pain in the ass getting him in it. It was like a damn street fight every single time I had to strap him in. And being a guy with big shoulders I could barely squeeze in between the door and back of the car seat to strap him in. There is no way on this Earth he could remain rear facing until he is 4.

The funny thing is that there's nothing all that secure about booster seats. They aren't tethered to the car and I don't believe that they undergo the testing that car seats do. A phone book (do those still exist?) or pillows would be just as good. The point is just to raise the kid enough so that the shoulder strap properly goes across their chest and not their neck. But that will vary by car, depending on how high the shoulder strap connects to the car. There are also straps that can be bought to pull the shoulder strap down a little, so that it crosses the child at a lower point.

But politicians want to look like they care about people, regardless of whether it passes the logic test.

Izzo Court wrote:This law is horseshit. I had to turn the car seat for my 18 month old around because it was such a pain in the ass getting him in it. It was like a damn street fight every single time I had to strap him in. And being a guy with big shoulders I could barely squeeze in between the door and back of the car seat to strap him in. There is no way on this Earth he could remain rear facing until he is 4.

That's not what the law is saying. This is what the article says:

"Children under age 4 who weigh less than 30 pounds would be in rear-facing seats. Those between 30 and 50 pounds would be in a forward-facing safety seat."

If your kid is over 30 pounds, they face forward. Not even politicians would be stupid enough to put 4 year olds rear facing. Forget what the kids want, it would be impossible if the child has legs.

This seems like pro-life legislation to me. I mean, the data backs up the need to properly restrain kids of this size if you believe the NTSA in regards to one of the most scientifically studied aspects of vehicular travel. Aren't we just protecting those that can't protect themselves?

If you don't support this law, you are condoning Post-term abortion.

Regardless of the issue of whether this should be a law or a recommendation or whatnot, don't the data consistently show that these things save kids lives and prevent serious injuries by quite significant amounts? You all sound like you'd stick your toddlers in the front without a seatbelt if it wasn't for the big mean government.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
You know that this bill is sponsored by Conservatives, yes? Or did you not know that? I'm guessing you did not know that.

Look at their names here

LWS thinks conservatives like freedom.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
You know that this bill is sponsored by Conservatives, yes? Or did you not know that? I'm guessing you did not know that.

Look at their names here

Yes. However the new congress is even more conservative, so once this session is over there is no chance this passes.

I think I just repeat myself.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:



Yes. However the new congress is even more conservative, so once this session is over there is no chance this passes.

I think I just repeat myself.

So they will hate freedom even more?

Cym Jim wrote:Regardless of the issue of whether this should be a law or a recommendation or whatnot, don't the data consistently show that these things save kids lives and prevent serious injuries by quite significant amounts? You all sound like you'd stick your toddlers in the front without a seatbelt if it wasn't for the big mean government.

I haven't seen anyone complain about what this law means for toddlers, except one person that completely misread the law and thought 4 year olds would be rear facing.

Is there data on boosters saving lives? At least more so than a phone book or pillow? Again, boosters are about the placement of the seat belt relative to the child's neck. Sure, it would prevent a kid getting choked or their neck snapped with the seatbelt, but so could several other things prevent it just as much. That's an issue of parents paying attention to where the seat belt fits. The boosters carry no other protection that I'm aware of.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

Yes. However the new congress is even more conservative, so once this session is over there is no chance this passes.

I think I just repeat myself.

The bill is proposed a republican. Put more of them in, and you get even more support for the bill. Right-wingers don't like freedom for PEOPLE, just freedom for businesses. Part of me thinks the bill is just a way for car seat makers to make more money.

What's the big deal? Booster seats are super easy. Try taking the infant seat out and putting it back in for tailgates 7-8x per year. I just throw that booster in the garage, toss it back in the car and it's all good.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:What's the big deal? Booster seats are super easy. Try taking the infant seat out and putting it back in for tailgates 7-8x per year. I just throw that booster in the garage, toss it back in the car and it's all good.

What's the deal with Ovaltine?

Nommad2 wrote:Be aware of this law that will probably pass. And a big F U C K YOU to our Senate, and our Governor if it does. There's no way in Hell I'm putting my oldest son back in a booster. I got rid of it at 8, and I'm not buying another, just because he's a couple inches short. Go get f u c k e d Michigan Senate.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan-senate-plans-to-approve-updated-child-safety-seat-rules/30033290

Remember and don't ever forget...they are smarter than you and they know what is best. Obey or turn yourself in.

Everyone knows I'm a huge conservative and don't like government but I fail to see how protecting children is a pointless government regulation if they have data that supports the new law.

MiamiSpartan wrote:
I haven't seen anyone complain about what this law means for toddlers, except one person that completely misread the law and thought 4 year olds would be rear facing.

Is there data on boosters saving lives?  At least more so than a phone book or pillow?  Again, boosters are about the placement of the seat belt relative to the child's neck.  Sure, it would prevent a kid getting choked or their neck snapped with the seatbelt, but so could several other things prevent it just as much.  That's an issue of parents paying attention to where the seat belt fits.  The boosters carry no other protection that I'm aware of.

Most boosters are just a phone book with a pillow on the top! They're very effective though, and can reduce risk of injury in a crash by 45 percent over a seat belt alone. It kills me driving behind folks whose kids aren't properly restrained. Sadly it's mostly low education and low SES folks, whose kids probably need the most help.

I just throw my kids in the back of my Silverado and tell them to hang on.

The_Dude wrote:Everyone knows I'm a huge conservative 

Noooooooooooooo. No no no no no. No. No.

I refuse to believe it.

The_Dude wrote:Everyone knows I'm a huge conservative and don't like government

If by conservative you mean douche, and by government you mean black people, then yes.

Rocinante wrote:

If you don't support this law, you are condoning Post-term abortion.

Pro-life, heh. That's a good one.

Another way to get pulled over so that they can get after you for what they really want... to search your vehicle and hopefully find some plant material or alkaloids some sociopath at one time determined they have the grand authority to tell everyone else what to do.

Cym Jim wrote:
If by conservative you mean douche, and by government you mean black people, then yes.

Black people believe they are a special authority and allowed to tell everyone else what to do and if one of the 'everyone else' attempts to determine their own well-being then black people send guys with guns out to kidnap and enslave them against their will until an extortion is met?

Jim... I thought you had a higher opinion of African Americans. Why insult them with the "government" label?

The_Dude wrote:Everyone knows I'm a huge conservative and don't like government but I fail to see how protecting children is a pointless government regulation if they have data that supports the new law.

Actually you love government...but whatever helps you sleep at night.

Turtleneck wrote:

Actually you love government...but whatever helps you sleep at night.

Cym Jim wrote:
If by conservative you mean douche, and by government you mean black people, then yes.

I think you are a douchebag racist too, see how easy that is? Took me 2 seconds.

Turtleneck wrote:

Actually you love government...but whatever helps you sleep at night.

Glad to know!

The_Dude wrote:

Glad to know!

You know it but you can't admit it. I guess that is the difference between the false choice of modern American liberalism and conservatism. The former does not have a problem admitting their appreciation of big government, while the latter tries to hide it.

Turtleneck wrote:

You know it but you can't admit it. I guess that is the difference between the false choice of modern American liberalism and conservatism. The former does not have a problem admitting their appreciation of big government, while the latter tries to hide it.

Geez... those are some really bad fucking choices.

xsanguine wrote:

Geez... those are some really bad fucking choices.

Agreed.

MiamiSpartan wrote:
I haven't seen anyone complain about what this law means for toddlers, except one person that completely misread the law and thought 4 year olds would be rear facing.

30 lbs at 4 years of age is 5th percentile for boys and 10th percentile for girls - so a significant number of kids will be rear facing until near age four if not until they fully reach that age despite the huge increase in child obesity.

My wife and I are not big people (I weigh 150lbs) so I can pretty much guarantee that my daughter would be rear facing until about age four if the law passes.

The current guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics says children should be rear facing until age two - not four.  I am sure our state government knows much more than they do about child car seat safety.

MSU addict wrote:
I am sure our state government knows much more than they do about child car seat safety.

Yeah, those people tend to know what's best for everyone, all of the time.

And they'll make sure you agree with them about points all of the above... or else.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:What's the big deal? Booster seats are super easy. Try taking the infant seat out and putting it back in for tailgates 7-8x per year. I just throw that booster in the garage, toss it back in the car and it's all good.

My kid has been off the booster for more than 6 months now. He won't go back. He thinks boosters are "for babies."