Spoil the straps and spare the child!

Because I'm not a parent, I'm often surprised -- and shocked -- to learn about the innumerable ways that government bureaucracy invades the lives of people who decided (probably in moments of weakness) to have children.

I made it through childhood without ever having been strapped into a car seat. While I do recall the advent of seat belts (which I was told to use by my parents), the government did little more than make friendly recommendations -- the "BUCKLE UP FOR SAFETY" campaign being one of them. Eventually the state governments got involved, and more recently, the federal nanny state, in the form of Nanny-in-Chief Hillary Clinton (link via Common Sense & Wonder). Wearing a seat belt used to be common sense; now it's a primary offense not to wear one.

Over the years, I gradually got used to the fact that not wearing a seat belt was a crime. But car seats for children didn't really concern me in a major way. However, on more than one occasion, the spectacle of watching as my less-than-free friends struggled to forcibly strap their ever-larger brats into torturous plastic pods from Taiwan made me thankful. At least I didn't have to do THAT! I once remarked that my dad never did that to me, and I was instantly told that it was illegal not to do it! (Busybody me! I should have kept my trap shut.)

Well, I thought, when they're babies, I guess that ordeal is a small price to pay.

(If you're dumb enough to have 'em! Hee hee.)

But a couple of days ago I was told one of those things that just wormed its way inside my head and won't leave me alone until I expel it into this blog. It's an ugly, ugly factoid which shocked me (and which I should have known about) but which will probably come as no surprise to anyone who has children.

Child car seats are now mandatory until the age of eight!

EIGHT!

My God, when I was eight I was playing war games with toy guns, and running around doing all kinds of risky things. My father, although quite a disciplinarian, would never have humiliated me by strapping me into a car seat. Never! He's not alive, so I can't ask him whether he would have risked jail to preserve my dignity, but this is just crazy stuff which reminds me of Joan Crawford abusing her son Christopher by strapping him into bed. Strapping an eight year old into a car seat is just plain stupid. It fosters cowardice, and is bad training for life.

Moreover, according to that bastion of right wing libertarianism known as the New York Times Magazine, car seats for older children do nothing to increase the safety factor:

....are car seats the answer? Recently back in America for vacation, we encountered a fierce debate among concerned parents in reaction to a recent New York Times Magazine article. Written by two well-respected economists, the piece claims that “in recent crashes and old ones, in big vehicles and small, in one-car crashes and multiple-vehicle crashes, there is no evidence that car seats do a better job than seatbelts in saving the lives of children older than two. In certain kinds of crashes – rear-enders, for instance – car seats actually perform worse.” The economists analyzed a large amount of data from the U.S. Fatality Analysis Reporting System, which has kept police reports on fatal crashes since 1975. They also commissioned their own crash test, using two different size dummies (3 and 6 years-old) in seatbelts and car seats – and found similar results. The authors concluded that the best use of car seats was keeping kids in the back versus the front seat and, “perhaps there is a different contraption that could help accomplish the same goal for roughly the same price: a back-seat DVD player.”
The New York Times Magazine article can be found here, via BrothersJudd Blog.)

While I really ought to be ashamed of my ignorance of the law, it turns out that in the state where I spend most of my time, eight year olds have been forcibly strapped since 2002. According to one author, child seats even cause SUVs!

Previously, the law required child safety car seats only for children under the age of four. Doubling the age requirement has caused many complications, none of which seems to have been taken into consideration by the since-departed Gov. Schweiker, or by the state legislature. For starters, no seven year-old is going to go quietly back to a car seat he thinks he outgrew when he was a toddler. So what are parents to do, physically force their flailing, screaming children into the seats, in full view of a parking lot full of people who might report them to the spanking police?

It was relatively easy for parents to obey the old car seat law, because they're always with their two and three year-olds, so they could make sure the seats were always there for them. Once their kids are old enough to go to school and play tee-ball, however, logistical problems arise. What if a boy's mother usually picks him up from school, but one day, an emergency prevents her from showing up, so she calls her husband at work? Making it to the school isn't a problem for him, but the new law is, because the child seat is in his wife's car. In order to assure compliance, the couple will have to buy one seat for every child under eight, then multiply that by the number of vehicles they own. Even then, it would be illegal for them to adapt to other unexpected situations, like giving rides to any of their kids' friends.

The revised law will place a terrible burden on large families that have quite enough worries already. Since expanding the age range also expands the number of seats needed, it will not be unheard of for families to require five child safety seats in the same vehicle. Where will they put them? You're not allowed to use one in the front seat, because the federally mandated safety air bags might kill the child. You can probably only put two in the back, because most seats' installation requires the presence of shoulder straps, and the middle seat will usually only have a lap belt. A third row of seating will allow two more child seats. So where do you put the fifth child?

Even in a family with only three kids, there's a good chance that all of them will be under eight years old at the same time. This will increase the need for those dastardly, planet-destroying SUVs.

The latter view finds confirmation by an economist commenting at Arnold Kling's EconLog:
....child car seats [] also drive the purchase of ever larger cars by families. A family with three kids can't travel by Volkswagen bug any more.
There are a lot of things a family with three kids can't do any more.

Considering the fact that these laws don't make the kids any safer, unless I knew better I'd almost think the goal was to condition kids to be placed in restraints -- while simultaneously discouraging people from having children.

Couldn't both goals be more easily achieved by simply encouraging the spaying of girls and castration of boys by responsible parents -- as we do responsible pet owners?

Everyone would be safer, the crime rate would drop (statistics show that 95% of crime is committed by unneutered males) and think of the decrease in wear and tear on the environment!

(And after all, the program wouldn't have to be mandatory.)

posted by Eric on 09.19.05 at 09:26 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2796






Comments

Eight? In CA it was 4 yrs/40 lbs, now 6 yrs/60 lbs. But in the 6 yr range one moves from a car seat thingy to a kind of booster chair arrangement.

I gotta admit even though the car seats are a pain but do help with keeping kids from bouncing around the car and fighting with each other (my twin grandsons are 3) :-)

Notice, too, that all new cars have warnings on the visors that all children under 12 should ride in the back seat.

Gads, its a wonder that any of us older than, say, 30 made it to adulthood after the years of riding shotgun w/o seatbelts!

Darleen   ·  September 19, 2005 10:04 AM

Perhaps this crap is driven by "population bomb" and pro-choice folks.

Clearly, like the Chinese, one child per household is quite enough if not actually one too many.

Uncle Bill   ·  September 19, 2005 10:05 AM

I'm against it. Makes me glad I don't, and won't ever, have any children. I've long ago concluded that there are two kinds of people: 1) those who like children and should have them, as many as they want, 2) those like me who don't like children and should never have them.

But you've shown a third category, collectivists who use "our children" as an abstract political symbol to increase government control over our lives. (And I think Uncle Bill is right, they're also using these laws to encourage abortion.) I'm totally against that. I say parents -- not the government! -- should raise their own children as they see fit.

Darleen wrote:
"I gotta admit even though the car seats are a pain but do help with keeping kids from bouncing around the car and fighting with each other (my twin grandsons are 3) :-)"

Brings back memories of the good old days again. Our nuclear family (our Mama, our Dad, my twin brother Dave, and me) grew up in Monmouth, but our extended family (everybody else) continued to live up in Washington, mostly clustered around the Seattle area. We used to go up there to visit every summer. As it started out, our whole family would drive up there in the car.

But, as we got a bit older, our parents decided it would be fun to send us kids up there just by ourselves. We then rode on a Trailways bus. Very quickly, they found that it was absolutely essential to send us up there by turns, one at a time, because we always fought. One of us was quite enough -- but two of us was too many!

This is a pretty good study proving the benefit of booster seats up to age 7. Agreed, there are costs to any regulation or intervention, and those costs may outweigh the benefits here, but the benefits are clear.

JAMA article

fmodo   ·  September 19, 2005 12:13 PM

Eric, 8 year olds are too damn young to learn anything about courage. Lay down the law, strap 'em in, and give them something that'll distract them until you get where you're going. And if that don't work, find a place to park and take the kids for a walk.

"It's like this, Timmy. Either we go for a walk or you don't have your 9th birthday."

Let me put it this way. Your smearing your brains all over the sidewalk involves me because caring for your severely brain damaged carcass uses up medical resources that I might need for my clinical depression. I already have clinical depression, you still have your brains. Taking reasonable precautions to prevent smearing your brains all over the sidewalk sounds like a good idea to me.

BTW, When I was a kid we would lose about 50,000 a year in traffic accidents. These days we lose about 50,000 a year in traffic accidents. Back when I was a kid we had about 175 million people, these days we have around 300 million. With more people around shouldn't we have more traffic deaths?

Alan Kellogg   ·  September 19, 2005 12:30 PM

I think up to age eight is a little old. My daughter was just a month short of her ninth birthday when this law went into effect. She started crying when someone told her about it. My husband took her side, and she didn't sit in one. So for a month, we broke the law.

That said, it just isn't as complicated as the article makes out. Once they are four, they can go into a booster seat, which just isn't the same thing. There are no straps other than the seat belt of the car. Most of these have no back, they easily transfer from one car to another, and no one can tell the child is sitting in one unless they are actually in the car itself. It is really a lot like sitting on a telephone book at the table.

Ruth   ·  September 19, 2005 01:48 PM

It's one thing to disagree about whether the seats provide a benefit. (The article in the Times makes a good case they don't.) Some studies appear to show that football damages children too. But life at any stage of development carries risks. Shouldn't risk assessment be the responsibility of the parents?

Eric Scheie   ·  September 19, 2005 03:56 PM

Whether or not strapping an eight-year-old into a car seat is beneficial -- can't we all agree that it ought to be the parent's option?!?

What concerns me even more than trends like these, though, is the increasingly government-mandated medicating of children, with neuroactive chemicals. We haven't the foggiest notion what the developmental consequences of ritalin and the other drugs public schools are now forcing parents to give their kids will be. God help us if we've guessed wrongly.

Clint   ·  September 19, 2005 09:51 PM

Alan Kellogg:
"BTW, When I was a kid we would lose about 50,000 a year in traffic accidents. These days we lose about 50,000 a year in traffic accidents. Back when I was a kid we had about 175 million people, these days we have around 300 million. With more people around shouldn't we have more traffic deaths?"

In Japan, a lot of people don't wear seatbelts, don't make their kids wear seatbelts, and have flimsy vehicles that are like giant fiberglass lunchboxes. Yet the country has has 127 million people and fewer than 10000 reported traffic fatalities per year. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they don't drive like idiots. It's a shame there's no quick-fix law to make that happen.

Sean Kinsell   ·  September 19, 2005 11:05 PM

Sean, I'm all for a major crackdown on bad drivers. I'd be willing to bet that Japanese drivers are not given licenses unless they can show that they know how to read traffic signs and actually, um, drive a car.

Eric Scheie   ·  September 20, 2005 09:01 AM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits