Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: California: 15 is Too Young to Ride in Front Seat
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 15:46:20 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <gpa8vjhjiuuut5t661gagmam1eu2etsmmv@4ax.com>
References: <Ex2dnewyQ6zkNWz6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> <vssehq$18hc8$1@dont-email.me> <vt0ulj$6rq6$1@dont-email.me> <vt1409$b7gp$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 21:46:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a6eb9913ee3253c2fc09d059fe6b5275";
	logging-data="586943"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/CXmsdPvtAgFX1KBv20yRpIOL6Chuc6D0="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WFHAE1/uaoFGQK2HArJ5XQ2q2qs=
Bytes: 3836

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:02:49 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
>>>2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>>>Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender"
>>>>and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents'
>>>>consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the
>>>>front seat of a car until they're 16.
>
>>>>The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown
>>>>Mode.
>
>>>>https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
>
>>>They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids 
>>>under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite 
>>>a few years.
>
>>My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't
>>have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a
>>driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have
>>back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to
>>accommodate this silly law?
>
>As always, it's so much worse than you say.
>
>I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US,
>passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much
>smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is
>farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury
>from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head
>on the windshield.
>
>The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as
>having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives
>saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is
>not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant,
>properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive
>a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant
>will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah,
>the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with
>shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
>
>Even an adult woman who is tiny could be receive serious traumatic
>injury or be killed by this airbag.

So you've clearly identified a missing consideration in this law. It
should be amended to implement a height restriction as well as the age
restriction just to keep more people safe. ;)

>Yes, with an airbag, the driver needs to consider whether the passenger
>weighs enough not to be hurt by the airbag. I wouldn't criminalize this.
>
>This has been well studied for years, yet Congress won't repeal the law.
>
>>>. . .