Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: California: 15 is Too Young to Ride in Front Seat
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:28:26 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <vt15ga$dluc$1@dont-email.me>
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=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 20:28:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9978400d53a73ad4fcf3e219add5848d";
	logging-data="448460"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+3zg6c3xsbSdfo/kf+vOd0"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AxOhnGERAeZZduyoZ5mxx5orWuA=

On Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, ""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.

So if we're going to have an intrusive nanny-state law like this, shouldn't it
at least be size based, not age based? Wouldn't Peter Dinklage at age 55 be in
just as much danger as a 13-year-old?