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 20:05:23 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <vt1b62$ihrk$3@dont-email.me>
References: <Ex2dnewyQ6zkNWz6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> <vt1409$b7gp$2@dont-email.me> <vt15ga$dluc$1@dont-email.me> <6ta8vjdjqej82blqpstor7lpkn3tn0dpup@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 22:05:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9978400d53a73ad4fcf3e219add5848d";
	logging-data="608116"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+kfHtHq7qv1s9u1JjEPQ5c"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WKTbubDBwg6OG75aj7tx14DQXUw=

On Apr 7, 2025 at 12:47:31 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:28:26 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 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?
>> 
> 
> I should have read ahead.. Some pistachio almond ice cream headed your
> way.

Just make sure it melts. I don't want any of that anim8r ice cream that can
sit on an Arizona sidewalk in high summer and not melt!