Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: California: 15 is Too Young to Ride in Front Seat
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 17:48:19 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <vt1h74$n4lf$2@dont-email.me>
References: <Ex2dnewyQ6zkNWz6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <vt1409$b7gp$2@dont-email.me> <vt15ga$dluc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt1b93$ircc$1@dont-email.me> <vt1bmk$ihrk$4@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 23:48:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9b00f7da9a1c27105102f1456fc6c708";
	logging-data="758447"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/5eYvuBKR15bgnrhBDcZ8rIIKsyyF+8kM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:U2q5YTPQjScqFdhqqshImMEKlVU=
In-Reply-To: <vt1bmk$ihrk$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4568

On 4/7/2025 4:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2025 at 1:06:58 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/7/2025 2:28 PM, BTR1701 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?
>>
>> Perhaps.  But he'd also be more responsible for his own safety concerns.
> 
> Individual risk-based decision making is against the whole point of these
> laws. These laws are specifically intended for the government to decide for
> you what's in your best interest since it knows better how to live your life
> than you do.

You're preaching that to the choir.  I always felt that my motorcycle 
helmet made a crash in traffic more likely, even if less fatal.