Re: California: 15 is Too Young to Ride in Front Seat

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

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?

In Everybody Hates Chris, Drew, the younger brother, was taller and
heavier than Chris, so if they were riding in a vehicle so equipped and
obeying the laws of physics, the mother would put her larger but younger
son in front.

How can the legislating process be fixed? They aren't required to make a
proper finding before drafting legislative language. They aren't
required to update laws as there's research on real-world impacts.

Instead, they pick winners and loosers, lying about the unintended
consequences.

Winners: Adults and teenagers of at least average height and weight. The
airbag's inflation prevented serious trauma and deaths here.

Losers: Adults and teenagers well below averages, small children,
infants. The airbag's inflation caused serious trauma and death here.

How do you instruct a legislature with constitutional language to put
more care into legislating? There's no civil right against bad laws.