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

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.