Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/10/2002 11:12:42 AM EST
One of our officers responded to a traffic crash last Saturday. A 3 year old girl is now paralyzed from the neck down because her father decided to drive her around without putting her in a car seat. Of course this ass was drunk (BAC .09). Of course this ass wasn't injured. Of course he lied. But the shattered windshield with her hair embedded in it told the tale. Not to mention her broken neck. If you have children and don't use a car seat you are a fool.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 11:17:35 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 11:30:04 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 11:36:15 AM EST
On the other hand, of the 4 passengers in a Chevy S10 that rolled over the other day, only one, the 3(?) year old daughter of the driver was secured (with a kid seat), and thusly the sole survivor.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 11:37:58 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 11:44:20 AM EST
Originally Posted By eswanson:
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1: Very sad. I am against laws mandating their use, as parents who care about their children won't let them ride the length of the driveway without making their beloved offspring as safe and secure as possible. Those who don't care about their own children demonstrate "natural selection" at work. [V]
View Quote
So you're against laws mandating their use so "natural selection" will prevent the children of stupid parents from growing up and breeding? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and I'm surprised it came from you, Beekeeper. Just because the parents are idiots doesn't mean that their children should get to take a trip through the windshield. If laws mandating child safety seat use keep one kid from becoming paralyzed like that poor kid, it's worth it. There's no excuse not to buckle up the kids in proper fashion. I really hope you either misspoke or I misunderstood your post, because it seems like you're saying that if the parents are too stupid to care about the kids, then oh well, another dead kid. Yippee for natural selection.[:(!]
View Quote
I kind of agree with him. Heres what I think he's trying to say... Basically by making a child seat law you are in essence trying to prevent people (parents) from being idiots and/or morons. Last time I checked, laws don't really help much in that department. They'll still be idiots and either won't use the seat correctly or possibly won't use it at all (apparantly like the guy that Sukebe is/was talking about). However, perhaps they will use the seat...truth be told, I am beginning to think the child seats being required in the back seat is one of the reasons why we see more fried kids. And unitended consequence if you will unfortunately. Don't know if I can prove it or not since I am unsure where to look to find statistics on this issue going back the last ocuple decades. And your argument is very similar to what people say in the gun control debate. If it saves one kid, blah blah blah. Anyhow, this is what I think he was referring to plus this is what I think. Yes, I think everyone should use the carseats but requiring it really doesn't help much. People are idiots and laws don't or can't change that...
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 11:53:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/10/2002 11:54:01 AM EST by eswanson]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 11:56:24 AM EST
Yea they gave us laws for air bags, made them mandatory, and it turned out it kills more kids than it helps.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 11:58:49 AM EST
Boys, Boys. If adults (who SHOULD be capable of making decisions for themselves) want to drive around unprotected, FINE. However, infants/children are not property. They are not adults. They are incapable (mentally and mostly physically) of making the choices to protect themselves. That said, they are at the mercy of adults. It should be criminal to keep your child from harm, as you have a legal DUTY TO PROTECT. Failure to do so is criminal.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:02:10 PM EST
Yo, eswanson... [img]http://www.stopstart.btinternet.co.uk/nc/comp1.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:02:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/10/2002 12:04:20 PM EST by eswanson]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:03:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By TommyBrown: Yea they gave us laws for air bags, made them mandatory, and it turned out it kills more kids than it helps.
View Quote
And your point is exactly?? Do you know of ANY data to indicate a corelation between car seats and an INCREASE in child injuries?? If not then what the hell are you trying to say?? Beekeeper........I cannot believe you posted that.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:04:13 PM EST
[*] We have seatbelt laws for automobiles, yet they don't apply to motorcycles, which happen to be about 1016343% more dangerous than riding in a car...[/*] [*] There are no laws anywhere on the books, stating that small children have to be restrained in a car seat, when riding on a motorcycle, yet everytime a motorcycle is in an accident, somebody gets thrown...[/*] What about boats..? Everytime you hit chop, you get flung all around! Basically, common sense should dictate what needs to be done, not a bunch of laws that are not being followed anyway!
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:06:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/10/2002 12:07:13 PM EST by eswanson]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:06:18 PM EST
First off let me say that I have two small children and wouldn't ever do anything to put them in danger, especially driving them around with no car seat. However, I don't care for laws that are supposed protect me from my own stupidity. I don't agree with mandatory seat belt laws, helmet laws, or car seat laws. This in no way means I don't think you should use any of the above. I strongly believe in seatbelts and child car seats, but I don't think the government has the right to force anyone to use them. Also, if you don't think these safety laws relate to gun-control, you are mistaken. I think using the safety issue will be the next avenue the gun-grabbers will take. They already use the for the children line and tout their false statitics about gun related deaths becoming epedemic.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:09:24 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:10:41 PM EST
Well until the day comes ( and I hope it does) that you need to have an IQ test and take a course to breed I will be GLAD that there are such laws!
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:14:24 PM EST
Here's some info on child/airbag deaths. No way has it killed more than it saved tho. For more info go to Google and enter "Child Airbag Deaths"... [url]http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/08/29/airbag.children/[/url]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:23:15 PM EST
Originally Posted By eswanson:
Originally Posted By 455SD: However, I don't care for laws that are supposed protect me from my own stupidity.
View Quote
Well, these laws aren't about protecting you from your own stupidity, because as someone above pointed out, you're an adult and can make your own choices. What we're talking about is protecting your children from your stupidity.
View Quote
Once again. How is by creating a law mandating this protecting the child from the parents own stupidity? They will still be stupid. And odds are they'll still be a menance to their child. I don't like using this example (and its probably not a good one; maybe someone can come up with a better one?) but any moron can buy a gun. There are rules on the ownership of a gun; pretty basic, we all pretty much know them and/or know how to operate one. Yet, he can have a NG because being a moron he left the ammo in while cleaning it. Will making a law saying you are required to take ammo out of a gun before cleaning it prevent said moron from not doing it? The same goes for the seats. You can make a law mandating it but unless he wants to use them or [i]knows better[/i] either they won't use them or use them incorrectly. And you're right I don't have kids. I don't like seeing kids die stupidly...but mandating something doesn't prevent stupidity.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:27:51 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:34:28 PM EST
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1: Those who don't care about their own children demonstrate "natural selection" at work. [V]
View Quote
I was thinking the same thing.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:34:58 PM EST
Originally Posted By eswanson: Are you drunk? Seat belts on a motorcycle? Children in car seats on motorcycles? Put the bottle down, and step away from the keyboard...
View Quote
I was merely pointing out that small children [b][u]are[/u][/b] allowed to ride on motorcycles, yet there are no safety standards, other than helmets, that apply! [u]Now, where is your child more safe:[/u] [*] Unrestrained and in an enclosed automobile..?[/*] [*] Unrestrained and on a motorcycle..?[/*] BTW: Helmets are very dangerous for children, as their neck muscles and spines are often not developed enough to support the additional weight and "torque" that is applied when wearing one. Also, don't go off half cocked, because we all see little kids riding on the front or back of motorcycles on a regular basis! [blue]Would I ever allow a child to travel in my vehicles unrestrained..? Hell no... I won't start the car until all passengers are safely buckeled in![/blue]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:37:39 PM EST
What I was demonstrating is that if we are going to have a few laws to cover the safety of "children", then we had better add more, to cover the rest of the kids! You don't ever travel with unlocked firearms in your vehicle do you..? [>:/]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:39:12 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:52:25 PM EST
Originally Posted By eswanson: If laws mandating child safety seat use keep one kid from becoming paralyzed like that poor kid, it's worth it. [:(!]
View Quote
If laws mandating [s]child safety seat use[/s] guns being forbidden to non-military and non-police personnel keep one kid from becoming paralyzed like that poor kid, it's worth it. Protection from "self stupidity" laws are totally without merit. Someone who does not want to buckle up will not regardless of the laws. Someone who wants to carry a gun concealed will do so regardless of the laws. So what is the point. Yes laws against murder and such are called for. To try to protect the "unwashed masses" from themselves is pointless. Forest Gump said it best, "stupid is as stupid does". [beer]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:57:51 PM EST
Mac....you are mixing things up here.. We are NOT talking about seatbelt laws..which do prevent Self stupidity.. We ARE talking about child seats.... You know CHILDREN who are NOT responsible for their own actions!! Your analogy with guns is without merrit.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:58:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By Sukebe: One of our officers responded to a traffic crash last Saturday. A 3 year old girl is now paralyzed from the neck down because her father decided to drive her around without putting her in a car seat. Of course this ass was drunk (BAC .09). Of course this ass wasn't injured. Of course he lied. But the shattered windshield with her hair embedded in it told the tale. Not to mention her broken neck. If you have children and don't use a car seat you are a fool.
View Quote
AGREE 100%...AND The people that leave their children in the car while they run into the store, pay for gas, post office etc. Are idiots as well! I saw a lady get out of her car and leave an infant and what looked like a 3 year old as she went into the post office. A few minutes later, I asked my buddy (LEO) to watch her kids while I went into the post office and told the her that someone drove off in her car. I thought she was going to pass out. I watched her run out the door, screaming. After seeing her car, I guess she realized I was jacking with her for being so irresponsible. My buddy told me she climbed in her car and sped off. I felt a little bad about screwing with her head, but I don't think she'll ever leave her kids again.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:03:13 PM EST
Originally Posted By HighlandMac:
Originally Posted By eswanson: If laws mandating child safety seat use keep one kid from becoming paralyzed like that poor kid, it's worth it. [:(!]
View Quote
If laws mandating [s]child safety seat use[/s] guns being forbidden to non-military and non-police personnel keep one kid from becoming paralyzed like that poor kid, it's worth it. Protection from "self stupidity" laws are totally without merit. Someone who does not want to buckle up will not regardless of the laws. Someone who wants to carry a gun concealed will do so regardless of the laws. So what is the point. Yes laws against murder and such are called for. To try to protect the "unwashed masses" from themselves is pointless. Forest Gump said it best, "stupid is as stupid does". [beer]
View Quote
"Self stupidity" is one thing. But, when a (assumedly) responsible and cognizent adult makes a decision which places a child in danger, they should be held liable. Most (All?) states recognize a DUTY TO PROTECT relationship between children and their parents/caregivers/guardians. When they're in your custody, they're your RESPONSIBILITY. How can a infant/child make this decision? Even if they could, how could they express it to an adult? Even if they could express it, how could they ENFORCE it?
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:05:03 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:05:12 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:17:23 PM EST
Originally Posted By Stormbringer: Mac....you are mixing things up here.. We are NOT talking about seatbelt laws..which do prevent Self stupidity.. We ARE talking about child seats.... You know CHILDREN who are NOT responsible for their own actions!! Your analogy with guns is without merrit.
View Quote
Actually the seatbelt thing still applies, in fact I think it makes for a better example. You know, I know, pretty much everyone knows that wearing your seat belt is in your best interest. There are laws in most if not all states taht require you to wear your seatbelt. Yet people still don't. Ok, lets pretend there is no seatbelt law. You being an adult, with either a) wear it, or b) not wear it. You most likely will choose a, as most people here I'm sure. Now, you also have a child. Older than and heavier than whatever the law says to you need to be to not be in a car seat...so instead of a car seat, they wear a seat belt. And below whatever age you think kids should be responsible for their own actions Will you a) tell them to put on their seat belt or b) just drive off. Most people would choose a. Why? Common sense. You know the child will be safer with the seat belt than without. However, lets say you are a moron. And you choose b for both or b for the second one. This happens even while there is a law. As do the people not using car seats...they should but they don't even though there is a law. Seatbelts are included in every car/truck. Yet there is a (I hope) small population that still don't use them and don't have their children use them. Car seats, you have to buy. If you care for your child you will use them. If you don't, don't be crying when your youngin' gets launched out a window. How does a law create common sense? Don't know. Might make some aware but it all comes down to will you do this. People know smoking can be/is bad for you yet people still smoke. Common sense.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:20:52 PM EST
Yes the children are definitely the responsibility of the parents. I have 2 and they both are always buckled up and in proper fitting child seats, [b]but not because it is the law![/b] It is because I care about them and would be devastated emotionally far beyond what any pathetic law could do to me if they were hurt or killed. That is why I don't think the law has merit. If someone is too damn stupid to do the right thing with their kids they will suffer way beyond what the law will do to them, unless they are selfish pieces of shit that should not have had children anyway. If something happens to a child like that they have probably been neglected far beyond not being in a safe seat while driving and would be better off not alive any how. I know that is very harsh to say but having witnessed as many fucked up kids, now fucked up adults I believe it applies. [beer]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:26:08 PM EST
I've gotta' start carrying a camera at work. If you saw the things I have seen you would never again object to mandated car seat usage. I don't care who the parents are or what they do or have done, children are innocent and should not have to pay the price. Secure those children. And while you're at it, buckle up.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:27:12 PM EST
Also, does anyone else think that its these feel good "nanny state" laws that is causing people to be less intelligent in the common sense department?
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:30:05 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:45:56 PM EST
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Originally Posted By cgwahl: Also, does anyone else think that its these feel good "nanny state" laws that is causing people to be less intelligent in the common sense department?
View Quote
YES! It screws up natural selection. LOL Here we go again . . . [:D]
View Quote
heh stop that!
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:58:10 PM EST
The real problem is this - he get arrested for DWI/DUI and loses his job. No medical insurance for his daughter means you and I pay for his stupidity...
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 2:04:46 PM EST
Originally Posted By TommyBrown: Yea they gave us laws for air bags, made them mandatory, and it turned out it kills more kids than it helps.
View Quote
Wrong by about an 8:1 margin and if you count those not wearing their belts the margin nearly doubles. Getting your facts from NBC are we?
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 2:06:41 PM EST
Originally Posted By RichinCM: The real problem is this - he get arrested for DWI/DUI and loses his job. No medical insurance for his daughter means you and I pay for his stupidity...
View Quote
Actually that brings in the whole debate about why we shouldn't be paying for other peoples healthcare; which unfortunately will never happen. Shoot, I'd be the first to say to legalize all drugs if they made it we didn't have to pay for their mistakes.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 2:07:30 PM EST
True story, when I was in the Boy Scouts, the Scoutmaster left his loaded 1911 in a desk drawer at home, his 13 year old son found it and accidentally shot his 6 year old brother in the face, killing him. If we had a mandatory gun storage law, or a law requiring trigger locks, or better yet banned all guns, this kid and the other 13 kids a day who are killed with guns would still be alive. IF you saw this kid with a split open head from a .45 bullet, you wouldn't agrue against gun bans either. If it saves just one life, it's worth it. It's for the children.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 2:07:54 PM EST
Remember when you were a kid and you could sleep in the back window of your dads buick while sailing down the interstate and no one gave a shit? We also rode our bikes without helments and skated without knee pads. The difference is lawyers. Heard told of the Louisville slugger bat company having a million dollar judgement against them because some idiot got hit with a foul ball. Seems Louisville Slugger was negligent for not putting a warning label on the bat. Lawyers.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 2:08:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/10/2002 2:12:04 PM EST by antiUSSA]
Originally Posted By Aimless:The worthless POS was DRUNK!!!!!! Drunk, driving around his little girl-that's 1000x worse than no car seat (not that he doesn't deserve to be beat to a pulp for driving around w/o putting his little girl in a car seat). I hope the turd gets some time over this (he would around here).
View Quote
While "legally" a .09 BAC is drunk in many states, it in fact is very much not, in many others! State laws currently range from .12 to .06 for their legal levels, and some are considering dropping to as low as .05 --- This makes for a pretty broad sprectrum, for when you get to actually call the guy a [b]"worthless POS DRUNK!!!!!!"[/B].
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 2:22:32 PM EST
In WI: under 21-No level of alc is acceptable 1st offense .10 - non-criminal citation 2nd offnese .10 - criminal citation 3rd offense .08 - " " 4th offense .02 - " " 5th offense .02 - Felony Citation Also child under 16 yo in vehicle at tim of offense, cranks up the fine on 1st and 2nd offense, and 3rd or greater becomes a felony Also injury by DUI - always criminal Great Bodily Harm by DUI - Felony. Most States have 2 laws, some actually have more esp dealing with drugs. Law #1 makes it a traffic offense to drive while intoxicated to such an extent that you can't safely operate a motor vehicle. Law #2 Deals with alcohol concentrations. .09......... how much time elapsed from the drving until the test?? 2 hours means he was a .12 while driving. 4 hours means he was a .15 while driving. How did this crash happens?? Did he just drive off the road?? The mechanism of the crash may say something about the level of intoxication. How many other DUI's does this guy have? Why did this guy have a child with him if he was going to be drinking?
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 2:29:29 PM EST
Originally Posted By Sukebe: If you have children and don't use a car seat you are a fool.
View Quote
And should have your drivers' license suspended for awhile.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 2:35:31 PM EST
Originally Posted By antiUSSA: [*] We have seatbelt laws for automobiles, yet they don't apply to motorcycles, which happen to be about 1016343% more dangerous than riding in a car...[/*] [*] There are no laws anywhere on the books, stating that small children have to be restrained in a car seat, when riding on a motorcycle, yet everytime a motorcycle is in an accident, somebody gets thrown...[/*] What about boats..? Everytime you hit chop, you get flung all around! Basically, common sense should dictate what needs to be done, not a bunch of laws that are not being followed anyway!
View Quote
Have you ever ridden a bike? No flame, seriously, but when you wreck on a bike, the best thing you can do is get as far away from the bike as you can. Believe me, a tumbling motorcycle is not something you want to be tied to in any way! And even if you do get away from it (and I'm sure most bikers will agree), bikes have a strange way of coming after you.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 2:47:36 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 2:50:21 PM EST
Originally Posted By Zardoz: Have you ever ridden a bike? No flame, seriously, but when you wreck on a bike, the best thing you can do is get as far away from the bike as you can. Believe me, a tumbling motorcycle is not something you want to be tied to in any way! And even if you do get away from it (and I'm sure most bikers will agree), [red]bikes have a strange way of coming after you.[/red]
View Quote
So do cars. And generally cars do a pretty good job of protecting the passenger area in a crash. But you'll alway get the, "what if the car is in the water", "what if the car catches fire".... Ummm if you are not seat belted in you have a much greater chance of sustaining a disabling injury and or being knocked out. And the first fatal crash I went to was a rollover (3x) the driver got ejected on the first roll, and landed right where the car was doing it's second roll. he was split in half at the waist execpt for the "love handles".
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 2:56:30 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 3:15:01 PM EST
Originally Posted By Zardoz: Have you ever ridden a bike? No flame, seriously, but when you wreck on a bike, the best thing you can do is get as far away from the bike as you can. Believe me, a tumbling motorcycle is not something you want to be tied to in any way! And even if you do get away from it (and I'm sure most bikers will agree), bikes have a strange way of coming after you.
View Quote
I've owned a few, and raced the hell out of one of them... This was all illegal road racing of course, and at 150+, it's enough to ruin your day if you ever drop her! Hopefully, in the next yaer or two, I'll be able to buy another bike ([i]Kawasaki Concourse[/i]) as well... FWIW: I was using the bike analogies to show the flip side of the coin, and play devils advocate!
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 3:15:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By HighlandMac:
Originally Posted By eswanson: If laws mandating child safety seat use keep one kid from becoming paralyzed like that poor kid, it's worth it. [:(!]
View Quote
If laws mandating [s]child safety seat use[/s] guns being forbidden to non-military and non-police personnel keep one kid from becoming paralyzed like that poor kid, it's worth it. Protection from "self stupidity" laws are totally without merit. Someone who does not want to buckle up will not regardless of the laws. Someone who wants to carry a gun concealed will do so regardless of the laws. So what is the point. Yes laws against murder and such are called for. To try to protect the "unwashed masses" from themselves is pointless. Forest Gump said it best, "stupid is as stupid does". [beer]
View Quote
a parent who puts a child in jeopardy by not securing him properly is not enjoying "thier" right to self stupidity, the child is suffering due to the adult. The adult affects the child, who at 3yrs old, depends on the adult to do the right thing. When the adult cannot or will not secure the child properly, action needs to be taken to protect the child. Adults can do whatever the hell they please for all I care, as far as thier seatbelt is concerned. WHAT JACKASS WOULD RIDE AROUND WITH AN UNRESTRAINED 3 YR OLD??? Plenty, that's the problem. Motorcycles? Small children shouldn't be on the back of those either. But then again, you didn't see the biker I saw hit with a van sitting on top of him a couple days ago, helmet saved his life, barely. Would a three year old have survived???
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 3:18:17 PM EST
Originally Posted By antiUSSA: [u]Now, where is your child more safe:[/u] [*] Unrestrained and in an enclosed automobile..?[/*] [*] Unrestrained and on a motorcycle..?[/*]
View Quote
Both are pretty stupid if you ask me. Making a child into a human missile when the car crashes is not a bright idea. The kid is still traveling at whatever speed the car was going, until the inside of the car stops the kid.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top