Proper Use Clause for Canada.

[Mara1973]

I know we throw this around sometimes, but does anyone have a link or information outlining it by chance? I have never actually seen anything in writing referring to this specific guideline and would love to bookmark it.

Thanks a bunch,

Mara :)
Ontario Tech

[lenats31]

I don´t know about this:

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2000/20000315/html/sor89-e.html

Lena

[Allport]

wouldn't that be provincial since they are the ones that say you must use a car seat/booster?

[Mara1973]

yes I was thinking provincial too, but I can not find any specific guidelines for it either Canadian or Provincial. Someone must have a source for it since it is talked about and I assume there is some background to it, so just us techs repeating after each other :)

I have thrown it out too, I just don't have anything to link to. I am pulling together new info for all our techs since I am the coordinator for the clinics in our region and I am trying to uniform the information we give out. The police Sgt I work with was not able to give me anything law based from them either.

Tamara :)

[Allport]

OK for Ontario it's in the Highway Traffic Act and regulations but I'll have to get on line to find the actual section for you - the Sgt. should know since he enforces it:rolleyes:

[Mara1973]

I'll look for it online for the full act and look for it. I am guessing it's not so enforced by the police. lol

I am reading through it if someone knows which category to check :)

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm

[hipmaman]

Sort of laid out here in the MTO FAQ for lay-folks http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/faq/safety.shtml#passenger1

And of course, there are laws but enforcement is up to the police.

There is someone on a different board was fined because she didn't know her 3-in-1 were harnessed to 40 lbs and she had one of her twins who was over 40 lbs in harness mode. I say that is extremely rare for an officer to notice, let alone enforcing in this case.

[Allport]

Yeah, enforcement in Ontario is bad - not too many forces (or the OPP) have any idea of what they should ticket/warn for. It's something we're trying to correct up here in Ottawa but it's a long slow process!:rolleyes:

[Mara1973]

Tam, I know the story you are talking about and I am not sure about that one, but that's another story.

I read through the bulk of the act, I must have been bored. I can not find anything relating to that in specific wording though, maybe I missed it. So, I can see tickets for written law obviously, that one is easier to enforce, but I can not find anything that would legally support ticketing in various situations ie:FF a 9 month old who does not meet the 1 year requirement by the manual or a child FF in a 40lb seat until 45 lbs etc. Obviously we all know best practice and the importance of following the manual, but I am wondering about the governing legislation which I don't think is clear in the act at all. I could not find anything about proper use and following manuals, so I can not see how a ticket would stick with nothing to direct the charge to. I wish there was a specific clause to actually point to.

Tamara :)

[hipmaman]

Tam, I know the story you are talking about and I am not sure about that one, but that's another story.

LOL, I've been trying to decide what I should say in that story. Hmmm...

I read through the bulk of the act, I must have been bored. I can not find anything relating to that in specific wording though, maybe I missed it. So, I can see tickets for written law obviously, that one is easier to enforce, but I can not find anything that would legally support ticketing in various situations ie:FF a 9 month old who does not meet the 1 year requirement by the manual or a child FF in a 40lb seat until 45 lbs etc. Obviously we all know best practice and the importance of following the manual, but I am wondering about the governing legislation which I don't think is clear in the act at all. I could not find anything about proper use and following manuals, so I can not see how a ticket would stick with nothing to direct the charge to. I wish there was a specific clause to actually point to.

Tamara :)

Yeah, I don't know about the specific clause, although I'm going to ask around for it. Will let you know. It might be the case of the expectation that owners would use carseats (or anything like an appliant) properly (as per instructions) and not to cause harm to others.

[QuassEE]

I'm a bit late to the game, but carseat laws are definitely provincial and not all provinces have proper use clauses.. Ontario and Alberta do, I believe.. Not sure about anywhere else. BC does not, although enforcement of proper use is still possible (although unlikely, since carseat use enforcement is next to nil in BC..)

-Nicole.

[snowbird25ca]

AB has a proper use law - I believe it's worded something to the effect of must be secured in the seat as directed or properly secured? I'm not 100% sure the wording. I know that you can get 3 tickets for the same seat if it's a ff'ing seat. There's one if there's no top tether being used, one for not installed properly (separate from top tether,) and one for child not restrained properly.

So if you have 2 seats in the vehicle, and both are wrong on all 3 counts, you could get 6 tickets. They don't give demerits though, and parents can choose to attend an education session and have the ticket dropped. From what I've been told a fair number of parents just pay the ticket instead of learning how to restrain their child properly. :(

[beeman]

So if you have 2 seats in the vehicle, and both are wrong on all 3 counts, you could get 6 tickets. They don't give demerits though.

In Saskatchewan every passenger under the age of 16 not restrained properly (seat belt or child restraint) gets the driver a ticket and demerit points that are the same as if the driver was not wearing the seat belt. I can't see why a proper use ticket would just be a cash ticket if the effort has been made to have one :twocents: . I may be wrong though.

[Mara1973]

I have scoured the Ontario Hwy Traffic acts for a specific clause and found nothing. Restrained properly as required by law easy to enforce, but as long as they are meeting the law then nothing else to enforce by the act from what I can tell. So in terms of RF earlier than a year, easily fought if ticketed from what I can tell. And there is that grey area at 40lbs. Nothing relative to extended harnessing and the guidelines for seat specifics and following the manual.

edited to add....Maybe? Yes, I think that will work. I bolded the area for infant, but it is the same for toddlers. In easier terms "The seatbelt used to restrain must be used by the manufacturers guidelines, so this works for not using a FF install for kids under 1 year if the manufacturer states to wait for 20/22 lbs AND 1 year and if they are using the 40lb seat past that weight, they are also not using the seatbelt by manufacturers guidelines. I thought I was going crazy since I could not find it.

A toddler shall be secured,

(a) in a child restraint system that,

(i) conforms to the requirements of Standard 213 under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada),

(ii) is secured by a seat belt assembly in the manner recommended by the manufacturer of the child restraint system, unless the child restraint system was designed to be and is secured by means of a universal anchorage system,

(iii) is secured by all the anchorage straps and devices recommended by the manufacturer of the child restraint system, if the motor vehicle was manufactured on or after January 1, 1989, and

(iv) has all harnesses, straps and buckles designed to secure the toddler in the child restraint system properly adjusted and securely fastened; or

(b) in a child restraint system described in subsection (5), if the manufacturer’s specifications permit or recommend the system for use by children who weigh nine kilograms or more and not less than the weight of the toddler.


The ammended and clearer guidelines I found at another location, not on my original link

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/source/regs/english/2005/elaws_src_regs_r05195_e.htm

Also, note on this link.
(iii) is secured by all the anchorage straps and devices recommended by the manufacturer of the child restraint system, if the motor vehicle was manufactured on or after January 1, 1989, and

(does this mean vehicles pre 1989 are not required to use tether as by law)


Mara :)

[snowbird25ca]

In Saskatchewan every passenger under the age of 16 not restrained properly (seat belt or child restraint) gets the driver a ticket and demerit points that are the same as if the driver was not wearing the seat belt. I can't see why a proper use ticket would just be a cash ticket if the effort has been made to have one :twocents: . I may be wrong though.

Seatbelt tickets don't give demerits in AB either. Then again, many Albertans probably care just as much if not more about their pocket book than their demerits so I don't think demerits would make any difference in terms of compliance.

[hipmaman]

So in terms of RF earlier than a year, easily fought if ticketed from what I can tell.

Ah, that's what you are going for? Proper use is to the manual instructions and the law says until 20 lbs must be rf, otherwise it's all fair game :(


And there is that grey area at 40lbs. Nothing relative to extended harnessing and the guidelines for seat specifics and following the manual.

And not just in Ontario, I'm almost sure that extended harnessing (and extended rf) is best-practice, not law, therefore not enforcible. It's not improper use (in the legal sense) to ff a child 40 lbs (regardless of age, unless the province has a legal age requirement. Ontario doesn't)

[Mara1973]

Hey Tam, that I am clear on. What I was referring to was the grey area between harnessing seats and booster when we talk just about the 40lb number. But the clause I actually found does cover that now anyways

Mara :)