So how often do you all find yourself persuasively writing about car seat laws? Our newspaper had the following article on Sunday.
http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=301969
I am so bothered by it I keep thinking of how negatively it portrays the new AAP guidelines. It also CLEARLY shows many people basically saying they will do what they want because it's not law to rear face to 2 years. You should have heard me venting to my husband about the "there is no leg room" complaint for rear facing.
Along the side of the article (not shown online) it has 5 kids' take on the new law. They had ONE 7 y/o say they liked their booster and the rest were complaining about how long they'd have to wait to get out of a booster or that they'd NEVER go back into one after being out of it. YES MOM! Let the children decide what is best for them.
I feel it was an unfair dig at the new guidelines and really was poorly written in that it doesn't give a whole lot of support (such as no need to worry about broken legs vs broken neck). I'm contemplating writing into the paper about the article and my feelings on it, but already know I'm in the vast minority that have followed the rear facing beyond 12 mo suggestion.
What's your take on it? Can anyone put my mind at ease?
http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=301969
I am so bothered by it I keep thinking of how negatively it portrays the new AAP guidelines. It also CLEARLY shows many people basically saying they will do what they want because it's not law to rear face to 2 years. You should have heard me venting to my husband about the "there is no leg room" complaint for rear facing.
Along the side of the article (not shown online) it has 5 kids' take on the new law. They had ONE 7 y/o say they liked their booster and the rest were complaining about how long they'd have to wait to get out of a booster or that they'd NEVER go back into one after being out of it. YES MOM! Let the children decide what is best for them.
I feel it was an unfair dig at the new guidelines and really was poorly written in that it doesn't give a whole lot of support (such as no need to worry about broken legs vs broken neck). I'm contemplating writing into the paper about the article and my feelings on it, but already know I'm in the vast minority that have followed the rear facing beyond 12 mo suggestion.
What's your take on it? Can anyone put my mind at ease?