Uhggg!!! One Step forward, One step back!

natysr · Sep 18, 2007

The new California booster bill is now headed to the the governor's desk for signature.

This bill would change the booster seat law from 6 yrs & 60 pounds to 8 years or 4' 9".

So that is good....but...at the very last minute, the State Senate changed the Rearfacing wording from 1 year and 20 pounds to 1 year OR 20 pounds! And then the assembly went and confirmed it.

(However Car rental agencies are still required to post signs regarding 1 year AND 20 pounds).

This is so frustrating.

Here is the text.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0851-0900/ab_881_bill_20070914_enrolled.pdf

bobandjess99 · Sep 18, 2007

hmmm...dd hit 20 pounds at 3 months. Guess I should have turned her FF then......

veggiegirl228 · Sep 18, 2007

These people have no clue when it comes to child safety

beebear23 · Sep 18, 2007

ARG!!!!!!!!!

And I already sent my letter in support of this bill! If I had known this, I would have mentioned it!

Grrr.... idiots.

tl01 · Sep 18, 2007

So tell me that is not the law now! How do we stop this nonsense? Why can't they use the American Academy of Pediatrics wording? ARG!

jebedyah · Sep 18, 2007

I just e-mailed both my state senator and assembly member. I referenced the AAP policy and gave them the link to the text. Maybe the bill can be amended.

For others in California, you can look up your representatives here:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp
(click on the "Your Senator" link on the left--you should be prompted to enter your address, and it will give you both your senator and assembly member)

natysr · Sep 18, 2007

jebedyah said:
I just e-mailed both my state senator and assembly member. I referenced the AAP policy and gave them the link to the text. Maybe the bill can be amended.

For others in California, you can look up your representatives here:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp
(click on the "Your Senator" link on the left--you should be prompted to enter your address, and it will give you both your senator and assembly member)

It is too late for that now. It has gone to the governor's desk.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_881&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen

He either signs it or he doesn't.

I wonder if he has the power for a line item veto? I need to learn more about our sytem....

ignora · Sep 18, 2007

natysr said:
The new California booster bill is now headed to the the governor's desk for signature.

This bill would change the booster seat law from 6 yrs & 60 pounds to 8 years or 4' 9".

So that is good....but...at the very last minute, the State Senate changed the Rearfacing wording from 1 year and 20 pounds to 1 year OR 20 pounds! And then the assembly went and confirmed it.

NNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

:hitselfonhead: :soapbox:

Edit: Ok, now that I've said all that... I looked at the law link and I don't see where it says that. Can you point it out for me? I'm feeling really dumb right now...

MomToEliEm · Sep 18, 2007

I read through the text and am not seeing any issues with the law. It still says that the child has to be both 20 pounds and 1 year before they can go forward facing.

Here the parts of the law (AB881) that I found:

"The bill additionally would require, for transport upon a highway in a motor vehicle, that a parent or legal guardian properly secure his or her child or ward who is under one year of age or weighs less then 20 pounds in a rear-facing child passenger restraint system in a rear seat"

With the above, read it as:
"child under one year of age" = A
"weighs less then 20 pounds" = B
"must be in rear-facing car seat" = C
If A or B, then C
If either A or B is true, then C must happen. This means that both conditions must be met for a child to be forward facing. If at lest one condition is true, then the result must occur. If it had been "If A and B, then C" then if either A or B wasn't true (child over 20 pounds or child over 1 year of age), then C does not have to happen since "If False and True" will always be False. You do really want "If False or True, then True" to be the real wording.

"For purpose of Section 27360, a child shall be properly recured in a rear-facing child passenger restraint system unless that child is one year of age or more and weighs 20 pounds or more."

Same condition as above
Do rearfacing child restraint unless one year of age and 20 pounds
Do C unless A and B
Do C unless True and False (True and False = False so C will occur until both statements are true causing the unless to become true)

"Children must be in a rear facing child passenger restraint system in the backseat until they are both at least one year of age and weigh 20 lbs"

Do rear facing car seat until one year of age and 20 pounds
Do C until A and B
C must occur until A and B are both true (true and true = true, true and false = false)

ignora · Sep 19, 2007

MomToEliEm said:
I read through the text and am not seeing any issues with the law. It still says that the child has to be both 20 pounds and 1 year before they can go forward facing.

Here the parts of the law (AB881) that I found:

"The bill additionally would require, for transport upon a highway in a motor vehicle, that a parent or legal guardian properly secure his or her child or ward who is under one year of age or weighs less then 20 pounds in a rear-facing child passenger restraint system in a rear seat"

Ok, I did see this ... and I interpreted it the same way as you did. Which is why I thought I was confused and wasn't seeing what the OP was talking about...

steph · Sep 19, 2007

It says 1 year or 20 lbs on page 2 at the bottom but in the actual bill is says 1 year and 20lbs.

The bill additionally would require, for transport upon a highway
in a motor vehicle, that a parent or legal guardian properly secure
his or her child or ward who is under one year of age or weighsless than 20 pounds in a rear-facing child passenger restraint system in a rear seat.

I like how they are making it illegal for a child to sit in the front seat under the age of 8 even if the airbags are off - I see too many kids in the front seat when they don't have to be.

(e) For purposes of Section 27360, a child or ward under eight
years of age may ride properly secured in an appropriate child
passenger restraint system meeting applicable federal motor vehicle
safety standards in the front seat of a motor vehicle under any of
the following circumstances:
(1) There is no rear seat.
(2) The rear seats are side-facing jump seats.
(3) The rear seats are rear-facing seats.
(4) The child passenger restraint system cannot be installed
properly in the rear seat.
(5) All rear seats are already occupied by children seven years
of age or under.
(6) Medical reasons necessitate that the child or ward not ride
in the rear seat. The court may require satisfactory proof of the
child’s medical condition.
(f) Notwithstanding subdivision (e), a child shall not be
transported in a rear-facing child passenger restraint system in the
front seat of a motor vehicle that is equipped...

natysr · Sep 19, 2007

I get it now.

Sorry! I just interpreted it all wrong.

beeman · Sep 19, 2007

Even if the state bill read 1 or 20lbs, the federal law of 1 and 20 would override it.

Uhggg!!! One Step forward, One step back!

natysr

New member

bobandjess99

Senior Community Member

veggiegirl228

New member

beebear23

Senior Community Member

tl01

New member

jebedyah

New member

natysr

New member

ignora

Senior Community Member

MomToEliEm

Moderator

ignora

Senior Community Member

steph

New member

natysr

New member

beeman

Active member

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics