Question FF required by state law, how to change this?

[cg0112358]

DH took my car to the state troopers' station to get it inspected last week. We have a convertible car seat that RF up to 40 lbs, FF up to 60 lbs and then acts as a booster up to 100 lbs. I bought it specifically because I wanted a car seat that would RF for as long as possible. Well, DH was told that in my state it is technically illegal for my child to RF. Apparently children over 1 year that weigh 20+ lbs are required by state law to FF. DH stated the AAP's recommendation and questioned how this could be true. The state trooper printed out the regulations for the state government's website and gave it to MH. How ridiculous is that???

The state trooper did agree that RF is safer and said that no trooper would probably ever write someone up for something like that but he is required to tell us since it is the law. I already told DH that DS would stay RF (he agrees) and that we would just take a ticket if it came to that. I know that not everyone feels RF is necessary at his age but it should still be my choice to choose to RF as long as my car seat allows.

oh, and some friends suggested that I put together some info and try to see how to go about getting the law changed. Since I have next week off we'll see what I can find out about changing this ridiculous law. Any thoughts as to how to go about doing this?

 

[Syllieann]

What state are you in? I'm in WI and it our law said the same thing but was updated last fall so that erf and eh are explicitely ok. I had actually just contacted my state senator about it and he informed me that there was legislation in the pipeline and then he let me know that it had passed. You should contact your senator or rep.

 

[Phineasmama]

I've never heard of such a thing! The only thing I've heard of is that they must be rear facing if they're under 1 year and 20 lbs, not that 1/20 suddenly means they have to be turned around.

 

[Brigala]

There are a couple of states with laws like that.

In Oregon, it was the law until January 1 this year that all children over 40 lbs (regardless of age as long as they were under 8 or 4'9" tall) ride in a belt positioning booster. Our Safe Kids coalition still passed out high weight harness seats to kids over 40 lbs who were much under the age of four, and the state's website published recommendations that young kids ride in harnessed seats and listed several HWH seats available - but technically their advice was in conflict with the law. Fortunately we had it amended so it's no longer an issue, and I've never heard of anybody getting a ticket for it. In fact, I have a friend whose husband was lectured by a traffic cop before the law change for having his 5 year old in a booster (she was definitely over 40 lbs) because she was fidgeting and was clearly not mature enough to stay put - he threatened to write him a ticket for improper restraint (due to the seat belt being out of position) but let him off with a warning.

I've only once heard of a ticket being issued for a child staying RF in one of those states with anti-ERF language in the law. Honestly, safety trumps law in my opinion, and I would fight a ticket to the bitter end if I got one. Including going to the local news to raise awareness of the issue and perhaps pressure the legislature to change the law.

 

[Cath3114]

Louisiana is like that too. Our law says something to the effect of "Children between 1-3(I think?) weighing more than 20 pounds shall ride in a fforward facing seat."

I interpret the shall to mean must. But I doubt it's enforced at all. I would also fight it and raise a huge stink about it if I were given a ticket.

 

[DrummerBaby]

There are also laws about chewing gum in public in some states still...

I'd break the FF law and work to change it. Civil disobedience. Besides, it's unlikely you'd actually get into trouble.

 

[KaiLing]

When you're advocating to your state representatives and so on, I think this is a good time to share the Joel's Journey video. I don't usually recommend it for parents because it's very emotional and can make actual parents feel defensive, but I think it would be a good tool for grabbing the attention of lawmakers.

joelsjourney.org is their foundation, and the video I'm thinking about is: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8gU9zzCGA8"]Front facing or Rear facing? Car seat safety TRUE STORY crash test videos - YouTube[/ame]

Was the state trooper you talked to a CPST? I'm thinking yes (since he agreed with you about RF to 24 months), but it's always good to make sure when you get fishy info.

 

[hrice]

There are also laws about chewing gum in public in some states still...

I'd break the FF law and work to change it. Civil disobedience. Besides, it's unlikely you'd actually get into trouble.

Lol. I think it's illegal in my city to spit on the street down town. Storage law right?

 

[Kat_Momof3]

at least he wasn't simply misinformed and approached it the right way... the "I have to tell you this, but I agree it's safer to rearface" instead of trying to argue about what's safer and not evne knowing the law correctly.

I would continue to rearface... I agree, I doubt any cop would ticket you, but I would also start NOW in getting other parents to help you work on the legislators to get the law changed.

 

[actuallyamanda]

I would definitely continue to RF. If you ever did get a ticket for it, I would take it to court with PLENTY of information to prove that your child is safer RFing. Even if you were ticketed, and lost in court, at least you would know that your child is safe.

 

[CTPDMom]

DH took my car to the state troopers' station to get it inspected last week. We have a convertible car seat that RF up to 40 lbs, FF up to 60 lbs and then acts as a booster up to 100 lbs. I bought it specifically because I wanted a car seat that would RF for as long as possible. Well, DH was told that in my state it is technically illegal for my child to RF. Apparently children over 1 year that weigh 20+ lbs are required by state law to FF. DH stated the AAP's recommendation and questioned how this could be true. The state trooper printed out the regulations for the state government's website and gave it to MH. How ridiculous is that???

The state trooper did agree that RF is safer and said that no trooper would probably ever write someone up for something like that but he is required to tell us since it is the law. I already told DH that DS would stay RF (he agrees) and that we would just take a ticket if it came to that. I know that not everyone feels RF is necessary at his age but it should still be my choice to choose to RF as long as my car seat allows.

oh, and some friends suggested that I put together some info and try to see how to go about getting the law changed. Since I have next week off we'll see what I can find out about changing this ridiculous law. Any thoughts as to how to go about doing this?

Definitely would like to know what state this was. Is it possible he is misinterpreting? Our law here in CT says kids must rf until at least 1 year and 20 lbs and I've had cops tell me that they must be turned then. They thought it was the law.

And also, what seat do you have? I'm not aware of any that are 40lbs rf, 60lbs ff and 100lbs booster. This must be one I missed.

 

[henrietta]

It's the same in my state of Tennessee. But it is very unlikely you'd receive a ticket for it...we're also a proper use state, so that carries some weight. If the seat's instructions say it can be used till 35 lbs rearfacing and up to 36" (or whatever, just an example), and your kiddo is under that, it's unlikely that any officer will issue a ticket. Plus, more of our officers are taking the CPST training here and are sharing the info w/other officers, so they know more about rearfacing, too.

But I agree--it's a law that needs changed.

henrietta

 

[CTPDMom]

Louisiana is like that too. Our law says something to the effect of "Children between 1-3(I think?) weighing more than 20 pounds shall ride in a fforward facing seat."

I interpret the shall to mean must. But I doubt it's enforced at all. I would also fight it and raise a huge stink about it if I were given a ticket.

While you're right your law says (sort of) what you posted above, it also says the bolded part. If you had a child who was within the height/weight limits of a seat in a more protective category I seriously doubt you'd ever receive a ticket and if you did I am pretty confident they'd nolle it.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=88231

§295. Child passenger restraint system

A. Except as provided in Subsections C, D, and E of this Section, every driver in this state who transports a child or children under the age of thirteen years in a motor vehicle which is equipped with safety belts shall have the child properly secured as follows:

(1) A child younger than six years of age or weighing sixty pounds or less shall be restrained in a child restraint system as provided for in this Subsection that complies with standards of the United States Department of Transportation and is secured in the vehicle in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer of the child restraint system and the passenger seating position is equipped with a safety belt system that allows sufficient space for installation. The child restraint system required for a child younger than six years of age or weighing sixty pounds or less is, in descending order of protectiveness, as follows:

(a) A child who is younger than one year of age or weighs less than twenty pounds shall be restrained in a rear-facing child safety seat.

(b) A child who is at least one year of age but younger than four years of age or who weighs at least twenty pounds but less than forty pounds shall be restrained in a forward-facing child safety seat.

(c) A child who is at least four years of age but younger than six years of age or1 who weighs at least forty pounds but not more than sixty pounds shall be restrained in a child booster seat. The requirements of this Subparagraph shall not apply in any seating position where there is only a lap belt available and the child weighs more than forty pounds.

(2) A child who is at least six years of age or weighs more than sixty pounds shall be restrained with the motor vehicle's safety belt adjusted and fastened around the child's body or in an appropriately fitting child booster seat in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer of the safety belt or child booster seat.

(3) A child who because of age or weight can be placed in more than one category shall be placed in the more protective category.

 

[Cath3114]

While you're right your law says (sort of) what you posted above, it also says the bolded part. If you had a child who was within the height/weight limits of a seat in a more protective category I seriously doubt you'd ever receive a ticket and if you did I am pretty confident they'd nolle it.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=88231

§295. Child passenger restraint system

A. Except as provided in Subsections C, D, and E of this Section, every driver in this state who transports a child or children under the age of thirteen years in a motor vehicle which is equipped with safety belts shall have the child properly secured as follows:

(1) A child younger than six years of age or weighing sixty pounds or less shall be restrained in a child restraint system as provided for in this Subsection that complies with standards of the United States Department of Transportation and is secured in the vehicle in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer of the child restraint system and the passenger seating position is equipped with a safety belt system that allows sufficient space for installation. The child restraint system required for a child younger than six years of age or weighing sixty pounds or less is, in descending order of protectiveness, as follows:

(a) A child who is younger than one year of age or weighs less than twenty pounds shall be restrained in a rear-facing child safety seat.

(b) A child who is at least one year of age but younger than four years of age or who weighs at least twenty pounds but less than forty pounds shall be restrained in a forward-facing child safety seat.

(c) A child who is at least four years of age but younger than six years of age or1 who weighs at least forty pounds but not more than sixty pounds shall be restrained in a child booster seat. The requirements of this Subparagraph shall not apply in any seating position where there is only a lap belt available and the child weighs more than forty pounds.

(2) A child who is at least six years of age or weighs more than sixty pounds shall be restrained with the motor vehicle's safety belt adjusted and fastened around the child's body or in an appropriately fitting child booster seat in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer of the safety belt or child booster seat.

(3) A child who because of age or weight can be placed in more than one category shall be placed in the more protective category.

You're right. I did forget about that provision. I remember reading it awhile back now.

 

[thekatie]

It's the same in my state of Tennessee. But it is very unlikely you'd receive a ticket for it...we're also a proper use state, so that carries some weight. If the seat's instructions say it can be used till 35 lbs rearfacing and up to 36" (or whatever, just an example), and your kiddo is under that, it's unlikely that any officer will issue a ticket. Plus, more of our officers are taking the CPST training here and are sharing the info w/other officers, so they know more about rearfacing, too.

But I agree--it's a law that needs changed.

henrietta

I looked up Tennessee law (we're outside of Memphis), and what it said was:

"Children age one (1) through age three (3), and weighing more than twenty (20) pounds, must be secured in a child safety seat in a forward facing position in the rear seat, if available, or according to the child safety restraint system or vehicle manufacturer's instructions."

Does that last line, about 'according to the child safety restraint system' mean that of the restraint allows past 20lb that it's legal? Because according to 'proper use' my 13 month old CAN'T be forward facing in either of our seats (Pria and Scenera) because they require the child to be 34in and he is only 28in.

To the OP: I'm not a tech, just a mom, but what I would do to attempt to change a law is research and find actual crash data, as well as testimonials, about rear-facing v. forward-facing. I would also try to contact as many people locally as I could to get them on board, to start a petition if needed. Contact everyone from city government up to the state level. But... I've never tried to do something like that!

 

[VoodooChile]

I thought TN had a recent-ish addendum stating that seats allowing rf above 1 year/20 lbs could continue to be used rf? I moved to OH from TN last year and was kind of sad that I was leaving a state with good CPS laws.

 

[Ellie173]

I thought TN had a recent-ish addendum stating that seats allowing rf above 1 year/20 lbs could continue to be used rf? I moved to OH from TN last year and was kind of sad that I was leaving a state with good CPS laws.

Yes, this is the new part of the law...
Note: If the child safety seat has a higher rear-facing weight rating, usually 30 or 35 pounds, it may be continued to be used in a rear-facing position so long as the child's weight permits. Check the manufacturers instructions accompanying the child safety seat for more information.

 

[Phineasmama]

Wow I just looked up Wisconsin and it's awesome! It says children must be restrained in a rear facing OR forward facing harnessed seat! Even for children ages 4-8 and 40-80 lbs it still says they can be RFing!

 

[moonmommy]

Ohio also has some poor wording to the booster section of their child restraint laws. The older section of the law required children under 4 years old or under 40 lbs to be secured in an appropriate child restraint according to manufacturer guidelines. The booster section, added just a couple years ago, states that children above that but under 8 and under 4'9" must ride in a BOOSTER. So if one were to get very technical, my 4 year old ERFer would have to switch to a booster after he hits 40 lbs. I brought this up last year at our state CPS conference with a panel of law enforcement officers. Their answers were basically that they knew of no officer who would interpret it that way, and even if one were to be a jerk-wad and ticket someone harnessing a 5 year old, pretty much guaranteed that a judge would throw it out as a misinterpretation and recognize that the parent was following the intent of the law. I really think Ohio could seriously simplify the law by changing it to say that any child under 8 and under 4'9" must be secured in an appropriate child restraint according to manufacturer guidelines.

 

[henrietta]

Yes, this is the new part of the law...
Note: If the child safety seat has a higher rear-facing weight rating, usually 30 or 35 pounds, it may be continued to be used in a rear-facing position so long as the child's weight permits. Check the manufacturers instructions accompanying the child safety seat for more information.

Hey SarahEllen,

Where did you find this? Do you have a link? Because I don't have this info and it wasn't mentioned to us in class. I'm wondering how I missed this.

Thanks!

henrietta