Skip to comments.New law ups age for child restraints
Posted on 06/16/2005 10:28:10 AM PDT by Disambiguator
Your children are cute, but if they're not buckled in correctly, they're going to cost you a ticket.
Albuquerque police and law enforcement officers around the state say parents of children ages 5 and up are going to be scrutinized more than ever when a new law on child safety seats goes into effect Friday.
The current law requires safety restraints for children through age 4 or less than 40 pounds. The new law says children ages 5 or 6 or less than 60 pounds must be protected.
Children 7 through 12 also require safety restraints - either a child safety seat if they weigh less than 60 pounds or seat belts.
All seats must meet federal standards.
"A properly secured seat belt fits over thighs, not the abdomen, with knees bent over the seat edge," said Jeannie Chavez, spokeswoman for AAA New Mexico. "A seat belt should go over heaviest part of the bone structure, the shoulder bone, chest bone and over the hip portion of the upper thighs."
The law was proposed by AAA New Mexico and Safer New Mexico Now and passed during the 2005 legislative session.
"Nine out of 10 car seats are installed incorrectly," said Lisa Kelloff, president of Safer New Mexico Now.
Safer New Mexico Now opened five fitting stations statewide last year and is looking to add three this year, she said.
Each station provides proper installation of child safety seats by trained technicians and information on proper use, she said.
"Stations are at permanent locations on a specific day of the month every month at a specific time," Kelloff said. "People should come in with the car and seat, and the child as well."
Fittings at the stations are by appointment only.
The organization also has car seat distribution programs for low-income families in 30 locations around the state.
Albuquerque police spokeswoman Sgt. Beth Paiz said officers will begin enforcing the new law right away.
"There will be no grace period," she said.
Children who move around the back seat, whose heads pop up or who lean over to get something from the front seat are easy to spot, Paiz said. That would constitute probable cause for a traffic stop.
If the child is not in a safety restraint, the driver will be cited, she said.
The fine is $84, Kelloff said, and two points against the driver's license.
However, judges have the discretion to require the offender to take part in a violator education program by Safer New Mexico Now. That would waive the two points, Kelloff said.
For NM Freepers and anyone driving through the state of New Mexico, this new law takes effect on 6/17/05.
My 4 year-old is already having trouble finding room for her feet in her car seat. This just seems like get more $$$$ legislation disguised as It's for the Children law.
Especially the Republicans, with their "limited government" lies. At least the 'Rats are upfront about their Big Stupid Government intentions.
These laws are for irresponsible idiots. The vast majority of parents would buckle their kids up, with or without a law.
I don't know how previous generations survived without nanny laws dictating safety gear for kids in cars..Does any evidence show that children are safer today with overprotective seatbelts than before???
The irresponsible idiots will continue to let their kids climb around the car like monkeys, and drive with babies on their laps. I see them on the road regularly.
One person's "irresponsibility" is another person's freedom.
Lots of people consider gun ownership to be irresponsible.
My child likes to ride out on the front of the car and pretend she's a hood ornament. Who's the government to tell she can't!
However, if you are in an accident and a child is injured because of you, it seems like the law could protect you if the parents were not following the law.
Without the law, it seems like the injured child's parents could sue you even more.
The good news is, those genes will be removed from the gene pool.
Darwin loves you.
"People should come in with the car and seat, and the child as well."
Is Ms. Kelloff telling 90% of parents to endanger their children?
These laws are horrible for small kids.
Can you imagine the grief a twelve year old would get if he had to have a CAR SEAT??
My son is almost twelve and just hit 70 pounds, but his feet more than hit the floor.
*******NITPICKER AND POLITICALLY CORRECT POST ALERT
Thanks. It's always nice to be appreciated.
12 and only 70 pounds? Give that boy a Big Mac.
Children don't have adult freedoms. They don't have 2nd amendment rights as you and I do. Driving or riding in a car is not a freedom or a right. It can be taken away for a number of reasons. Using your logic, DUI laws shoud be removed because it takes away your freedom to be irresposible? You are free not to wear the seatbelt, but you will be fined if you don't.
You, my friend, are living proof of my contention that there is no sarcasm, no matter how broad, that will not be taken seriously by at least one FReeper.
Actually, that would be you.
My son is almost 11 and weighs 63 pounds. I'll be happy if he reaches 70 by 12.
There's no way he'd eat a Big Mac. He'll eat a plain cheeseburger with nothing on it, and he'll barely eat that.
The children are driving the car?
It's not their parents driving the car, choosing whether to use government-approved child safety devices or not?
U.S. Supreme Court
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
"The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
U.S. Supreme Court HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) 502 U.S. 21
, monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured. . . ."
We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are "persons" within the meaning of 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits, nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal liability under 1983 solely by virtue of the "official" nature of their acts.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.
Sue the shit out of the legislators and the officers who have enacted and enforce this unconstitutional law.
Why not just use the handyman's secret weapon and duct tape the children to the seats.
Duct taping their mouths closed would be a valuable safety measure.
When I grew up in New Mexico, I routinely ride in the back of pickup trucks on dirt mountain roads. We'd routinely toss baseballs back and forth there. Man, kids today have no fun.
Didn't have bike helmets either.
For clarification (in case of sloppy reporting), here's the body of the law:
RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES; REQUIRING CHILD BOOSTER SEAT USE
FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
Section 1. Section 66-7-369 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1983,
Chapter 252, Section 2, as amended) is amended to read:
"66-7-369. CHILD PASSENGER RESTRAINT--ENFORCEMENT.--
A. A person shall not operate a passenger car, van
or pickup truck in this state, except for an authorized
emergency vehicle, public transportation or a school bus,
unless all passengers less than eighteen years of age are
B. Each person less than eighteen years of age
shall be properly secured in a child passenger restraint
device or by a safety belt, unless all seating positions
equipped with safety belts are occupied, as follows:
(1) children less than one year of age shall
be properly secured in a rear-facing child passenger
restraint device that meets federal standards, in the rear
seat of a vehicle that is equipped with a rear seat. If the
vehicle is not equipped with a rear seat, the child may ride
in the front seat of the vehicle if the passenger-side air
bag is deactivated or if the vehicle is not equipped with a
deactivation switch for the passenger-side air bag;
(2) children one year of age through four
years of age, regardless of weight, or children who weigh
less than forty pounds, regardless of age, shall be properly
secured in a child passenger restraint device that meets
(3) children five years of age through six
years of age, regardless of weight, or children who weigh
less than sixty pounds, regardless of age, shall be properly
secured in either a child booster seat or an appropriate
child passenger restraint device that meets federal
(4) children seven years of age through
twelve years of age shall be properly secured in a child
passenger restraint device or by a seat belt.
C. A child is properly secured in an adult seat
belt when the lap belt properly fits across the child's
thighs and hips and not the abdomen. The shoulder strap
shall cross the center of the child's chest and not the neck,
allowing the child to sit all the way back against the
vehicle seat with knees bent over the seat edge.
D. Failure to be secured by a child passenger
restraint device, by a child booster seat or by a safety belt
as required by this section shall not in any instance
constitute fault or negligence and shall not limit or
"If it saves ONE LIFE"
//// Sarcasm Off /////
The car seat manufacturers must be paying someone off for all of these laws. Plus, these car seats all get "recalled" every year or two so you can't use the older kids' seat for the younger ones. You have to buy a new one since the old one is now 'defective'. I know its probably a scam but how can I take a chance with my kids?
Yep more feel good BS from the Massa
This should make all you sheeps out there feel comfy.
I wonder when fully grown adults will be forced to ride in child restraint like devices. This is getting crazy.
Like school buses?
Hardly. These laws (and hundreds of others) are designed to police the citizenry.
"Your papers please."
>>>" I cringe every time I see a city policeman sitting on the side of am interstate highway"<<<
They are not City Police, they are "Uniformed Tax Collectors" all you have to do is buy them coffee and engage them in conversation, sooner or later you will encounter one that is honest and they will tell you the how and WHY of there shift change meetings and the Plan of the week and the "Score" which is if their collection efforts are on track for their "Goal"
It is all for the $$$$$ and it isn't even denied anymore, it is included in the City, County and State Budget.
The new law in NC is 8 years old or 90 lbs for a booster chair.
90 pounds? My wife barely weighs that much.
But of course ... it is just a matter of entering pre-determined stats into the computer, and voila... evidence!
That means that my 14 yo would have been in a booster seat. Right, like that would happen. Nuts, just nuts!
In 1972 my sister was driving a car with a seat belt/shoulder harness on. She ran head-on into another car, whose occupants were not wearing seat belts.
My sister died of brain injuries, the other people only suffered some cuts, bruises, and one had a broken arm.
Sorry, seat belts can kill, too. And we know air bags cause severe or fatal injuries to those who are small - including most all adult women, not just kids.
Yes, the gubmint sure has made us a lot safer with these inane laws.
No, it's age 8 if they're under 80 lbs., so a person over 8 of any age is excluded.
That is, "a person over 80 lbs. of any age" is excluded. Also a person over 8 years old, of any size.
It would be fun to pass a referendum that states that any municipality that cannot get up to and maintain a 25% solution rate for burglaries within 5 years must fire the entire PD. You can bet that "revenue enhancement" would quickly go to the bottom of the priority list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.