Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New law ups age for child restraints
The Albuquerque Tribune ^ | June 14, 2005 | Jan Jonas

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: childrestraints; newmexico; policefundraiser; seatbelts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last
It's for the Children!

For NM Freepers and anyone driving through the state of New Mexico, this new law takes effect on 6/17/05.

1 posted on 06/16/2005 10:28:10 AM PDT by Disambiguator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
Thank God the government is there to think for us, otherwise it just wouldn't get done.
2 posted on 06/16/2005 10:31:34 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws spawned the runaway federal health care monopoly and fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

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.


3 posted on 06/16/2005 10:32:43 AM PDT by Millee (So you're a feminist......isn't that cute??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
The next time I hear a politician spout the usual bullshit about how "free" we are (July 4th seems like the next likely opportunity), I'm going to moon the bastard.

Especially the Republicans, with their "limited government" lies. At least the 'Rats are upfront about their Big Stupid Government intentions.

4 posted on 06/16/2005 10:33:59 AM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

These laws are for irresponsible idiots. The vast majority of parents would buckle their kids up, with or without a law.


5 posted on 06/16/2005 10:34:54 AM PDT by Ron in Acreage (It's the borders stupid! (ours, not theirs!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

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???


6 posted on 06/16/2005 10:35:42 AM PDT by BerniesFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

lmao~~~


7 posted on 06/16/2005 10:36:08 AM PDT by petpeeve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ron in Acreage

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.


8 posted on 06/16/2005 10:36:54 AM PDT by Tax-chick ("Children don't need counting, because whatever number you have, you never have enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ron in Acreage
These laws are for irresponsible idiots.

One person's "irresponsibility" is another person's freedom.

Lots of people consider gun ownership to be irresponsible.

9 posted on 06/16/2005 10:37:45 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws spawned the runaway federal health care monopoly and fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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!


10 posted on 06/16/2005 10:39:38 AM PDT by gridlock (ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ron in Acreage

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.


11 posted on 06/16/2005 10:39:40 AM PDT by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
I disagree with the new law.

New Mexico has gone politically correct with all the North Easterner's that have moved into the state.

Evidently these do-gooders don't have children.

When does all this bull shit stop?

I am all for the safety of children but this is going to far.

The police and do-gooding politically correct public officials are fast becoming more dreaded than terrorism.
12 posted on 06/16/2005 10:41:08 AM PDT by OKIEDOC (LL THE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
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!

The good news is, those genes will be removed from the gene pool.

Darwin loves you.

13 posted on 06/16/2005 10:42:23 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws spawned the runaway federal health care monopoly and fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
"Nine out of 10 car seats are installed incorrectly,"

"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?

14 posted on 06/16/2005 10:42:42 AM PDT by tnlibertarian ("In my opinion, they have no rights, except a safe return to their homeland. - "Robert Vazquez")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


15 posted on 06/16/2005 10:43:08 AM PDT by Politicalmom (Just one more reason to hate the government....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

*******NITPICKER AND POLITICALLY CORRECT POST ALERT



16 posted on 06/16/2005 10:44:33 AM PDT by OKIEDOC (LL THE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OKIEDOC

Thanks. It's always nice to be appreciated.


17 posted on 06/16/2005 10:46:08 AM PDT by Tax-chick ("Children don't need counting, because whatever number you have, you never have enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: Politicalmom

12 and only 70 pounds? Give that boy a Big Mac.


19 posted on 06/16/2005 10:48:40 AM PDT by darkangel82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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.


20 posted on 06/16/2005 10:50:02 AM PDT by Ron in Acreage (It's the borders stupid! (ours, not theirs!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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.


21 posted on 06/16/2005 10:50:40 AM PDT by gridlock (ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
I wish they would include height restrictions and guidelines as well. You can have a 60 pound kid who still isn't tall enough to not be decapitated by a standard shoulder belt.

I'm a limited government conservative, but I support this law. Too many children die in auto accidents because they are not properly restrained.
22 posted on 06/16/2005 10:51:14 AM PDT by brothers4thID (I have knocked on door of this man's soul- and found someone home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
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.

;^D

23 posted on 06/16/2005 10:51:30 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws spawned the runaway federal health care monopoly and fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
More stinkin' nanny state do gooders saving people from themselves! Doe NM have a motorcycle helmet law? Why not just ducktape every child to their car seat, then wrap them in packing foam, make them wear a bicycle helmet, and mandate that no more than 1 child can ride in a car at a time!

Man I loathe these self righteous types who go around and entangle all of us in ever more rule, regulations, and laws all in the name of saftey - for our own good. GET LOST!
24 posted on 06/16/2005 10:51:58 AM PDT by Obadiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkangel82

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.


25 posted on 06/16/2005 10:52:18 AM PDT by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ron in Acreage
Children don't have adult freedoms.

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?

26 posted on 06/16/2005 10:54:32 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws spawned the runaway federal health care monopoly and fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
"Nine out of 10 car seats are installed incorrectly,"

ROFL!
Nine out of ten people using car seats can now be fined...
Mo' Money!
...
27 posted on 06/16/2005 10:55:01 AM PDT by mugs99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
Here is how I would counter the New Mexico child restraint law.

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.

28 posted on 06/16/2005 10:55:39 AM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
I noticed that this law is written so than most if not all children would have to be placed in a car seat.

I believe that city laws should NOT apply to Federal Highways.

This law is an abuse to interstate travelers. Think about the possibilities over an ever expanding local police presence.

I cringe every time I see a city policeman sitting on the side of am interstate highway.

In Texas we call them speed traps when county mounties and city rent-a-cops feed like sharks on unsuspecting poor out state travelers.
29 posted on 06/16/2005 10:57:50 AM PDT by OKIEDOC (LL THE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

Why not just use the handyman's secret weapon and duct tape the children to the seats.


30 posted on 06/16/2005 10:58:01 AM PDT by Luna (Lobbing the Holy Hand Grenade at Liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luna

Duct taping their mouths closed would be a valuable safety measure.


31 posted on 06/16/2005 11:02:14 AM PDT by Tax-chick ("Children don't need counting, because whatever number you have, you never have enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

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.


32 posted on 06/16/2005 11:02:41 AM PDT by Our man in washington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

For clarification (in case of sloppy reporting), here's the body of the law:

SB 586

AN ACT
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
properly restrained.

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
federal standards;

(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
standards; and

(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
apportion damages."


33 posted on 06/16/2005 11:02:55 AM PDT by Disambiguator (Making accusations of racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

"If it saves ONE LIFE"

//// Sarcasm Off /////


34 posted on 06/16/2005 11:03:21 AM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

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?


35 posted on 06/16/2005 11:04:14 AM PDT by waverna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

Yep more feel good BS from the Massa

This should make all you sheeps out there feel comfy.


36 posted on 06/16/2005 11:04:45 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Perhaps... perhaps...


37 posted on 06/16/2005 11:09:29 AM PDT by gridlock (ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

I wonder when fully grown adults will be forced to ride in child restraint like devices. This is getting crazy.


38 posted on 06/16/2005 11:10:30 AM PDT by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron in Acreage
"These laws are for irresponsible idiots. The vast majority of parents would buckle their kids up, with or without a law."

Like school buses?

39 posted on 06/16/2005 11:10:43 AM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ron in Acreage
These laws are for irresponsible idiots.

Hardly. These laws (and hundreds of others) are designed to police the citizenry.

"Your papers please."

40 posted on 06/16/2005 11:13:05 AM PDT by houeto ("Mr. President , close our borders now!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OKIEDOC

>>>" 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.


41 posted on 06/16/2005 11:13:16 AM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

LOL!!


42 posted on 06/16/2005 11:13:38 AM PDT by Luna (Lobbing the Holy Hand Grenade at Liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

The new law in NC is 8 years old or 90 lbs for a booster chair.


43 posted on 06/16/2005 11:17:01 AM PDT by jb6 ( Free Haggai Sophia! Crusade!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jb6

90 pounds? My wife barely weighs that much.


44 posted on 06/16/2005 11:18:45 AM PDT by Disambiguator (Making accusations of racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BerniesFriend
Does any evidence show that children are safer today with overprotective seatbelts than before???

But of course ... it is just a matter of entering pre-determined stats into the computer, and voila... evidence!

45 posted on 06/16/2005 11:20:01 AM PDT by Just A Nobody (I - L O V E - my attitude problem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jb6

That means that my 14 yo would have been in a booster seat. Right, like that would happen. Nuts, just nuts!


46 posted on 06/16/2005 11:21:39 AM PDT by cinives (On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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.


47 posted on 06/16/2005 11:25:14 AM PDT by cinives (On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cinives

No, it's age 8 if they're under 80 lbs., so a person over 8 of any age is excluded.


48 posted on 06/16/2005 11:25:54 AM PDT by Tax-chick ("Children don't need counting, because whatever number you have, you never have enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

That is, "a person over 80 lbs. of any age" is excluded. Also a person over 8 years old, of any size.


49 posted on 06/16/2005 11:27:08 AM PDT by Tax-chick ("Children don't need counting, because whatever number you have, you never have enough.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant
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 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.

50 posted on 06/16/2005 11:30:53 AM PDT by Haru Hara Haruko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson