KentuckyVotes.org

2007 House Bill 53 (Mandate use of child booster seats)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Rep. Thomas J Burch on January 2, 2007, to require that a child under age 8 years between 40 and 57 inches in height be secured in a child booster seat.
    • Referred to the House Health and Welfare Committee on January 3, 2007.
    • Substitute offered in the House on February 8, 2007, to remove weight limit.
    • The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on February 14, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Robert R Damron on February 9, 2007, to specify that child restraint seat and booster seat fines are not subject to court costs, additional costs, or fees; specify that seat belt violations are not subject to additional costs or fees.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Mike Harmon on February 12, 2007, to provide for exemptions from $50 fine.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Mike Harmon on February 12, 2007, to provide exemptions from $50 fine.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Robert R Damron on February 12, 2007, to exempt fines for booster seat or seat belt violations from court costs or additional fees.
    • The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on February 14, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Mike Harmon on February 12, 2007, to provide for exemptions from $50 fine.
    • The amendment failed in the House (36 to 59) on February 14, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Mike Harmon on February 12, 2007, to provide for exemptions from $50 fine.
  • Passed in the House (89 to 9) on February 14, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Received in the Senate on February 15, 2007.
    • Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee on February 20, 2007.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Thomas J Burch on January 2, 2007. Passed in the House (89 to 9) on February 14, 2007. New Comment

1) Car, Buses and Motorcycles [by tsandlin on February 22, 2007]
It all looks like a dog and pony show to me. On one hand we are told the importance of Seat Belts and Booster Seats, and hear the praises of the laws to mandate their use, and on the other hand passed a law earlier that allows a Motorcyclist to ride without a helmet. The law makers have lost their minds and are wasting time splitting hairs. If they are concerned about highway safety just enforce the traffic laws we have. In Logan County the Truck violations of running red lights have cost more lives than not wearing a seat belts. And I agree if it is right for a passenger car to need seat belts and booster seats then the school buses should be required to do the same. And if we really want to get silly let's pass a law to put one on my Goldwing too.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Really needed?? [by sjacobs on February 11, 2007]
Is this law really needed? Who is pushing this?

I personally thought the seat belt law was a mistake last year. Now the booster seat law is back again. People need to be responsible for themselves. Even if this law passes, that won't change that people need to be responsible for their own actions. If you are in an accident and you are hurt because you didn't wear a seat belt, who is to blame? Do you call your legislator to complain that there wasn't a law requiring you to wear a seat belt? The same for booster seats. If your child is hurt, is it because there was no law that required you to put them in a booster seat? Everyone is free to use a booster seat or seat belt if they wish. It should be their choice. After all, shouldn't they be responsible for their own actions? When did we become a society that forced everyone to comply with the choices of a few? A person is free to have an abortion because somehow that should be a choice ("my body my choice"). However, a person is not free to choose if they will wear a seat belt or put their child in a booster seat? What is the mortality rate of not wearing a seat belt or putting a child in a booster seat? I would guess something like 50%. What is the mortality rate of an abortion? 100%? You tell me which one of these should be more of a priority.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Jane Smith [by Anonymous Citizen on February 13, 2007]
How can one possibly say that it's up to the individual as to whether or not they want to use a booster or car seat for their children. It must be mandated because many people are too ignorant or lazy to provide protection to their children. We also have laws to protect children from parents who think it should be their right to beat their children, leave them without food, or let them sit in cars unattended. We have immunization laws which require that children be vaccinated against certain diseases. Thank God it is society's business to protect children, not just the parents.

Reply New Comment

Line

4) Who is responsible? [by sjacobs on February 15, 2007]
The notion that the children and their protection belong to the state is communism. The children are the responsibility of the parents. It is the way God made it. In the end, the parents are the ones who have to care for the children. Unless you plan to take every child from his/her parents at the moment of their birth and have the state raise them, it will always be that way.

In a country that is supposed to be full of freedom and liberty I find it hard to believe that so many people push to have these freedoms removed. Yes, I consider it the parents choice if they use a booster seat. And it should be your choice if you use a seat belt. Maybe it is not the best choice, but you should be free to make it. You do not inflict any harm on the general public if you choose either way.

On the contrary, if laws like this continue to pass, soon we won't be able to make any choices on our own. Slowly, you are losing your freedom. Smoking bans are next. First in public places. Then it will be expanded. You already mention requiring vaccinations. When will they go too far for your comfort? When will it affect you? Just because someone should do something doesn't mean there needs to be a law that requires it. Yes you should buckle your little ones up and use a booster seat if they are too small for a seat belt. Yes you should wear a seat belt yourself. But do we really need to make a law to require it? Can there be an exception? What if your vehicle breaks down along the side of the road? Do you have to wait until someone shows up with 4 booster seats and a van? Sometimes parents are stuck with tough choices and there shouldn't be a law hanging over their heads telling them they can't do what they have to to survive and take care of those little ones.

Reply New Comment

Line

5) Actually....... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 16, 2007]
Actually, communism is the community ownership of the means of production,... but I digress.

Booster seats elevate a child so their neck is not broken when an air bag is deployed. How many lower income/ less educated people understand that (or middle income people for that matter from the comments posted on this blog)? They are not necessary on school buses because there are no air bags to break the little feller’s neck.

What would you be against next? Laws that prohibit putting children in cages, or locking them in closets? This bill is about safety and education. It also seeks funding to put booster seats in cars for those people who cannot afford the expense. There is no down side to this bill.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) How many boosters do we need?????? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 22, 2007]
Frankly, my vehicles have no airbags in the back seats. As, I would suspect, are most of Kentucky's vehicles. I believe it has more to do with the shoulder belt causing discomfort or bruising in the upper chest and neck area. Well, I find this law to be terrible. If a parent wants, he or she may put his or her 5-8 year old child in a booster seat. Current Child safety seat laws are fine. I have 4 children. Two of which are still in safety seats. They need to be in them. The others are in school and it would be outrageously expensive for me to provide all of the people with whom they ride, car seats. And it would be difficult and ridiculous for my children to take car seats to school just so that the one bringing them home could have a booster seat. In our situation, a friend gets the children and takes them to their grandparents until we are off work. At that point, we may pick them up or their grandparents may bring them home. Already, we need 3 sets of booster seats. That one free seat helps a lot, huh. There are many down sides to this bill. Why don't we focus on the car manufacturers, instead of the families. Make the manufacturers have adjustable seat belt harneses to allow for children. There is no logical reason this can not happen. Teather strap connections are required now. Why not equip the oem vehicle, rather than add more clutter?


Reply New Comment

Line

7) but don't you see [by newmark on February 18, 2007]
Government required the air bags in the first place, even though manufacturers said they weren't ready.

If they really want to help these people, provide for education at hospitals, or whatever, about the dangers of car seats. Don't levy fines, and don't require purchases to avoid fines. This legislation may feel good, but it will hurt Kentucky's poorest families.

Reply New Comment

Line

8) Get serious [by Anonymous Citizen on February 19, 2007]
Are you kidding? What education are they going to provide at hospitals? I can see it now. They have a young, uneducated mother and they tell her, ‘don’t forget, in 5 years you should switch from a car seat to a booster seat to keep your child safe’. You should go to a social workers’ office. The hallway will be lined with car seats because at that income level, even babies aren’t being transported in a proper car seat.

This bill gives a free booster seat to any family at less than 250% the federal poverty level. The 2007 poverty level for a family of 2 is $13,690. That means a single mother with one child would receive a free booster seat if she earns under $34,225. That would pick up virtually every single mother without a college degree. The seats are paid for by fines. Who does this bill hurt?
Reply New Comment

Line

9) I am serious. [by newmark on February 20, 2007]
I am quite serious.

I have 2 children. Each child was born at a different hospital in Northern Kentucky. Each hospital went over why it was important to use a car seat, along with the other 1000 things they tell you before and after you have a child. And each hospital REQUIRED that a infant/child seat be properly installed and used before they would discharge the baby. They made my wife wait at the door while they checked it.

When my first child was born, I was making what is in 2006-dollars $9/hr. When my daughter was born, I was making significantly more. Regardless of income, they made you have a properly-installed, legal child seat. (buying power calculator used for 2006-dollar calculation: http://googolplex.cuna.org/12433/ajsmall/story.html?doc_id=406)

So the bill provides that for every single mother making less than $16.45/hr, they get a "free" booster seat.

You say that the seats are paid for by fines. But that therefore assumes that the state will raise enough money in fines to provide seats. How is the state going to give away free booster seats, on day 1, when no fines have been levied? Or will the fine everyone as they drive to the place to obtain their free car seat? Not likely (and not very nice, if they did). So, let's keep in mind that "free" means (at least, partially) taxpayer-funded.

I don't disagree that children should be afforded every opportunity to live a healthy life, but I don't believe it's the responsibility of the state to provide that environment to this level. Government does have the responsibility to protect us from outside threats.


I'm sure that when you were growing up, you weren't in a booster seat. And I wasn't either. And I was a tiny little kid before puberty kicked in. Heck, given this legislation, minus the age portion, I would have been required to go to freshman year of high school in a booster seat. And somehow, we both survived. Heck, my parents didn't wear seat belts when they were growing up, and they survived. And so did the vast majority of others.

I think it's a good idea to educate parents, and let them make their own decisions for their children.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) i have a hard time with this one [by newmark on February 13, 2007]
Obviously, a parent that severely beats their child should be punished.

The real problem here is that society, and government as a whole, has the responsibility to protect its citizens from outside threats. However, government has also assumed the role of protecting its citizens from internal threats, including the person themselves.

As a responsible parent, I of course buckle my children into a car seat. And honestly, I actually support the premise behind making seat belt laws mandatory for anyone who is not a legal adult. And that goes for child seat laws as well.

The problem is that government is continually finding more things to make illegal, in the name of protecting us from ourselves. Transfat is the latest trend, but by far not the first consumable that government has deemed as "bad for you, and therefore illegal".

When it comes to protecting those who are not yet legal adults, I give the state a slight bit more wiggle room. They don't necessarily have the full set of tools to know.

I still disagree with forced vaccinations, unless the vaccinations are proven safe. Even then, any vaccination that really does more good than harm will be welcomed by the public anyway. Why wouldn't one want to be immunized from something that you have a good chance of contracting, and once contracted, has a good chance of killing you?

So I'm personally torn.

I use car booster seats for my children anyway. So it doesn't really effect me negatively. And it does bother me that parents aren't more responsible.

But at the same time, in a pinch, I have transported my children without the booster. I was in a position where I was unable to obtain the boosters without leaving the kids home by themselves, which is obviously worse.

So perhaps a simple compromise would be to teach parents why they should use booster seats, and let them take responsibility for it. My guess is that if the parents don't care enough about their children to put them in a booster seat -- even after being presented the facts -- that the parent will likely be breaking some other, current abuse law as well.

But as I said before. If this law is so great, and child booster seats and seat belts are so beneficial, why not put them in every school bus in Kentucky first? The state obviously feels that there's a responsibility on the part of the public to protect children in every way possible. Starting with themselves may not be a bad idea. They can carve a piece out of their budget to supply seat belts and booster seats, just as they expect every Kentucky family to do.

Reply New Comment

Line

11) Every session [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2007]
Is this going to be brought up every session until it passes??? It seems we just went over this last year.

I am against it. If parents want to buckle their children up, they already have the means available to make that happen. If parents choose not to, for financial reasons or any other reasons, they should not have to. It should not be a law. Parents are responsible for the well being of their children, in and out of the car.

Will all the school busses have booster seats? Is the cost too great for the state? Some parents could be in a similar sitution. It may mean a larger vehicle for some. Let's leave the parents make that choice. That is my opinion.
Reply New Comment

Line

12) good idea [by newmark on February 13, 2007]
If the state wants to mandate child booster seats and seat belts, they should be required to put them on all buses as well. Let them incur some of the cost that their lawmaking imposes on every Kentucky family.

If it's such a safety issue, we should get them on buses right away. Think of the legal ramifications! Kentucky government knew that these boosters were critical in saving the lives of children under 8 between 40 and 57 inches in height and weighing less than 80 pounds, and they didn't put them on school buses?
Reply New Comment

Line

13) Oswald17 [by Anonymous Citizen on November 3, 2006]
Will all of the bars and restaurants in Kentucky be able to afford all of the seats needed?
Maybe we should raise the age limit to 65, then we can drink as much as we want and not have to be responsible.
Reply New Comment

Line

14) bars and restaurants? [by speechlady on April 17, 2008]
Do you not even know what a booster seat is in this context? It is for the vehichle! They are not referring to the booster seats to eat! DUH
Reply New Comment

Line


Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc.  Patent Pending.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use

A free public service of Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions
Capitol Building

Search legislation: