Saw an item on CBS news for 7/23 that the EPA is now agitating to
require child-safe furniture that a kid can't turn over on himself.
Seems that something like 180 kids manage to get themselves killed every
year by turning over furniture on themselves.
So be careful with making anything that a kid might turn over.
I thick the victims might be a bit too young yet to call idiots.
Of course we could get rid of child safety seats, return lead to the
IMHO you have to be an idiot to have to be reminded to consider a
child's interaction with anything you might build.
Not the seat belts per se. They were mandated in the '60s and at one
point there was an interlock so the car wouldn't start unless the belt
was buckled (which led to many people just buckling the belts and
sitting on them). The air bags were the government's response to the
refusal of the general public to pay any attention to their safety
advice--won't do what we say, well we'll FIX you my little pretty . . .
Then it was revealed that the airbags kill short people (I guess the
gummint took to heart the song that was popular around that time--"Don't
want no short people 'round here) and FUD about being killed by airbags
finally motivated people to start wearing seat belts, with the result
that eventually most states enacted laws that one must wear a seat belt.
Actually, I believe that you'll find the impetus driving the states to
enact seat belt laws was not a desire to save lives, per se, but rather
a desire to keep those Federal Motor Fuel Tax monies coming in along
with highway aid. The Feds simply said... "If you don't enact mandatory
seat belt laws AND ENFORCE THEM, no money for you."
At first they let it be a secondary offense, i.e. if you were stopped
for speeding, you could be cited for no seat belt as well, but you
couldn't be stopped for just not wearing your seat belt. Then once they
got all the states to go along with the seat belt law, it was changed
from a secondary to a primary offense meaning if you're driving
perfectly fine and just no wearing a seat belt you could be stopped and
ticketed. Since even that did not garner 100% compliance, the Feds did
what they do best. Threw money at the problem in the form of seat belt
enforcement grants to the states. They pay departments sufficient funds
to hire back their officers on overtime to sit alongside the road like a
pack of feral hogs and "attack" anyone driving by without a seat belt
and ticket them. Cops get some nice overtime and the cities, etc. get a
nice chunk of fine money.
Sadly, the seat belt law is a good one. It is the totalitarian
enforcement being forced upon us that sucks.
I've investigated traffic crashes for more than 49 years - 25+ in law
enforcement and nearly 36 years in private practice (there's overlap of
the two which is why the numbers don't make sense). Seat belts save far
more lives than the anecdotes offered by opponents indicate are lost.
They also prevent many crashes by allowing the driver to remain in
control of his/her vehicle during emergency avoidance maneuvers. I
rarely, if ever, wore a belt before spending a couple of weeks at a
emergency vehicle operations course (back then it was police pursuit
driving school but...). I was amazed at the things I could do with a
souped up Pontiac Bonneville cruiser and the speeds at which I could do
it, when buckled up vs. slip sliding on the seat. They work and it's
probably been about 46 years since I've driven a car without my seat
belt on - even in a parking lot. It's become as automatic as breathing
and the belt is latched before the door is closed on the car.
I digressed but that's why the states are toeing the line with the Feds!
It ain't about the money, it's ALL about the money!;)
And the Federal law did not get enacted until it was possible to sell it
on the basis that the seat belt was necessary to save people from
I would like to see the Constitution amended so that no jurisdiction may
recieve any portion of any fines imposed in or by that jurisdiction.
The imposition of fines for the purpose of raising revenue should not be
A law that encourages totalitarian enforcement is not a good one
regardless of the benefit.
If you do not believe that fines are a large part of the income of local
governments. Drive I-95 through North Carolina. The speed limit goes
up for no apparent reason and then goes down for a few miles, again for
no apparent reason.
Some cities place changes in speed limit in places that is not logical
or designed so they will not be seen. There is one place I know that
is rural, a half dozen houses in a several mile stretch. Most of the
road is wooded. After driving the one section, the speed limits drops
by 10mph, and with in a short distance drops another 10 mph. This
change is on good road, no houses, and through the wooded section of the
road. At the end of this there is a cop that sits there waiting for
someone to miss the speed limit changes. I will bet he never misses his
monthly quota of tickets.
Places like this not only supports the city, the County, but also the
local tech College, with offer training classes to get your fine reduced.
As always follow the money to learn the reason something illogical is
Oh I think it is very apparent, just not ethical. I have seen this
practice for as long as I have been driving, 45 + years. AAMOF Corpus
Christi, TX, where I learned to drive, had a very strict and up to date
police department. One day the police department was out in force along
one of the busy streets. Cars were pulled over everywhere. The police
department just got their first radar guns and decided to try them out.
They replaced one 35 mph sign with a 30 mph sign and as soon as
someone passed that sign going 41 mph they were pulled over and issued a
The interlock was in 1974. It could also be overridden by a button
switch under the hood. Mostly overridden because of the unreliable set
up and they did not want drivers to be stranded. I had to push that
button on my fathers car a number of times and not because we were not
Here in Canada - child safety seats for autos -
- pre-dated auto air-bags -
- by about 15 years or so .. IIRC -
.. but never let the facts interfere with your beliefs.
There could very-well-be a widely accepted scientific
Fox News study - that absolutely proves me wrong.
I saw that IKEA is giving away what you need to anchor cabinet with
drawers to the wall. Many flat screen TVs come with a cord you can
anchor it with.
If people used common sense there would be no need for government
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.