Wednesday, July 06, 2005
ELEPHANT SEATS WILL BE NEXT
The A.P. reports:
State lawmakers are apparently the only people around who haven't taken in how for every legal action (however "good" on the surface) there's a reaction.
I'm not saying there is an absolute, 100 percent correlation between the two, but I've heard enough from various parents to say that it is reasonable to assert that as child restraint laws have gotten tougher in recent years -- we haven't yet reached a point where 15 year olds need car seats and helmets, but we are getting there -- we have also seen, interestingly enough, an increase in the sale of SUVs and the like.
It's not difficult to understand why. After all, owing to a requirement that every child have an individual child seat, it is now well nigh impossible to transport any three children under age 9 in any vehicle much smaller than a Bradley.
Yet, told that they MUST legally provide all that space, seating and protection, parents are then blasted for . . . providing all that space, seating and protection.
Way to lead, lawmakers.
The arguments for restraining children are at least understandable, and based on a desire to protect them. But government is supposed to know when to call it a legislating day.
But oh, no. Despite the fact that we are beset with condemnation over how driving large vehicles is evil owing to how they increase "global warming" and waste fuel, this Republican representative, apparently trying to look "compassionately conservative", on the word of an 11 year old (who doesn't drive or pay for a car, or vote for that matter) is looking to extend seat restraint to dogs.
Okay, then fine. But soon a Bradley won't even cut it any longer. Shortly, "working families" will find themselves having to fit on the driveway their child restraining, dog restraining and possibly elephant restraining (because, you never know) de-winged, highway converted, Boeing 737 -- the only vehicle that even comes close to allowing them to comply with ever-increasing seat restraint laws.
Think about it. Bush is being told of the vital need to address "climate change" and is under particular assault internationally because Americans supposedly contribute so much to "global warming" because of their liking for large vehicles. Meanwhile, back in Pennsylvania, a Republican state representative has introduced legislation to restrain dogs in cars.
Heaven save us . . . from ourselves. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, July 06, 2005
The A.P. reports:
A state lawmaker is pushing for doggy seat belts on the advice of an 11-year-old constituent. Marc McCann of Green Tree came up with the idea as part of state Rep. Tom Stevenson's annual "There Ought to be a Law" contest.
Stevenson, R-Pa., submitted a bill to the House Transportation Committee in June that would require drivers to keep their dogs' heads inside the vehicle at all times. Stevenson also wants to require drivers to restrain the animals, either with some kind of modified seat belt or in a crate or carrier box. . .
Stevenson, R-Pa., submitted a bill to the House Transportation Committee in June that would require drivers to keep their dogs' heads inside the vehicle at all times. Stevenson also wants to require drivers to restrain the animals, either with some kind of modified seat belt or in a crate or carrier box. . .
State lawmakers are apparently the only people around who haven't taken in how for every legal action (however "good" on the surface) there's a reaction.
I'm not saying there is an absolute, 100 percent correlation between the two, but I've heard enough from various parents to say that it is reasonable to assert that as child restraint laws have gotten tougher in recent years -- we haven't yet reached a point where 15 year olds need car seats and helmets, but we are getting there -- we have also seen, interestingly enough, an increase in the sale of SUVs and the like.
It's not difficult to understand why. After all, owing to a requirement that every child have an individual child seat, it is now well nigh impossible to transport any three children under age 9 in any vehicle much smaller than a Bradley.
Yet, told that they MUST legally provide all that space, seating and protection, parents are then blasted for . . . providing all that space, seating and protection.
Way to lead, lawmakers.
The arguments for restraining children are at least understandable, and based on a desire to protect them. But government is supposed to know when to call it a legislating day.
But oh, no. Despite the fact that we are beset with condemnation over how driving large vehicles is evil owing to how they increase "global warming" and waste fuel, this Republican representative, apparently trying to look "compassionately conservative", on the word of an 11 year old (who doesn't drive or pay for a car, or vote for that matter) is looking to extend seat restraint to dogs.
Okay, then fine. But soon a Bradley won't even cut it any longer. Shortly, "working families" will find themselves having to fit on the driveway their child restraining, dog restraining and possibly elephant restraining (because, you never know) de-winged, highway converted, Boeing 737 -- the only vehicle that even comes close to allowing them to comply with ever-increasing seat restraint laws.
Think about it. Bush is being told of the vital need to address "climate change" and is under particular assault internationally because Americans supposedly contribute so much to "global warming" because of their liking for large vehicles. Meanwhile, back in Pennsylvania, a Republican state representative has introduced legislation to restrain dogs in cars.
Heaven save us . . . from ourselves. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, July 06, 2005
