So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[tonyb]

^^^^^
Among my people, children weren't so much planned for as not planned against. Or, at least not sufficiently not planned against. That'll happen with those young and fertile sorts.

As one old gal of my acquaintance put it, "All [her husband] had to do was hang his pants over the footboard and we'd have another one in the oven."

 

[vitanola]

And if the parents are sacrificing their childrens' basic safety, they *should* be persecuted. An infant car seat should be part and parcel of owning a car and an infant.

You make a good point, but I've been hearing reports from the four corners of the country from friends in the Model T club that they are being threatened with child endangerment charges when they are caught taking their eight-to ten year old grandchildren out for ice cream.

 

[LizzieMaine]

^^^^^
Among my people, children weren't so much planned for as not planned against. Or, at least not sufficiently not planned against. That'll happen with those young and fertile sorts.

As one old gal of my acquaintance put it, "All [her husband] had to do was hang his pants over the footboard and we'd have another one in the oven."

Yep, my grandmother was told in 1939 that she couldn't have another kid if she wanted to live to be 30. So for the next forty years, my grandfather slept in the kitchen.

 

[tonyb]

You make a good point, but I've been hearing reports from the four corners of the country from friends in the Model T club that they are being threatened with child endangerment charges when they are caught taking their eight-to ten year old grandchildren out for ice cream.

Are there not laws exempting seatbelts/child seats for vehicles built prior to such restraints being required by law in new vehicles? I don't know that there are, or, if there are, how they might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

 

[HudsonHawk]

You make a good point, but I've been hearing reports from the four corners of the country from friends in the Model T club that they are being threatened with child endangerment charges when they are caught taking their eight-to ten year old grandchildren out for ice cream.

If the kids are not properly restrained, they should be. Driving an old car is not an excuse to willfully endanger a child's life.

 

[vitanola]

If the kids are not properly restrained, they should be. Driving an old car is not an excuse to willfully endanger a child's life.

Well, anyone who is familiar with the construction of a Model T Ford would know how problematic any restraint might be. Does one restrain the child to the frame of the car? In that case, certain accidents might result in the body of the child being the thing which holds body and frame together.

The Model T hobby is very much a family hobby, often spanning the generations. Many of the grandparents who drive Flivvers today were introduced to the hobby through trips to the ice cream parlor when they were children themselves.

I do not understand why the same parent who is prohibited from carrying their ten year old in the back seat of a 1915 Ford may buy their seven year olds one of these:

or buy their three year old one of these:

Now I am not casting aspersion on any "Second Amendment Rights". I collect firearms myself, in a small way. I am just suggesting that the dangers of a ride in the back of grandpa's old car are terribly overblown when compared to other risky activities which are considered to be entirely within the purview of parents.

 

[vitanola]

Are there not laws exempting seatbelt/child seat requirements for vehicles built prior to such restraints being required by law in new vehicles? I don't know that there are, or how they might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Yes, machines built before 1966 are exempt, but jurisdictions across the country are choosing to enforce child endangerment laws, rather than motor vehicle laws.

You know, the same child endangerment laws for which enforcement has been attempted for infractions such as allowing a nine year old in a quiet suburb to walk home two blocks from their school bus stop un-escorted.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Are there not laws exempting seatbelt/child seat requirements for vehicles built prior to such restraints being required by law in new vehicles? I don't know that there are, or how they might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Federal law only requires belts in cars built from 1968 forward, although state laws vary -- some states require any car built after 1961 or 1964 to have belts. In many pre-WWII cars it's not advisable to try and add them because the vehicles simply aren't engineered to have the necessary anchor points. In some cars the way in which the seat itself is mounted can lead to a situation where the seat tears loose in a crash and leads to serious injury of the seat-belted occupant.

I've never had a rider younger than 17 in my 1941 car, nor do I expect to be in a situation where I would, so the question's pretty much moot for me. I'm not opposed in principle to safety regulations for older cars, but I think they need to be drafted with input from people who actually understand the engineering of these vehicles and can frame requirements appropriate to each particular era of vehicle.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Well, anyone who is familiar with the construction of a Model T Ford would know how problematic any restraint might be. Does one restrain the child to the frame of the car? In that case, certain accidents might result in the body of the child being the thing which holds body and frame together.

If one cannot properly restrain their children, one finds an alternative mode of transportation.

The Model T hobby is very much a family hobby, often spanning the generations. Many of the grandparents who drive Flivvers today were introduced to the hobby through trips to the ice cream parlor when they were children themselves.

Much like the "well I survived lead paint just fine" argument, the "well my grandpappy did such and such back in the day" is also common. I realize that some peoples' grandfather quit school at age 9 to work at the cotton gin, or that grandma was married at 12 and had six kids by her 18th birthday, and yes I'm sure they all grew up respectable. But that doesn't make such things advisable in this day and age. That line of reasoning just doesn't pass the red face test with me.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Yes, machines built before 1966 are exempt, but jurisdictions across the country are choosing to enforce child endangerment laws, rather than motor vehicle laws.

You know, the same child endangerment laws for which enforcement has been attempted for infractions such as allowing a nine year old in a quiet suburb to walk home two blocks from their school bus stop un-escorted.

The slippery slope is another argument that cuts no ice with me on things like seat belts or food sanitation regulation. I firmly believe in common sense and that it's really not that difficult to apply it in most cases.

 

[Stearmen]

 

[LizzieMaine]

So I guess rumble seats are out?

 

[vitanola]

If one cannot properly restrain their children, one finds an alternative mode of transportation.



Much like the "well I survived lead paint just fine" argument, the "well my grandpappy did such and such back in the day" is also common. I realize that some peoples' grandfather quit school at age 9 to work at the cotton gin, or that grandma was married at 12 and had six kids by her 18th birthday, and yes I'm sure they all grew up respectable. But that doesn't make such things advisable in this day and age. That line of reasoning just doesn't pass the red face test with me.

Well, lead paint can be handled safely, though such safe handling is a difficult and time consuming matter when the paint film is aged and brittle. Ninety years ago the paint films were fresh, flexible and thin, and did not tend to peel and chip in the way that they do when they have been exposed to most of a century of weathering and oxidation. This suggests that the lead paint problem of today is very different from the one which may have existed when Grand-dad was young.

Almost every reported accident in a Model T Ford in the past decade or so (all but four, to be exact) has been related to another driver who was yakking on a cellular telephone and not paying attention to the road. If anyone was truly interested in safety they would advocate a mandatory driver's license suspension for telephoning or texting whilst driving. Five to seven years should be sufficient.

Note that there have been twenty-nine reported accidents involving Model T Ford cars over the past decade. None of them have involved children. There are just about 100,000 Flivvers registered in the US. The annual accident rate for T Model cars is around 2.9/100,000, as opposed to the 2114/100,000 rate for passenger cars in general. I posit that the risk created by allowing children to ride in a Flivver is orders of magnitude smaller than that of many other socially approved activities. For example, Texas, where two of these incidents occured, specifically allows children aged five or over to ride pillion on the back of a motorcycle.

 

[vitanola]

The slippery slope is another argument that cuts no ice with me on things like seat belts or food sanitation regulation. I firmly believe in common sense and that it's really not that difficult to apply it in most cases.

So you believe that it is appropriate to charge a parent with child endangerment for allowing his ten year old to walk home un-escorted from the school bus?

This is not a hypothetical case, it has actually occurred an number of times in various states. So far no case has been adjudicated to a settlement.

 

[LizzieMaine]

As far as lead is concerned, I think the problem of paint pales in comparison to the issue of environmental lead remaining from the days of leaded gasoline. The postwar generation grew up literally wallowing in lead emissions from exhaust pipes, and the levels of lead are still measurably high along roadways, twenty years after tetraethyl lead was banned in non-aviation fuel. There is some pretty convincing scientific evidence suggesting that the rise in violent crime in the 1960s and 1970s is the direct result of childhood brain damage sustained by millions of postwar kids as a result of exposure to this lead -- and the consequences are with us yet.

 

[vitanola]

As far as lead is concerned, I think the problem of paint pales in comparison to the issue of environmental lead remaining from the days of leaded gasoline. The postwar generation grew up literally wallowing in lead emissions from exhaust pipes, and the levels of lead are still measurably high along roadways, twenty years after tetraethyl lead was banned in non-aviation fuel. There is some pretty convincing scientific evidence suggesting that the rise in violent crime in the 1960s and 1970s is the direct result of childhood brain damage sustained by millions of postwar kids as a result of exposure to this lead -- and the consequences are with us yet.

Yes, and much of the concern about lead paint was known to have been ginned up by the oil industry as a way of deflecting blame. That said, we must remember that old lead paint films are more dangerous today that they might have been in, say, 1975, for they are older and more brittle. Note too that coating a linseed oil paint with a rubber or acrylic based coating is just asking for film failure, for then one has a film made of two products with disparate expansion rates. This tends to produce film cracks which allow moisture into the substrate which then encourages film failure, which further allows...

 

[HudsonHawk]

Almost every reported accident in a Model T Ford in the past decade or so (all but four, to be exact) has been related to another driver who was yakking on a cellular telephone and not paying attention to the road. If anyone was truly interested in safety they would advocate a mandatory driver's license suspension for telephoning or texting whilst driving. Five to seven years should be sufficient.

I'm not suggesting that Model T drivers are any worse. They are probably far better and more attentive drivers than most. But that doesn't change the fact that driving in modern traffic is inherently dangerous and passengers in any vehicle can be affected, irrespective of fault. As my father has said to me many times, "I know you're a good driver, it's not you I'm worried about".

As for distracted driving laws...I agree, and they are becoming more common and more strict. That's a good thing.

Note that there have been twenty-nine reported accidents involving Model T Ford cars over the past decade. None of them have involved children. There are just about 100,000 registered Flivvers registered in the US. The annual accident rate is around 2.9/100,000, as opposed to the 2114/100,000 rate for passenger cars in general. I posit that the risk created by allowing children to ride in a Flivver is orders of magnitude smaller than that of many other socially approved activities.

I would guess the accident rate for many specific models is less than the aggregate. But I don't think that necessarily means that safety should be unregulated for those.

For example, Texas, where two of these incidents occured, specifically allows children aged five or over to ride pillion on the back of a motorcycle.

Well, it is Texas after all...someone has to handle the shotgun.

 

[HudsonHawk]

So you believe that it is appropriate to charge a parent with child endangerment for allowing his ten year old to walk home un-escorted from the school bus?

This is not a hypothetical case, it has actually occurred an number of times in various states. So far no case has been adjudicated to a settlement.

No. That's my point. I think that falls squarely into the common sense category. For me that's a reasonably easy distinction to make.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Yes, and much of the concern about lead paint was known to have been ginned up by the oil industry as a way of deflecting blame.

Hey...wait a minute now...

That said, we must remember that old lead paint films are more dangerous today that they might have been in, say, 1975, for they are older and more brittle. Note too that coating a linseed oil paint with a rubber or acrylic based coating is just asking for film failure, for then one has a film made of two products with disparate expansion rates. This tends to produce film cracks which allow moisture into the substrate which then encourages film failure, which further allows...

And I'm not suggesting that lead paint is some sort of pariah. But it does come with certain risk. I see no reason to not try to reasonably mitigate that risk.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Damn, and I do so love chewing on the windowsill when I'm bored.

The hazards of lead paint, of course, were well known even a hundred years ago. "Painter's Colic" was a widespread euphemism for the symptoms of lead poisoning commonly displayed by people who worked with the stuff. "Wall Dogs," the sign painters who specialized in painting ads on the sides of buildings, were especially susceptible to it due to their habit of painting new signs over the chalking remains of old ones.