Question regards about child car seat.

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Question regards about child car seat.

iapple

73 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#110371 8-Oct-2012 14:22

According to http://www.consumer.org.nz/reports/child-car-seats/child-restraints-and-the-law

"Older children between 5 and 7 must use an approved child restraint if one is available – otherwise they must use an adult safety belt. If no safety belt’s available, they must be in the back seat."

So as above it is ok for a 5year old to seat as the back and wear the seat belt?Or Am I wrong?

I got pulled over by a cop today as my son 5 year old(his 5th birthday was last week) he sat on the car without a car seat but of couse wearing the safety seat belt.

After the cop asked for my licence and returned to his car to check then he gave me a warning that I'm not allow to carry my son on the car without a booster seat.

I have gifted his car seat to another child so I'm not sure if I do need to buy a new one for my son:)

1 | 2

3344 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Vocus

#697884 8-Oct-2012 14:26

Put it this way; regardless of the law, many studies show that your child is much safer in a booster, ie the reduced risk of injury is significant.

Half boosters are only about $40. Full boosters can be had for $100.

iapple

73 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#697903 8-Oct-2012 14:52

Thanks,but I would like if some one can confirm if it's legal to carry a child passenger as the back who is 5 year and older without a car seat,as my car got a "L" plate on it which I use for my wife to learn to drive and I think that's the main reason that the cop pulled me over.

tigercorp

668 posts

Ultimate Geek

#697911 8-Oct-2012 15:07

iapple: Thanks,but I would like if some one can confirm if it's legal to carry a child passenger as the back who is 5 year and older without a car seat,as my car got a "L" plate on it which I use for my wife to learn to drive and I think that's the main reason that the cop pulled me over.

According to this from the NZ Transport Agency it is allowed.

"If the child is aged five to seven years you must use an approved child restraint if there's one available and if it's appropriate for the child's age and size. Otherwise they must use a safety belt if one is available. If there are no child restraints or safety belts available, they must travel in the back seat."

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#697916 8-Oct-2012 15:11

Here's the NZTA factsheet: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/factsheets/07/child-restraints.html

Here's the relevant section of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303625.html

7.7Driver must ensure passengers of or over 5 years but under 8 years use child restraint or seat belt

A driver must ensure that, while the motor vehicle is in motion on a road, every passenger of or over the age of 5 years but under the age of 8 years—
- (a)is properly restrained by an approved child restraint appropriate for that passenger, if such a restraint is available in the vehicle; or
- (b)if such a restraint is not available in the vehicle, is restrained as securely as practicable in the circumstances using any child restraint or seat belt that is available (whether or not that child restraint or seat belt is approved).

My interpretation is that while the recommendation is that children under the height of 148cm should be in a child restraint (and children under the age of 5 must be in a restraint); if they are between 5 and 8 they only need to be in a restraint if there is one available in that vehicle.

dolsen

1476 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#697927 8-Oct-2012 15:16

I got pipped at the post about the need to have a car seat (agree with you, you don't need to put them in one if there is not one available), so, don't think he could give you a ticket for that.

On the other hand,

------

LAND TRANSPORT (DRIVER LICENSING) RULE 1999
PART 16 - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO RESPONSIBILITIES OF DRIVERS

104.Prohibition on display of ``L'' plate except in appropriate circumstances?

A person must not drive, on a road, a motor vehicle that displays an ``L'' plate as specified in clause 66 unless that person?

(a)Holds a learner licence of the class that relates to that vehicle in accordance with Schedule 3; or
(b)Immediately prior to driving has been, or is about to be, accompanying the person in paragraph (a) in accordance with clause 16(1)(a); or
(c)Holds a driving instructor or testing officer endorsement and is driving a vehicle used for purposes connected with that endorsement.
------
Looks like he could have got you for displaying a L plate (assuming you have a full licence).

iapple

73 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#697950 8-Oct-2012 15:33

dolsen: I got pipped at the post about the need to have a car seat (agree with you, you don't need to put them in one if there is not one available), so, don't think he could give you a ticket for that.

On the other hand,

------

LAND TRANSPORT (DRIVER LICENSING) RULE 1999
PART 16 - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO RESPONSIBILITIES OF DRIVERS

104.Prohibition on display of ``L'' plate except in appropriate circumstances?

A person must not drive, on a road, a motor vehicle that displays an ``L'' plate as specified in clause 66 unless that person?

(a)Holds a learner licence of the class that relates to that vehicle in accordance with Schedule 3; or
(b)Immediately prior to driving has been, or is about to be, accompanying the person in paragraph (a) in accordance with clause 16(1)(a); or
(c)Holds a driving instructor or testing officer endorsement and is driving a vehicle used for purposes connected with that endorsement.
------
Looks like he could have got you for displaying a L plate (assuming you have a full licence).

Thanks

iapple

73 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#697952 8-Oct-2012 15:34

And thanks all for the replies

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#697963 8-Oct-2012 15:51

I thought they had changed the rules several years ago, but maybe not. They were talking about requiring booster seats until much older.

Even before they were talking about changing the rules we kept our son in a booster seat as when sitting on the seat with it the seat belt would be at neck level - in a half decent accident that would be a snapped neck rather than serious chest bruising. Which would you prefer?

GregV

928 posts

Ultimate Geek

#697971 8-Oct-2012 16:04

The law is changing shortly, taking the age up to 7 years where a child restraint must be used.

Height is a better indication of when a child restraint should be used. It is recommended that children be kept in a child restraint until they are at least 148cm tall.

iapple

73 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#697990 8-Oct-2012 16:30

GregV: The law is changing shortly, taking the age up to 7 years where a child restraint must be used.

Height is a better indication of when a child restraint should be used. It is recommended that children be kept in a child restraint until they are at least 148cm tall.

Thanks,Will buy the booster seat today then

GregV

928 posts

Ultimate Geek

#697994 8-Oct-2012 16:41

Well worth the investment for your 5-year-old. My 6- and 8-year-old boys still use booster seats.

craigw

13 posts

Geek

#698038 8-Oct-2012 17:21

The kids also look and seem happier in a booster on longer journeys. We have the full height one.

iapple

73 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#698103 8-Oct-2012 19:43

Thanks,I finally decided to buy a new one for my boy

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#698114 8-Oct-2012 19:56

Holy lack of good neighbouhood, Batman.

I resized your 2 Mbytes 900px across image to a more pallatable 57 Kbytes.

PLEASE DO NOT POST GIGANTIC IMAGES OR ACCOUNT WILL BE DISABLED.

iapple

73 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#698124 8-Oct-2012 20:07

freitasm: Holy lack of good neighbouhood, Batman.

I resized your 2 Mbytes 900px across image to a more pallatable 57 Kbytes.

PLEASE DO NOT POST GIGANTIC IMAGES OR ACCOUNT WILL BE DISABLED.

I

Oh sorry:)

1 | 2