New Child Restraints Law from 1 November

Forums › Off topic › New Child Restraints Law from 1 November

1 | 2

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

Reply # 922237 26-Oct-2013 21:37

Geektastic:

Realised I was NFI when I saw this "New Child Restraints Law" was not about what I hoped it was about...!

I thought peace might be returning to cafes, restaurants, planes etc!

LOL thats funny.

mattwnz: When I was a kid, we used to get picked up from school by a rotation of parents, and often the boot of the station wagon or van was filled with kids. Everything seems so much harder these days for parents. Don't know how using a rooster for parents could now be possible. Good luck.

My Dad use to fetch us from school in a bakkie (ute). We use to all climb on the back and thats how we would get home. Never once heard of a kid falling off.

JimmyH

2606 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1277

Reply # 922252 26-Oct-2013 22:11

Puzzles me a bit why, if it's driven by the fact that seatbelts are unsafe for people below a certain height, they regulate this by the age of the child instead of the size of the child?

If seatbelts are really unsafe for anyone below 148cm in height, wouldn't it be simpler and far more consistent with the stated safety objective to say that any passenger, of any age, under 148cm in height must have a booster seat when travelling in a car?

richms

21830 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4569

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 922253 26-Oct-2013 22:16

Surely it would depend on the design of the car too?

Richard rich.ms

DravidDavid

1889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 316

Reply # 922257 26-Oct-2013 22:44

I think they put an age limit on it, because not only does design of the car, seat belt, car seat and build of the passenger come in to it...If they said people 148cm or below needed a restraint, half the people I knew would need a booster.

For those of you 6+ feet tall...Walk around westfield with your arm out and see how many people fall in to the "less than 148cm catagory, haha,

Sometimes what you don't get is a blessing in disguise!

Regs

Infrastructure Geek
4057 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 195

Trusted

Microsoft NZ

Subscriber

Reply # 922262 26-Oct-2013 23:07

One person supports this post

DravidDavid: I think they put an age limit on it, because not only does design of the car, seat belt, car seat and build of the passenger come in to it...If they said people 148cm or below needed a restraint, half the people I knew would need a booster.

For those of you 6+ feet tall...Walk around westfield with your arm out and see how many people fall in to the "less than 148cm catagory, haha,

you must hang with a lot of short people..... 148cm is under 5 ft....

Technical Evangelist
Microsoft NZ
about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

Geektastic

12402 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4096

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 922596 27-Oct-2013 18:50

Sounds to me like condoms would be cheaper...!

hangon

389 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 39

Reply # 923399 29-Oct-2013 09:56

GregV: 148cms is the recommended height for a child to no longer use a child restraint. Any shorter than this, and the seat-belt will not secure them correctly.

It would also be much easier to police on the road-side, to ensure compliance. No lying about how old a child is, just grab out the measuring tape.

I'd second that.

Based on some growth chart, only the top 10% percent of girls could reach 148 cm at age of 10.

The new rule is quite loose.
"Children aged between five and seven must use a child restraint if available. If not available, they must use a safety belt. If a safety belt is not available they must travel in the back seat."

So long as you put your 6 yo in the back seat even without safety belt you are not breaking the new law???

Inphinity

2531 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 940

Subscriber

Reply # 923545 29-Oct-2013 14:02

hangon:
The new rule is quite loose.
"Children aged between five and seven must use a child restraint if available. If not available, they must use a safety belt. If a safety belt is not available they must travel in the back seat."

So long as you put your 6 yo in the back seat even without safety belt you are not breaking the new law???

That is the existing law. The incoming law is that any child under 7 years old must be in an approved restraint, and those between 7 and 8 must be if one is available.

hangon

389 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 39

Reply # 923554 29-Oct-2013 14:30

Inphinity:
That is the existing law. The incoming law is that any child under 7 years old must be in an approved restraint, and those between 7 and 8 must be if one is available.

You are right...

I'd argue the NZTA website could have presented the information better, as the new law comes into effect in just 3 days.

surfisup1000

3975 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1327

Reply # 923587 29-Oct-2013 15:02

JimmyH: Puzzles me a bit why, if it's driven by the fact that seatbelts are unsafe for people below a certain height, they regulate this by the age of the child instead of the size of the child?

If seatbelts are really unsafe for anyone below 148cm in height, wouldn't it be simpler and far more consistent with the stated safety objective to say that any passenger, of any age, under 148cm in height must have a booster seat when travelling in a car?

Yes, but given the general intelligence of some people it was easier to just place an age on it.

1 | 2