![Chat, is this true? (Cali Assembly Bill 435, booster seats till age 16) [670x1199 - 752KB]](https://poal.co/static/images/98c386a8e0566163.png){kind=link}
!
inb4 'booster' seats
inb4 'booster' seats
It's a demoralization campaign.
It's a demoralization campaign.
https://xcancel.com/BBMagaMom/status/1981453449980981696
The post is a BIT hyperbolic, but not by much.
The new 435 law requires Cali kids under 10 to be in an "appropriate car seat or booster seat." Kids under 13 are not allowed in the front seat and relegated to the back of the bus. Violators face fines of $20 for first offense and $50 for subsequent offenses.
When I was 10, I was taller than my mother. When I was 12, I was driving a pickup on a honey farm.
The post is a BIT hyperbolic, but not by much.
The new 435 law requires Cali kids under 10 to be in an "appropriate car seat or booster seat." Kids under 13 are not allowed in the front seat and relegated to the back of the bus. Violators face fines of $20 for first offense and $50 for subsequent offenses.
When I was 10, I was taller than my mother. When I was 12, I was driving a pickup on a honey farm.
With adequate window tint a booster seat is not needed.
With adequate window tint a booster seat is not needed.
If it's too tinted, cops will just tell you to roll the rear window down.
If it's too tinted, cops will just tell you to roll the rear window down.
...shit man, I remember driving between riverside and Rancho Cucamonga in the back of a pickup truck, doing close to 100, with buckets of live fish sliding all around me.
Bunch of fucking pussies
...shit man, I remember driving between riverside and Rancho Cucamonga in the back of a pickup truck, doing close to 100, with buckets of live fish sliding all around me.
Bunch of fucking pussies
TRUE. If you can't use a seatbelt you go in the booster or the trunk.
duckduck Search Assist
California Assembly Bill 435 updates child passenger restraint laws, requiring children under 10 to use booster seats and implementing a five-step test for those aged 10 to 16 to determine if they can safely use a seat belt.
TRUE. If you can't use a seatbelt you go in the booster or the trunk.
duckduck Search Assist
California Assembly Bill 435 updates child passenger restraint laws, requiring children under 10 to use booster seats and implementing a five-step test for those aged 10 to 16 to determine if they can safely use a seat belt.
Can't use a seat belt? So kids and juveniles need to be certified by some institution. That'll probably be free to everyone involved. NOT.
I wonder how much of an issue that is to justify this bill. I also wonder how much of said issue is really addressed in reality.
Fucktards.
Can't use a seat belt? So kids and juveniles need to be certified by some institution.
That'll probably be free to everyone involved. NOT.
I wonder how much of an issue that is to justify this bill.
I also wonder how much of said issue is really addressed in reality.
Fucktards.
Link to bill :https://legiscan.com/CA/votes/AB435/2025 It seems to say that the law applies to anyone under the age of 16. They must be "properly restrained"
Existing law also prohibits a parent, legal guardian, or chartering party from transporting on a bus, or permit to be transported on a bus, a child, ward, or passenger who is 8 years of age or older, but under 16 years of age, unless they are properly restrained by a safety belt, and unless they are acceptably restrained by a safety belt for a child, ward, or passenger who is under 8 years of age and under 4 feet 9 inches in height. A violation of these provisions is an infraction.
Existing law defines, for purposes of the above provisions, “properly restrained by a safety belt” to mean that the lap belt crosses the hips or upper thighs of the occupant and the shoulder belt, if present, crosses the chest in front of the occupant. Existing law defines “acceptably restrained by a safety belt” to mean the latch plate is securely fastened in the buckle, the lap belt is adjusted to fit low and tight across the hips or upper thighs, not the stomach area, the shoulder belt is adjusted snugly across the chest and the middle of the shoulder, away from the neck, and the shoulder belt is not placed behind the back or under the arm.
This bill would instead, commencing January 1, 2027, define “properly restrained by a safety belt” to mean that the child, ward, or passenger meets the requirements of the 5-Step test, which includes that the child, ward, or passenger is sitting all the way back against the auto seat, the knees of the child, ward, or passenger bend over the edge of the auto seat, the shoulder belt snugly crosses the center of the child, ward, or passenger’s chest and shoulder, not the child, ward, or passenger’s neck, the lap belt is as low as possible and is touching the child, ward, or passenger’s thighs, and the child, ward, or passenger can stay seated like this for the whole trip. By changing this definition and thereby expanding the scope of existing crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
Link to bill :https://legiscan.com/CA/votes/AB435/2025
It seems to say that the law applies to anyone under the age of 16. They must be "properly restrained"
Existing law also prohibits a parent, legal guardian, or chartering party from transporting on a bus, or permit to be transported on a bus, a child, ward, or passenger who is 8 years of age or older, but under 16 years of age, unless they are properly restrained by a safety belt, and unless they are acceptably restrained by a safety belt for a child, ward, or passenger who is under 8 years of age and under 4 feet 9 inches in height. A violation of these provisions is an infraction.
Existing law defines, for purposes of the above provisions, “properly restrained by a safety belt” to mean that the lap belt crosses the hips or upper thighs of the occupant and the shoulder belt, if present, crosses the chest in front of the occupant. Existing law defines “acceptably restrained by a safety belt” to mean the latch plate is securely fastened in the buckle, the lap belt is adjusted to fit low and tight across the hips or upper thighs, not the stomach area, the shoulder belt is adjusted snugly across the chest and the middle of the shoulder, away from the neck, and the shoulder belt is not placed behind the back or under the arm.
This bill would instead, commencing January 1, 2027, define “properly restrained by a safety belt” to mean that the child, ward, or passenger meets the requirements of the 5-Step test, which includes that the child, ward, or passenger is sitting all the way back against the auto seat, the knees of the child, ward, or passenger bend over the edge of the auto seat, the shoulder belt snugly crosses the center of the child, ward, or passenger’s chest and shoulder, not the child, ward, or passenger’s neck, the lap belt is as low as possible and is touching the child, ward, or passenger’s thighs, and the child, ward, or passenger can stay seated like this for the whole trip. By changing this definition and thereby expanding the scope of existing crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
Jeezus! That's a mouthful.
In practice that probably means that in 50% of cases, an ociffer could find some detail wrong with the restraint as applied.
I still wonder what widespread and urgent issue it is, that's addressed here and justifies the effort of such detailed regulation. What are the numbers, one might ask.
Jeezus! That's a mouthful.
In practice that probably means that in 50% of cases, an ociffer could find some detail wrong with the restraint as applied.
I still wonder what widespread and urgent issue it is, that's addressed here and justifies the effort of such detailed regulation. What are the numbers, one might ask.
I think more and more every day that the phrase "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" from the game assassins' creed is true. But rather maybe "Nothing is allowed, everything is permitted" would be a better way to say it.
Make everything illegal, and now it's just a matter of what does the gov decide you can get away with.
I think more and more every day that the phrase "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" from the game assassins' creed is true. But rather maybe "Nothing is allowed, everything is permitted" would be a better way to say it.
Make everything illegal, and now it's just a matter of what does the gov decide you can get away with.
It means they have more tools in their belt to make your life hell.
The More Corrupt the State, the More Numerous the Laws (Tacitus?) https://internationalman.com/articles/the-more-corrupt-the-state-the-more-numerous-the-laws/ https://medium.com/@arsenehodali/the-more-corrupt-the-state-the-more-numerous-the-laws-39819cdf08b4
It means they have more tools in their belt to make your life hell.
The More Corrupt the State, the More Numerous the Laws (Tacitus?)
https://internationalman.com/articles/the-more-corrupt-the-state-the-more-numerous-the-laws/
https://medium.com/@arsenehodali/the-more-corrupt-the-state-the-more-numerous-the-laws-39819cdf08b4
Won't someone think of the midgets please!
Won't someone think of the midgets please!
Make midgets use car seats again.
Make midgets use car seats again.
Good thing that in 2027 I’ll no longer be giving kommiefornia the benefits of my company.
Good thing that in 2027 I’ll no longer be giving kommiefornia the benefits of my company.