Am I reading this right?

[nicoleandjackson]

Holy crow! I was doing some quick research for booster seat requirements for WI, and it was posted on the same document for infant restraints. Out of curiosity, I glanced at the infant guidelines for DD (since she'll be out of her Snugride22 any second now.) If I am reading this correctly (and I cross-checked a few other websites to be sure), if a child is over the age of one and over 20 pounds, they are REQUIRED to be FORWARD facing!?!?

Whisky Tango Foxtrot???

http://dcf.wisconsin.gov/childcare/certification/pdf/boosterseatlaw.pdf

[WolfpackMom]

Thats how I would read it too, very odd...

[KrisM]

It appears that your oldest is required to be using a seatbelt only now, too. Over 8 and he's out of a booster, by law.

[nicoleandjackson]

It appears that your oldest is required to be using a seatbelt only now, too. Over 8 and he's out of a booster, by law.

I know! He's a tall kid, but not tall enough to sit in my car without a booster--the seat belt would choke him!

I don't know what to do with this :irked:

[sunshine873]

Looks like whoever wrote this pamphlet is mis-interpreting what the law actually says. I guess it depends on how far you want to go with this. If you want to pursue, I guess I'd start by trying to find what the state law actually says, and then contacting DCF about it.

How frustrating. If the "professionals" can't get this stuff right, how is the general public supposed to???

[KrisM]

Looks like whoever wrote this pamphlet is mis-interpreting what the law actually says. I guess it depends on how far you want to go with this. If you want to pursue, I guess I'd start by trying to find what the state law actually says, and then contacting DCF about it.

How frustrating. If the "professionals" can't get this stuff right, how is the general public supposed to???

That was my thought too. Here are the actual words, I think:

A child under the age of 8 years who is being transported
in a motor vehicle shall be restrained as follows:
1. If the child is less than one year old or weighs less than 20
pounds, the child shall be properly restrained in a rear−facing
child safety restraint system, positioned at a designated seating
position in a back passenger seat of the vehicle if the vehicle is
equipped with a back passenger seat.
2. Subject to subd. 1., if the child is at least one year old and
weighs at least 20 pounds but is less than 4 years old or weighs less
than 40 pounds, the child shall be properly restrained in a forward−
facing child safety restraint system, positioned at a designated
seating position in a back passenger seat of the vehicle if the
vehicle is equipped with a back passenger seat.
3. Subject to subds. 1. and 2., if the child is at least 4 years old
but less than 8 years old, weighs at least 40 pounds but not more
than 80 pounds, and is not more than 57 inches in height, the child
shall be properly restrained in a child booster seat.
4. Subject to subds. 1. to 3., if the child is less than 8 years old,
the child shall be properly restrained in a safety belt approved by
the department under sub. (2).

From here: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0347.pdf

[Joolsplus2]

Typically there's an exemption for when people go above and beyond the law (ie, SAFER than the law requires), though, as long as the seat is being used correctly according to it's labels and manuals.

[bubbaray]

I interpret that provision to mean children under 1/20 must be rear facing and children over 1/20 MUST be front facing. :shake:

I don't see any exemption for proper use. Here is the exemption for disability:


The department may, by rule, exempt from the requirements
under pars. (am) and (as) any child who because of a physical
or medical condition or body size cannot be placed in a child
safety restraint system, child booster seat, or safety belt.

[Joolsplus2]

This exemption... Children whose body-size, physical condition or medical condition makes safety restraints
unreasonable are still exempt from the booster seat and safety belt laws...

Given that the AAP recommends RF as long as possible, and the law is absolutely NOT adherent to that recommendation, it would be easy to claim that, in the infinitesimal chance that a cop ever even noticed that a child was RF over one, that a child had a physical condition (ie, normal development ;)) that requires seat use different from what the law (incorrectly, given the limits of all seats on the market) requires.

I suppose you could get a doctor's note, same as you'd need to prove that your kid needed no seat or belt, to allow them to be RF longer, if you were worried that any cop would ever notice or care...

[bubbaray]

The cop noticing or caring is a different issue.

As I read the law, the RFg/FFg positions are mandatory and if a parent/caregiver wants the exception, they need to apply to the state somehow for the exemption. It sounds like the exemption does not exist until the state makes the ruling, KWIM?

This is some really unfortunate wording....

[Joolsplus2]

Of course the page she links to also says : Is at least 1-year-old but less than 4-years-old
o Weighs at least 20...
So saying 'at least' means, to me, that older is fine.

[bubbaray]

Its the "shall" that is the problem.

FWIW, using "at least" language with "shall" is a legislative error. It should be "may".

But, like I said, that is some really unfortunate wording.

[Joolsplus2]

Yeah, bad wording. You're really screwed if you own a Cosco with a bare minimum to FF as one, 22 pounds, and 34 inches tall, since most kids aren't that tall till nearly 2!

[larig]

I interpret that provision to mean children under 1/20 must be rear facing and children over 1/20 MUST be front facing. :shake:

I don't see any exemption for proper use. Here is the exemption for disability:


The department may, by rule, exempt from the requirements
under pars. (am) and (as) any child who because of a physical
or medical condition or body size cannot be placed in a child
safety restraint system, child booster seat, or safety belt.


I'm no lawyer, but I just don't see any other way the statute could be interpreted either. That's just poor law-writing. Seriously--no wonder parents don't get this stuff right!

[blue]

I interpret that provision to mean children under 1/20 must be rear facing and children over 1/20 MUST be front facing. :shake:


That's how I interpret it to ( I am not a lawyer though, so maybe it makes sense to them)....very odd...

[AngelaS]

I interpreted it that over 1 and 20lbs they must be front facing. I still left my kids rf for a long time and figured if I got pulled over, I'd point out that I was following the recommendations for the carseat and fight it if I had to. :)

[nicoleandjackson]

I interpreted it that over 1 and 20lbs they must be front facing. I still left my kids rf for a long time and figured if I got pulled over, I'd point out that I was following the recommendations for the carseat and fight it if I had to. :)

If I'm ever put in that situation, that is what I will point out as well, especially now that the recommendations are set to be revised higher.

Yet another thing I can contact my friendly State Representative about, LOL!