So unsecured kids can still ride in the bed of pickup trucks in AZ?

Danny Tse

Just saw this article about a proposed bill in AZ to outlaw this....

It's possible, though maybe only remotely so, that the Arizona Legislature will enact a bill this session that would to make it illegal to freely haul kids around in the beds of pickup trucks.

We hope so. The bill, which has been introduced and killed repeatedly over many years, is an important public safety measure. It's been sabotaged most often as an inappropriate abridgement of individual liberties, an assertion that is pure and simple hogwash.

The measure, HB 2089, was passed by the House last week and now goes to the Senate. Rep. Matt Heinz, the bill's sponsor and a Tucson Democrat, told us there's some hope it could get through the Senate.

"I have Republican support in the Senate," Heinz said. In fact, Tucson Republican Sen. Al Melvin is "pushing very, very hard" for it, as is Phoenix Republican Sen. Linda Gray, he said.

We agree with Heinz that the issue is a "basic, common-sense" matter: Under Arizona law, you can't haul an elk carcass in the back of a pickup unless it's tied down. The alternative - dead elks flying through the air in the event of sudden braking, a collision or a monster pothole - is dangerous. Obviously.
But our state doesn't require that you "secure" a youngster riding in the back of your pickup.

"A projectile 12-year-old poses just as much of a traffic safety risk as a projectile elk - not to mention that it's your kid," Heinz says.

The House voted 35-24 last week for the bill, which requires that pickup-bed passengers under 18 either be belted or helmeted. HB 2089 is fundamentally a matter of safety, not individual liberties. The Senate should pass the bill; then the governor should sign it.

I found the article from autoguide.com, which had this to say about the proposed bill....

Some would argue that common sense disappeared back in the 1980s. In fact it seems more and more laws are being introduced to save us from our own stupidity.

In Arizona, state lawmakers recently passed a bill that would prohibit children under the age of 18 from riding freely in the back of a pickup truck.

What makes this even more incredible is the fact that state law currently requires an Elk carcass to be firmly secured in the bed, but not children. The bill’s sponsor, Democrat Representative Matt Heinz went on the record as saying “a projectile 12-year-old poses just as much of a traffic safety risk as a projectile elk — not to mention that it’s your kid.”

The bill, if passed (and there’s a good chance it will according to the Arizona Daily Star) will require riders under 18 in the back of a bed to be belted and helmeted. Critics of the bill says it infringes on civil liberties and is just another example of the Nanny State interfering with our daily lives.

Perhaps, but what about the concept of personal responsibility for one’s actions? Apparently, these days, that’s as dead and buried as common sense.

treitz3

I do believe it's still legal in many states. If it is illegal in North and South Carolina, it sure as hell ain't enforced.

bobman1235

Much like the "No Texting While Driving" laws, I don't understand laws like this.

I feel like this is covered by at least two things - keep things in your truck bed secure, and also, a little thing I like to call "child endangerment." Why waste time with a law that says "children in pickup truck beds must be secured" when you already probably have a law saying kids must wear seat belts?

(my reference to the texting while driving laws is that we already have "distracted driving" laws. Just roll "texting" and "fudging around with your cell phone" into "distracted" and "reckless driving" and you're done. No months of committees and a thousand more pages of verbage).

exalted512

God I wish they would enforce distracted driving laws. If I was a cop, I'd be handing those tickets out left and right. Texting, reading reports, putting on makeup...I see it everyday on my way to work.
-Cody

skipf

I do believe it is still OK in SC for your kids to ride in the back of your pick-up, however; your dog must be secured by a leash short enough to keep them away from the sides or in a dog crate secured to the truck. We got our priorities straight down here. It's easy to have more kids, but dang hard to find another good huntin' dog.:rolleyes:

treitz3

exalted512 wrote: »

God I wish they would enforce distracted driving laws.

No doubt.

steveinaz

How about we let parents/situation dictate? I don't need a nanny state. In rural areas, working out of the back of a pick-up is not only common-place, it's a necessity to accomplish certain chores; that's why this has been allowed for many years.

Don't we have enough government in our lives already? Pretty soon you'll be in a child seat at the age of 12. Ridiculous. How did we ever survive as kids?

bobman1235

steveinaz wrote: »

How about we let parents/situation dictate? I don't need a nanny state.

I know it's cliche, but this one's "for the children." There really are people dumb enough to not realize it's bad to put your kids in the back of a pickup on the highway. If you want to do something dangerous to yourself, I'm all for it, but someone who does something like that should have their kids taken away. I don't think that means "nanny state" to a rational person. (Though I still maintain that it could be rolled into a more broad "child safety" law and not called out specifically)

treitz3

steveinaz wrote: »

How about we let parents/situation dictate?

A hay ride or getting the farm work done, no problem.

The problem lies in the extreme. Herding 15 kids piled in the back of a pickup at speeds of 65 miles per hour to a local movie theater. Making a kid(s) stay outside of a truck in 110 degree weather during rush hour traffic. You know, the Darwin folks.

maximillian

exalted512 wrote: »

God I wish they would enforce distracted driving laws. If I was a cop, I'd be handing those tickets out left and right. Texting, reading reports, putting on makeup...I see it everyday on my way to work.
-Cody

Hey, it's not my fault my family insists on talking to me while they are in the car. I tell them to leave me alone but they have to keep interrupting me with "are we there yet" and "where are we going to eat? and "I have to go to the bathroom".

tonyb

treitz3 wrote: »

A hay ride or getting the farm work done, no problem.

The problem lies in the extreme. Herding 15 kids piled in the back of a pickup at speeds of 65 miles per hour to a local movie theater. Making a kid(s) stay outside of a truck in 110 degree weather during rush hour traffic. You know, the Darwin folks.

Don't we already have child endangerment laws that would cover the extreme ?

fossy

exalted512 wrote: »

God I wish they would enforce distracted driving laws. If I was a cop, I'd be handing those tickets out left and right. Texting, reading reports, putting on makeup...I see it everyday on my way to work.
-Cody

the cops are doing the same thing........

A cop nowadays has his\her hands full when driving. A computer that's always going off, cell phone, radar etc etc......AND they are driving !!!

I guess I live in a bigger city so that makes difference.

There was a big ta-do about this a few years ago in a suburb ... lady was drunk & turned over with kids in the back .. killed a couple of um .... shes in prison now ...as she should be

Do we need a law about this.....ooo y not ...& put a tax on it as well ...jeezus

treitz3

tonyb wrote: »

Don't we already have child endangerment laws that would cover the extreme ?

Probably but they may be too vague to prosecute in situations like these. I'm not a lawyer or a judge, so I don't know.

txcoastal1

We used do it all the time, but that was then and this is now

I hate to say it but it should be banned all together on any road...kids and adults come off the beaches in the back of trucks down here in Galveston and there are at least a 1/2 horror stories every year and 1 is to many....on the beach fine on the road NO

bobman1235

fossy wrote: »

the cops are doing the same thing........

A cop nowadays has his\her hands full when driving. A computer that's always going off, cell phone, radar etc etc......AND they are driving !!!

I guess I live in a bigger city so that makes difference.

It doesn't. I can't remember the last time I saw a cop who wasn't on a cell phone, and that's honestly not hyperbole. At the end of my street for work they have one that directs traffic at rush hour, and it's a rotation of 2-3 cops, and they're all ALWAYS talking on a cell phone while standing in the middle of a very busy street.

The only nice thing is they tend to not be attentive on their speed trap duties when they're yammering away like old ladies on the phone.

steveinaz

When you use a few dumbasses as the basis for legislation of the many, you ruin it for everyone. You'll never stop dumbass people from doing dumbass stuff, you'll just continue to restrict those who do things in a common sense manner.

Slippery slope. More rules. No thanks.

Again, how the hell did we ever survive childhood?

I have 8-10 year old nephews that operate full size tractors, hydrualic log splitters, chain saws; that would make a 25yr old city boy blush with embarassment and uselessness. And (shhhhhh....) they quite often drive the pick-ups! Holy crap!

rooftop59

steveinaz wrote: »

How about we let parents/situation dictate? I don't need a nanny state. In rural areas, working out of the back of a pick-up is not only common-place, it's a necessity to accomplish certain chores; that's why this has been allowed for many years.

Don't we have enough government in our lives already? Pretty soon you'll be in a child seat at the age of 12. Ridiculous. How did we ever survive as kids?

I was waiting for this response. So perhaps this video represents a better alternative to our so-called "nanny-state"?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-22-2010/rage-within-the-machine---progressivism

treitz3

steveinaz wrote: »

When you use a few dumbasses as the basis for legislation of the many, you ruin it for everyone. You'll never stop dumbass people from doing dumbass stuff, you'll just continue to restrict those who do things in a common sense manner.

Slippery slope. More rules. No thanks.

Steve, I'm not gonna dispute that. We already have enough asinine laws.

fossy

steveinaz wrote: »

When you use a few dumbasses as the basis for legislation of the many, you ruin it for everyone. You'll never stop dumbass people from doing dumbass stuff, you'll just continue to restrict those who do things in a common sense manner.

Slippery slope. More rules. No thanks.

Again, how the hell did we ever survive childhood?

well said !!!

tonyb

Lets face it, dumb parents exist who put kids in harms way,everyday. I'm all for protecting kids,who isn't ? Granted, some actualy are too stupid to raise them, but who am I to make that call ? I can see farming and big ranches may have a need for such, but bottomline,it's the parents responsibility to secure safe passage of their kids. Government works on definitions, who's to say how broad of a definition of a " bad parent" can become.

steveinaz

It's just another way to restrict the general population, because a few people don't have a thought process that dictates using common sense and reason. So, shall we make all laws for "worst case scenario dumbness level?" We can all walk around with matresses wrapped around us like a bunch of damn idiots? Until people learn that being dumb hurts, they'll never aspire to any common sense approach; but when you micromanage them to the point that they don't have to think on their own at all, you'll have total control. That, my friends, is the slippery slope.

How about we pay the government to govern; not to tell us how to go about our daily lives...sound good to you? Sounds GREAT to me. Maybe then....maybe....they'll actually accomplish something meaningful.

fossy

steveinaz wrote: »

It's just another way to restrict the general population, because a few people don't have a thought process that dictates using common sense and reason. So, shall we make all laws for "worst case scenario dumbness level?" We can all walk around with matresses wrapped around us like a bunch of damn idiots? Until people learn that being dumb hurts, they'll never aspire to any common sense approach; but when you micromanage them to the point that they don't have to think on their own at all, you'll have total control. That, my friends, is the slippery slope.

How about we pay the government to govern; not to tell us how to go about our daily lives...sound good to you? Sounds GREAT to me. Maybe then....maybe....they'll actually accomplish something meaningful.

now theres a good idea ... we paying the government to govern.....

treitz3

steveinaz wrote: »

How about we pay the government to govern; not to tell us how to go about our daily lives...sound good to you? Sounds GREAT to me. Maybe then....maybe....they'll actually accomplish something meaningful.

Sounds wonderful. Absolutely wonderful. Seems though, when they get elected that they want nothing to do with that. That's actually WORK.

steveinaz

It's funny how people look back to the 50's/60'/70's with many, many fond memories of their childhood, family etc; and wish things could "be like that again." We didn't have any of these rediculous laws back then---how could we have possibly been so happy? Do we really need a "Don't attempt to eat this" orange sticker on a chainsaw? Is this how stupid we have become? Let the gubment run you, and they will oblige.

Picture this, it's 1961 and you just got your butt whipped for playing with matches. You call the police to report your "spanking"...anyone want to finish this one for me, as to how the police would react? It's laughable to those of us who lived in that time, but true TODAY. How did we get here? RULES, RULES, RULES. Governement involvement in your personal life. It doesn't matter where you stand on discipline as a parent, what matters is where the government stands on discipline; scary huh?

Think about it. Personal responsibility and peer pressure.

tonyb

Actualy, makeing policy is part of governing. They just like to make policy that controls the general public, subject matter easy to approach, instead of tackling the big problems.

tonyb

C'mon Steve, Had a Homelite for lunch, alittle mustard,wasn't bad.

jbooker82

tonyb wrote: »

Lets face it, dumb parents exist who put kids in harms way,everyday. I'm all for protecting kids,who isn't ? Granted, some actualy are too stupid to raise them, but who am I to make that call?

Chances are the kids will grow up to be like mom and dad as well. Some times a branch of a family tree should end. Dumb people will eventually take care themselfs. Laws shouldnt be made to stop it. The entire population benifits from natural selection.

You cannot save everybody, and if you could the earth can only support so many people. It may sound crule but that is life.

steveinaz

You've got balls for saying it out loud, but yeah, you're right. Why pin everyone else down, remove liberties/freedoms because a few don't get it?

bobman1235

steveinaz wrote: »

It's funny how people look back to the 50's/60'/70's with many, many fond memories of their childhood, family etc; and wish things could "be like that again." We didn't have any of these rediculous laws back then---how could we have possibly been so happy? Do we really need a "Don't attempt to eat this" orange sticker on a chainsaw? Is this how stupid we have become? Let the gubment run you, and they will oblige.

Picture this, it's 1961 and you just got your butt whipped for playing with matches. You call the police to report your "spanking"...anyone want to finish this one for me, as to how the police would react? It's laughable to those of us who lived in that time, but true TODAY.

Think about it. Personal responsibility and peer pressure.

I think everyone gets your point Steve, but you can't argue that NO laws regarding public safety can exist. I'm more on your side than not as a general outlook on government and how it should govern, I swear I am, but everyone draws that line somewhere slightly different. This is obviously over your line for some reason. But what about the stricter drunk driving laws?

Picture this. It's 1968. You drink a fifth of scotch like you do every other day after work, hop behind the wheel of your Cadillac El Dorado and drive home drunk as a skunk. A cop pulls you over, recognizes you, and tells you to go home. The next day you do the same thing and kill a kid on his bicycle (who isn't wearing a helmet, cuz that's only for little **** boys in 1968, right?)

Just... saying have a LITTLE perspective and choose your battles, that's all.

steveinaz

tonyb wrote: »

Actualy, makeing policy is part of governing. They just like to make policy that controls the general public, subject matter easy to approach, instead of tackling the big problems.

PRECISELY Tony. It's an easy win, and some guaranteed votes next time out.

steveinaz

bobman1235 wrote: »

I think everyone gets your point Steve, but you can't argue that NO laws regarding public safety can exist. I'm more on your side than not as a general outlook on government and how it should govern, I swear I am, but everyone draws that line somewhere slightly different. This is obviously over your line for some reason. But what about the stricter drunk driving laws?

Of course, the theme should be to hit a common sense middle ground, and keep government involvement out as much as reasonably possible. Point is, it's very easy to be pushed into the wrong direction---and it's also too easy to make blanket legislation, to address a serious minority, that may impact the vast majority. It's typical band-aid fix crap that cost us freedoms. As Tony stated (to paraphrase) it makes great/easy press though for politicians to solve these "idiot light" problems.