New Booster Seat Law Takes Effect In Massachusetts

12:53PM / Wednesday, July 09, 2008Print Story | Email Story

Thursday ushers in a new era in child passenger safety in Massachusetts as a new booster seat law takes effect ninety days after Governor Deval Patrick signed the legislation. For the past several years, AAA Southern New England has been the primary proponent of this law, which requires booster seats for children up to their eighth birthday, or until they reach 4 feet 9 inches in height--whichever comes first.

“Parents are bombarded with health and safety messages regarding their kids,” says Arthur Kinsman, Director of Government Affairs for AAA Southern New England. “Their priority filters tell them that if a warning is not a law, the potential is not life-threatening. Nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to properly securing our kids.”

Studies show nine out of ten parents believe that if they adhere to their state’s current child passenger safety law, they’ll be taking the necessary steps to protect their children. “Previously, parents were given a false sense of security by following the letter of the Commonwealth’s law, and, in the process, unknowingly endangering their children,” said Mr. Kinsman. “Finally the law has caught up to best practice.”

"With the booster seat law going into effect, now is a great time to remind parents that booster seats save lives. Often, a seat belt alone is not enough to protect a child, or is even harmful because the child is not big enough to wear the seat belt properly. Booster seats help solve this problem," said Representative Michael Costello, Chair of the Joint Committee on Public Safety & Homeland Security. "This is a simple, inexpensive way that parents can protect their children while they are driving."

According to AAA, height is the best indicator of when a child can be safely buckled in an adult safety belt, because the booster seat raises up a child so that the seat belt is properly positioned across a child’s lap and chest. The age cutoff is important because it prevents smaller adults from being subject to the law.

"The purpose of this law is to save children’s lives," says Senator Steven A. Baddour, (D-Methuen), the bill’s sponsor and Chair of the Joint Committee on Transportation. "We must continue to educate parents about how they can protect their kids in the case of an accident – something I think any parent would do if they truly knew of the risks involved without booster seats."

Booster seats are available in some department stores for as little as $15, and for parents facing financial hardships, free booster seats are available through the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security/Highway Safety Division. For more information on free seats, Massachusetts residents can call the Child Passenger Safety Hotline at 1-877-392-5956, or TTY 1-617-725-0261 (for the hearing impaired,) or log on to www.mass.gov/child safety seats.

The fine for violating the new law would be $25 per child. Forty-three states and the District of Columbia have booster seat laws in place.

iBerkshires.com Text Ads

Thrive with Greylock

Have your business needs changed? Change to us! Greylock Federal Credit Union. Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

rk MILES Blding Materials

Are You Ready to Update Your Home? Start With rk MILES. 4 Locations (800)670-7433

www.rkmiles.com

RIBCO Supply

Check out our great lineup of Boss Plows, and spreaders. 2 Locations Clarksburg & Pittsfield!

ribcosupply.com

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Your Comments

iBerkshires.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary.

I think this law is fine. What I do not agree with is the fact that a 5 yearold child get on a school bus and not only has no booster seat, but no seat belt. Try explaining to your child that is ok on the bus, but not in your car. Laws should be laws for all vehicles.
from: Sue	on: 07-11-2008 12:00AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

I think this legislation is absolutely ridiculous. Age should never be brought into the argument. We need to figure out what the height and weight limits should be and write the law that way. You have to have a booster seat if you are under x pounds or x height. period. The legislature don't want to offend small adults by telling them that they need a booster to be safe. That basically says that an 18 year olds life is worth less than an 8 year olds. I am a parent of 3 under 8 and I know when my children are safely buckled into the car or not. Parents whom can't figure that out should have a resource to go to for helpful guidlines.
from: Bob	on: 07-13-2008 12:00AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

I think that there should be a law passed for children on school buses. They are neither in booster seats or buckled in with seat belts. Explain why it is ok for massachusetts to set the laws, yet at the same time break them? Should not public transportation be held to adhere to the law as well? Maybe parents should start fileing saftey complaints on the school transportation, or just start refusing to send their children on the buses until they add seatbelts to protect our children. If a parent is abusive in anyway, they step in to correct the situation, yet they never step in and say they are at fault. It is always the parent that will be found at fault for something but never the system. Parents need to start holding the system accountable for protectin our kids when we as parents are not the ones transporting them to and from school or any school function.
from: a concerned person	on: 07-16-2008 12:00AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

While I agree with the new booster seat law, I disagree with the comments about wanting seat belts on school buses. As a former driver, I have seen 2 buses catch on fire. If I had to safely evacuated 77 buckled, panicked, confused children, through smoke and flames, odds are not all of us would make it out safely.
from: julie	on: 07-16-2008 12:00AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

In reference to a post on here about not agreeing to seatbelts on school buses. Maybe they shouldn't allow so many children on one bus. I can remember riding on those buses, and that is way to many children for one person to safely watch let alone try and help should something happen on the bus. Try making more "smaller" buses and creat more jobs for the people. Or, if you keep the large buses, add more adults on it to help care for and watch the children. Lets face it, teachers and school bus drivers have too much to handle with class sizes as big as they are and buses with as many children on them with only one adult per class/bus. Then they can safely keep our kids safe with proper safety measures. Any other vehicle has to have seat belts to keep not only the adult safe but the kids as well. Lets face it, they make sure the driver is safe with a seat belt, are our childrens lives not as important? If you don't want seat belts on buses then maybe the driver shouldn't have one either. Their life isn't any more important then my own childs, nor is it any less important. I stand firm in believing that both drivers and passengers of ANY motor vehicle (cars, trucks, vans, and yes buses), should have seatbelts to keep ALL occupants safe and out of harms way.
from: a concerned person	on: 07-16-2008 12:00AM I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0)

Lanesborough Officials Take Road District Dissolution Off Warrant

By Breanna SteeleiBerkshires Staff
06:23PM / Wednesday, May 27, 2026

LANESBOROUGH, Mass. — The Select Board has removed a town meeting warrant article regarding the dissolution of the Baker Hill Road District.

JMJ Holdings development consultant Tim Grogan spoke in public comment saying the Berkshire Mall owner is currently has purchase-and-sale agreement for the mall.

Back in February, the Select Board settled a tax dispute with JMJ Holdings by agreeing to move forward in dissolving the district if the company paid $1.1 million to the town. JMJ Holdings had to provide a signed development-and-purchase agreement 30 days before the town meeting.

JMJ holdings did not submit a payment to be made by May 9. Because of that, the Select Board voted to take the article of the warrant to be voted at the annual town meeting.

Meanwhile, the Baker Hill Road District presented a slideshow defending the district and explaining what it does.

The district currently provides a non-resident-funded revenue stream of around $500,000 per year. These funds help pay for police cars and officer salaries, dump trucks, fire trucks, and more for the town.

"Dissolution would mean the district's three commercial property owners would no longer have to pay for upkeep of the Route Seven/Eight connector road. As a result, the BHRD annual contribution of more than $500,000 to Lanesborough would disappear permanently, since the services and maintenance costs associated with the Route Seven and Eight connector road would still remain," said Tom Caraccioli, PR consultant with AH&M Inc. "Lanesborough would have to absorb these costs and continue to provide emergency services to the mall and Target. The financial burden for these remaining expenses would then fall on Lanesborough taxpayers through higher taxes or the reduction of other important town services."

The proposal with JMJ would affect the town in a negative way Caraccioli claimed.

"JMJ is proposing a one-time payment of $1.1 million to Lanesborough in exchange, JMJ would never pay BHRD taxes again. The decision to dissolve the BHRD by accepting this proposed $1.1 million would be a permanent choice that would have irreversible consequences," he said. "There will be no official system in place to cover recurring costs once the money from this single payment is spent. Therefore, the proposed one-time payment is not a long-term solution for the town of Lanesborough."

JMJ's dispute was that the Berkshire Mall no longer exists as a functioning entity and it should not be on the hook for protection and maintenance that had been based on the mall's operation in its heyday. The company is seeking to redevelop the site as senior housing and town officials were asking the state to take over the Connector Road.

District officials said it's not guaranteed that the state would take over the road linking Routes 7 and 8, built to service the mall back in the '80s, and that the state Department of Transportation had historically discouraged the town from asking. Even if it happened, it could take three to five years, during which no BHRD funds would be collected if the district is dissolved. The state would not replace the revenue they support, and they argued the state is facing its own budget issues making it unlikely they would want to take over.

The road district was created by an act of the Legislature and would require another act to dissolve it. The town meeting article asked for voter support for a home-rule petition to start that process.

After the presentation, it was asked what the current financial status of the BHRD, given that JMJ hasn’t paid in a long time and if the district actually has the money or if it is dependent on the mall sale.

Mark Siegars, attorney for BHRD, reminded the room that the mall is under a purchase and sale agreement and if the sale closes, the district expects to receive more than a million dollars because of the lawsuit and lien, but does not have that cash yet. If the sale does not go through, BHRD will take the mall and sell it. The district still gets payments from Target, which is separate from the mall.

There were also some questions on the district's history, with Select Board member Jason Breault asking if the mall did not have a high tax rate from the district, would it still be solvent. The exchange became heated between Siegars and BHRD Chair Bill Prendergast.

View Full Story