taxi with twins?

[Gracie09]

I will agree that 39.01 makes the parent responsible for the child's welfare. But not in the case of a car seat. The car seat law is specifically separate and not included in the "child welfare" statute. The sentence is only reiterating that the parent can't be stupid when the kid isn't in a car seat. There is no link between "child welfare" and the requirement to provide a car seat for the child under Florida law.

Then explain the last few words - to comply with the requirements of this section. Since 39.01 is simply a list of definitions there is nothing to comply with there so the "this" in this section is referring to the car seat section. You have to read the entire section.

 

[supersnoop]

Then explain the last few words - to comply with the requirements of this section. Since 39.01 is simply a list of definitions there is nothing to comply with there so the "this" in this section is referring to the car seat section. You have to read the entire section.

Including the very specific exceptions enumerated in this section.

 

[Carriemel]

Try this one on:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.613.html

Quote:

(6) The child restraint requirements imposed by this section do not apply to a chauffeur-driven taxi, limousine, sedan, van, bus, motor coach, or other passenger vehicle if the operator and the motor vehicle are hired and used for the transportation of persons for compensation. It is the obligation and responsibility of the parent, guardian, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare as defined in s. 39.01 to comply with the requirements of this section.

By the last few words, "of this section", "this section" means the chapter of the statute in question, which is Title XXII, Chapter 316 part 613. And what it is saying is that the parent or guardian IS responsible to comply with the seat belt/car seat laws.

What the words "for a child's welfare" mean is the person who is responsible for that child. In other words, section 39.01 simply defines a family relationship or guardianship of a child, and who can be held responsible if there is any injury to the child.

 

[Gracie09]

Try this one on:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.613.html

Quote:

(6) The child restraint requirements imposed by this section do not apply to a chauffeur-driven taxi, limousine, sedan, van, bus, motor coach, or other passenger vehicle if the operator and the motor vehicle are hired and used for the transportation of persons for compensation. It is the obligation and responsibility of the parent, guardian, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare as defined in s. 39.01 to comply with the requirements of this section.

By the last few words, "of this section", "this section" means the chapter of the statute in question, which is Title XXII, Chapter 316 part 613. And what it is saying is that the parent or guardian IS responsible to comply with the seat belt/car seat laws.

What the words "for a child's welfare" mean is the person who is responsible for that child. In other words, section 39.01 simply defines a family relationship or guardianship of a child, and who can be held responsible if there is any injury to the child.

thank you
and they even enumerate specific situations where the law would not be in effect - medical emergency, buses, farm equipment, even a nonfamily member transporting the child for free. None of these other sections have the additional language about the parent or guardian responsibility except the one dealing with cars for hire. That must make this section special, otherwise why would the extra language be there.

 

[Dis703]

Yea unfortunately they will be lap babies, we cant bring car seats onto the plane unlesswe brought 2 extra seats which would cost around $1,500!! Unfortunately we dont have that kinda money. They do provide sky cots for them to sleep in and I will be bringing on the plane our baby carriers.

Are you sure you can't gate check them? I know on the domestic flights we take we are allowed to gate check a stroller and car seat.

 

[supersnoop]

Try this one on:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.613.html

Quote:

(6) The child restraint requirements imposed by this section do not apply to a chauffeur-driven taxi, limousine, sedan, van, bus, motor coach, or other passenger vehicle if the operator and the motor vehicle are hired and used for the transportation of persons for compensation. It is the obligation and responsibility of the parent, guardian, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare as defined in s. 39.01 to comply with the requirements of this section.

By the last few words, "of this section", "this section" means the chapter of the statute in question, which is Title XXII, Chapter 316 part 613. And what it is saying is that the parent or guardian IS responsible to comply with the seat belt/car seat laws.

What the words "for a child's welfare" mean is the person who is responsible for that child. In other words, section 39.01 simply defines a family relationship or guardianship of a child, and who can be held responsible if there is any injury to the child.

But that section says that the law does not apply to the vehicle. Section one says that the law applies to the operator. With the exception, there is no obligation on the parent. I'm sure we could keep going back and forth, and I'm sure a lawyer would be happy to fight such a ticket if one was ever issued. Until an actual court establishes case law, we'll disagree on this point.

 

[Carriemel]

It says "OPERATOR AND MOTOR VEHICLE" - therefore THE DRIVER of the TAXI in question, as he/she is OPERATING the vehicle.

Not sure where you're getting that the law doesn't apply to the vehicle.

 

[supersnoop]

It says "OPERATOR AND MOTOR VEHICLE" - therefore THE DRIVER of the TAXI in question, as he/she is OPERATING the vehicle.

Not sure where you're getting that the law doesn't apply to the vehicle.

"The child restraint requirements imposed by this section do not apply to a chauffeur-driven taxi, limousine, sedan, van, bus, motor coach, or other passenger vehicle if the operator and the motor vehicle are hired and used for the transportation of persons for compensation."

 

[Gracie09]

"The child restraint requirements imposed by this section do not apply to a chauffeur-driven taxi, limousine, sedan, van, bus, motor coach, or other passenger vehicle if the operator and the motor vehicle are hired and used for the transportation of persons for compensation."

If you hire a taxi you are hiring the vehicle and the operator. Either way, you are forgetting the next sentence of the law.
"It is the obligation and responsibility of the parent, guardian, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare as defined in s. 39.01 to comply with the requirements of this section."
This shifts the responsibility of providing appropriate child seats from the operator of the vehicle to the parents/guardians of the child.

 

[supersnoop]

If you hire a taxi you are hiring the vehicle and the operator. Either way, you are forgetting the next sentence of the law.
"It is the obligation and responsibility of the parent, guardian, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare as defined in s. 39.01 to comply with the requirements of this section."
This shifts the responsibility of providing appropriate child seats from the operator of the vehicle to the parents/guardians of the child.

And you continue to ignore the prior sentence. "This section" exempts the child seat requirement in taxis. That doesn't obligate the parents to supply a seat.

 

[cel_disney]

OP - I saw a suggestion earlier that you hate check your car seats as well as your stroller. I cannot recommend that you do that.

It would be difficult to lug around but more importantly it puts your seats in a high risk of damage from being thrown/dropped/squeezed etc. you don't want this kid of damage to your seats. (Or your stroller! Make sure to invest inns travel bag for it and that all plastic trays etc are stored so they don't get cracked!! (Sad lesson learned for me there!)

 

[Gracie09]

And you continue to ignore the prior sentence. "This section" exempts the child seat requirement in taxis. That doesn't obligate the parents to supply a seat.

No not ignoring it. The sentence exempts the taxi operator from the burden instead the second sentence places that burden on the parents or guardians as defined by 39.01.

 

[Carriemel]

No not ignoring it. The sentence exempts the taxi operator from the burden instead the second sentence places that burden on the parents or guardians as defined by 39.01.

Exactly right.

 

[supersnoop]

No not ignoring it. The sentence exempts the taxi operator from the burden instead the second sentence places that burden on the parents or guardians as defined by 39.01.

I don't see the word "operator" in there anywhere.

 

[Carriemel]

Once again:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.613.html

(6) The child restraint requirements imposed by this section do not apply to a chauffeur-driven taxi, limousine, sedan, van, bus, motor coach, or other passenger vehicle if the operator and the motor vehicle are hired and used for the transportation of persons for compensation. It is the obligation and responsibility of the parent, guardian, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare as defined in s. 39.01 to comply with the requirements of this section.

 

[supersnoop]

Once again:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.613.html

(6) The child restraint requirements imposed by this section do not apply to a chauffeur-driven taxi, limousine, sedan, van, bus, motor coach, or other passenger vehicle if the operator and the motor vehicle are hired and used for the transportation of persons for compensation. It is the obligation and responsibility of the parent, guardian, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare as defined in s. 39.01 to comply with the requirements of this section.

This is getting redundant.

Quiz:
The child restraint requirements imposed by this section do not apply to:
a. the vehicle
b. the driver

 

[Gracie09]

I don't see the word "operator" in there anywhere.

The child restraint requirements imposed by this section do not apply to a chauffeur-driven taxi, limousine, sedan, van, bus, motor coach, or other passenger vehicle if the operator and the motor vehicle are hired and used for the transportation of persons for compensation. It is the obligation and responsibility of the parent, guardian, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare as defined in s. 39.01 to comply with the requirements of this section.

its right there.
You can also look at the legislative history and the legislative intent. If you do, you will see that the last section was added separately from the other exemptions and with additional language that the other sections do not have. So you have to ask yourself, why was that. If the intent was to simply exempt operators and cars for hire from the law, why not add it to the list of exemptions? Why not simply remove the word gratuitously from the section above that discusses children in cars driven by people who are not their relatives or in case of medical emergency. Why, because the intent was different than the above sections. The intent wasn't to exempt taxis or other cars for hire and their drivers (although I don't believe motor vehicles have been deemed legal persons yet so you can't really impart blame on a car, you would do it to the driver of the car so you can't separate them) but to shift that blame to the parents/guardian as defined by 39.01.

 

[oj01]

Sorry to hijack the OP's thread but here's our similar dilemma.

Also travelling from UK, with our 4yr old. Following our week at WDW we head to Port Canaveral for a (non Disney) cruise. Our TA has arranged for transport to get us from CBR to PC by minivan. The documentation that has come from the TA states that we must provide a child seat, which I don't see as being practical.

 

[Alesia]

The child restraint requirements imposed by this section do not apply to a chauffeur-driven taxi, limousine, sedan, van, bus, motor coach, or other passenger vehicle if the operator and the motor vehicle are hired and used for the transportation of persons for compensation. It is the obligation and responsibility of the parent, guardian, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare as defined in s. 39.01 to comply with the requirements of this section.

its right there.
You can also look at the legislative history and the legislative intent. If you do, you will see that the last section was added separately from the other exemptions and with additional language that the other sections do not have. So you have to ask yourself, why was that. If the intent was to simply exempt operators and cars for hire from the law, why not add it to the list of exemptions? Why not simply remove the word gratuitously from the section above that discusses children in cars driven by people who are not their relatives or in case of medical emergency. Why, because the intent was different than the above sections. The intent wasn't to exempt taxis or other cars for hire and their drivers (although I don't believe motor vehicles have been deemed legal persons yet so you can't really impart blame on a car, you would do it to the driver of the car so you can't separate them) but to shift that blame to the parents/guardian as defined by 39.01.

i have gone round and round with supersnoop before about this. I finally just gave up. It's pointless.

Here's what I concluded: In the unlikely event that your taxi gets pulled over and your child isn't in a car seat, telling the cop "Supersnoop says I don't have to have one." won't keep you from getting a ticket. And if you get into an accident and your child is hurt or killed because they weren't in a car seat, the fact that Supersnoop said you didn't need one won't ease your guilt.

 

[Gracie09]

Sorry to hijack the OP's thread but here's our similar dilemma.

Also travelling from UK, with our 4yr old. Following our week at WDW we head to Port Canaveral for a (non Disney) cruise. Our TA has arranged for transport to get us from CBR to PC by minivan. The documentation that has come from the TA states that we must provide a child seat, which I don't see as being practical.

I would order a booster seat from amazon and have it delivered to your hotel. The laws of physics as well as other laws, don't change because of vacation. If you can get it I would recommend bubble bum. Its an inflatable booster that is relatively inexpensive.