taxi with twins?

Himmin

Mouseketeer
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
225
Travelling with our 8 month old twins who will need car seats. We are not hiring a car (in WDW for 21 days) but we want to do two shopping days, normally we just get a taxi but as they need car seats does anyone know how we could get two? Surely someone can accommodate twins?

Thanks
 
I don't think you will be able to find a taxi with 2 suitable (working, not expired, rear facing car seats)....some options:

- rent car seats from one of the baby gear supply companies
- rent a car from the DisneyWorld car care center for the days you need it and add on 2 car seats (~10$/day for each car seat)
- bring seats with you
- ship seats to your hotel from a retail store (Cosco scenera/apt40 type - Amazon, Walmart, target etc - wherever you get free shipping)
- pick up a car and before putting kids in it run out to target to buy seats
- only one of you shops while the other stays with the kids

I have to say - I love Disney, but 21 days with 8 month old twins and no car seems challenging! Is there anything we can help with to get a car into your plans? So many things can happen with infants that having a car to get around the parks as well as get around outside the compound for food, formula, diapers, whatever else is forgotten/lost/needed can really be the difference between an enjoyable vacation and a stressful one!! That's alot of bus trips with 2 babies and a stroller! If price is the reason - we may be able to help even if it's only for some part of your trip!
 
Legally, you don't have to use car seats in a taxi in Florida.
 

I was told on another thread that legally they were required?

Aww thanks so much cel_Disney, We normally just use disney transport but this is our first trip with kids!!

I think we are going to get a car for a few days at the start, go shopping and stock up etc, then spend a few days using the buses to see how it goes, if it is bad we will just find a rental car for the rest of the trip!

Thanks for all your help!!! :)
 
How are you getting the babies *to* Disneyworld? If you're not driving, then are you flying? You said elsewhere you're from the UK- were you going to have them as lap babies for the entire flight? That seems like a really rough trip. I'm with cel - can we help brainstorm possible adjustments to your plan to make your trip more pleasant?
 
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.
 
One thing to consider, it may be cheaper to take DME to your hotel. You can have 2 car seats shipped to your hotel - should be about 40$ a seat. That way, if you have the car for more than 4 days, you will save money...you can leave the seats behind at Disney or at the car rental place...

Plus, you would be able to get a smaller car (trying to fit stroller and luggage would be tough in a standard car)
 
Yeah definitely going to take Dme and hire the next day from the disney car centre. Thanks!!
 
Legally, you don't have to use car seats in a taxi in Florida.

That's not true. The law is written so the cab driver would not get the ticket the parents/guardians would.

It is true. Check the law:

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

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 true. Check the law:

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

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.
You missed the last sentence for section 6
(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.
 
I know it isn't the best option but for your shopping days you could use Uber. Being from the UK the internet usage away from Disney may not be worth it but Uber cars can and do sometimes have car seats.

Also you can also call the taxi company and see if they have car seats available. Again another huge phone expense since you are from out of the country.

I live in NYC and as crazy/scary as it can be almost no one puts their kids in car seats when they are using taxis. Most parents just have their kids in carriers or wraps and sit with them in the carrier. It isn't as safe as a car seat but it is hard here with no car to constantly pull the car seat in and out of Taxis and with the ever rush to get it going many car seats get installed wrong which defeats the purpose any ways.
 
I can't comment on the taxi situation, but I can comment on twins. FYI you cannot sit in the same row as your husband on the plane. There can only be one lap baby per row. For us that means buying an extra seat and our twins get swapped from lap to seat as needed, so we can all sit together. As for disney transport, we took the twins at 13 weeks and with just us two adults and no issue. I wore one baby and carried the other on the busses. I wore a backpack and my husband took both strollers (we prefer singles in crowded places) and a second backpack on the busses. Worked great. Headed back in December and plan on the exact same plan.
 
You missed the last sentence for section 6
(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.
39.01 has nothing to do with car seats. While car seats aren't required in taxis, you can do something stupid like hold the child out the window. General welfare doesn't include car seats. The second sentence doesn't negate the first.
 
I can't comment on the taxi situation, but I can comment on twins. FYI you cannot sit in the same row as your husband on the plane. There can only be one lap baby per row. For us that means buying an extra seat and our twins get swapped from lap to seat as needed, so we can all sit together. As for disney transport, we took the twins at 13 weeks and with just us two adults and no issue. I wore one baby and carried the other on the busses. I wore a backpack and my husband took both strollers (we prefer singles in crowded places) and a second backpack on the busses. Worked great. Headed back in December and plan on the exact same plan.
That's going to depend on the airplane. The number of people in a row is limited to the number of oxygen masks available. International flights are often flown with aircraft that support additional children, especially when they have the bassinet that the OP described.
 
39.01 has nothing to do with car seats. While car seats aren't required in taxis, you can do something stupid like hold the child out the window. General welfare doesn't include car seats. The second sentence doesn't negate the first.
The referral to section 39.01 is to define the person responsible for the child, that person is responsible for the requirements of this section (the car seat section). Its clarifying that the taxi driver is not responsible but the parents

Here's an article that discusses the change from the old law
http://www.tbo.com/news/politics/new-florida-car-seat-law-takes-effect-jan-1-20141221/

and another

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/feature...-until-age-6-even-in-cabs-20150122-story.html
 
Last edited:
The referral to section 39.01 is to define the person responsible for the child, that person is responsible for the requirements of this section (the car seat section). Its clarifying that the taxi driver is not responsible but the parents

Here's an article that discusses the change from the old law
http://www.tbo.com/news/politics/new-florida-car-seat-law-takes-effect-jan-1-20141221/

and another

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/feature...-until-age-6-even-in-cabs-20150122-story.html
I don't know who interpreted the law for the journalist who wrote the article. Or maybe there's been another amendment to the statute. But the law seems very, very clear. Here's the actual law for reference: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.613.html

It does not apply to the parent, but to the driver (316.613(1)): "Every operator of a motor vehicle as defined in this section ... shall ... provide ... a ... child restraint device.

But not using a car seat does not count as negligence, which would seem to preclude the offense from 39.01 (316.613(3)): "The failure to provide and use a child passenger restraint shall not be considered comparative negligence, nor shall such failure be admissible as evidence in the trial of any civil action with regard to negligence."

(316.613(5)): "Any person who violates this section commits a moving violation" A parent in a back seat can't be guilty of a moving violation.

The exemption applies to the transportation method, irrespective of any individual person (316.613(6)): "The child restraint requirements imposed by this section do not apply to a chauffeur-driven taxi ..."

The obligation under 39.01 has nothing to do with car seats. Feel free to point out where you think that requirement persists: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0000-0099/0039/Sections/0039.01.html
 
I don't know who interpreted the law for the journalist who wrote the article. Or maybe there's been another amendment to the statute. But the law seems very, very clear. Here's the actual law for reference: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.613.html

It does not apply to the parent, but to the driver (316.613(1)): "Every operator of a motor vehicle as defined in this section ... shall ... provide ... a ... child restraint device.

But not using a car seat does not count as negligence, which would seem to preclude the offense from 39.01 (316.613(3)): "The failure to provide and use a child passenger restraint shall not be considered comparative negligence, nor shall such failure be admissible as evidence in the trial of any civil action with regard to negligence."

(316.613(5)): "Any person who violates this section commits a moving violation" A parent in a back seat can't be guilty of a moving violation.

The exemption applies to the transportation method, irrespective of any individual person (316.613(6)): "The child restraint requirements imposed by this section do not apply to a chauffeur-driven taxi ..."

The obligation under 39.01 has nothing to do with car seats. Feel free to point out where you think that requirement persists: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0000-0099/0039/Sections/0039.01.html
What you missing is the the reference to 39.01 is simply defining the person responsible for the child being in a child safety seat. IF the parent/guardian etc were not responsible then the last sentence simply would not be there. But it is. I never said 39.01 had anything to do with child safety seats, you did. I pointed out that the definition of the person responsible is in 39.01. If fact 39.01 is titled definitions.

Here you go

Here is the sentence in the child safety seat 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.

The reference to 39.01 is defining a parent, guardian or other person responsible for a child's welfare. That person according to 39.01 is:
“Other person responsible for a child’s welfare” includes the child’s legal guardian or foster parent; an employee of any school, public or private child day care center, residential home, institution, facility, or agency; a law enforcement officer employed in any facility, service, or program for children that is operated or contracted by the Department of Juvenile Justice; or any other person legally responsible for the child’s welfare in a residential setting; and also includes an adult sitter or relative entrusted with a child’s care. For the purpose of departmental investigative jurisdiction, this definition does not include the following persons when they are acting in an official capacity: law enforcement officers, except as otherwise provided in this subsection; employees of municipal or county detention facilities; or employees of the Department of Corrections.

definition of parent
Parent” means a woman who gives birth to a child and a man whose consent to the adoption of the child would be required under s. 63.062(1). If a child has been legally adopted, the term “parent” means the adoptive mother or father of the child. The term does not include an individual whose parental relationship to the child has been legally terminated, or an alleged or prospective parent, unless the parental status falls within the terms of s. 39.503(1) or s. 63.062(1). For purposes of this chapter only, when the phrase “parent or legal custodian” is used, it refers to rights or responsibilities of the parent and, only if there is no living parent with intact parental rights, to the rights or responsibilities of the legal custodian who has assumed the role of the parent.

So to put it together the person who is responsible for a child's welfare as defined by 39.01 is the person responsible for conforming to this section of the car seat law.

You have to read the entirety of the section.
 
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.
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.
 














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top