Labor Department bans children from driving tractors

[Fixemall]

I think there should be a citizens committee to make laws for politicians...oh yea, there is....vote the bums out! What we need is higher voter turn out, right now all the voting is done by 27-31% of eligible voters, I'm thinking if that number were 60% we could get better results.

 

[Car Doc]

Well its no surprise since the folks in the goobermint get their groceries at the supermarket and kids dont drive tractors or farm trucks there so what do they care what farmers do.

 

[kiotiken]

Ken, I disagree with your housing assessment on the housing thing. Like here in the states, your houses have over doubled in value in less than 10 years(at least in many parts of Ca). Just like here, that is a abnormality caused by the banking industry. Sooner or later, you will see a "correction", it may not be as severe as ours was, but I think it will happen. We owned two houses in MB, bought before your "bubble" and decided to sell them when I thought the market had peaked. Your bubble is stable for now, and I hope it stays that way...but I doubt it will.

I agree, we're not beyond a correction in the housing market, and we did have a bit of a correction in 2008 when s%#* started hitting the fan around the world. You're also right that prices have doubled over the past 10 years, much more than that in some places, but a lot of this has been fuelled by historic low interest rates.

The reason I don't think we had a melt down and won't have one in the future, correction not withstanding, is the regulations in place that are designed to prevent just that. In Canada, you must buy insurance if you put less than 25% down on the value of the house, and the amount is dependant on the amount you do put down (i.e if you put 20% down, you pay a MUCH smaller premium than if you put 10% down). Traditionally, we were also required to put at least 10% down and it was only in the 2 years leading up to the 2008 crash that they reduced that to 5% (and maybe even 0% although, if they did, it's back up now). The effect is that every Canadian home owner either has 25% equity in their home, or they have insurance to cover at least 25%. Qualifying for mortgages is also much harder here and the banks have regulations that prevent them from offering programs like sub prime mortgages with rates that reset. You must be able to qualify for a mortgage at a higher interest rate than what you will actually be paying. There are also rules governing investment properties that are even tougher than the ones above.

Because of all this regulation, I don't think we'll have as severe of a correction if there is one. Many people, mainly first time home buyers, don't always see all these rules as being fair, but they are being protected from the banks, who would happily give them more than they can handle, and our economy is being protected from people who would ultimately be set up to fail.

...I fully expect to take some heat as well - maybe it's because in the UK our rules seem to be similar to yours. The UK minimum ages are:

12 - to ride in a tractor (assuming a proper passenger seat is fitted)
14 - to drive a tractor on private land
16 - to drive a tractor on the road (having passed a test)
16 - to drive an ATV on private land
17 - to drive a motor car / van under 3500kg
18 - to drive a vehicle over 3500kg or tow a trailer (both of which now require a seperate test to be taken).
18 - to drive an ATV on the road.
21 - to drive a HGV Truck (over 7500kg)

Wow, I had no idea things where so complex over there! Coming from the land of regulation, that's crazy!

... expected to sensibly operate my dad's tractor as soon as I could reasonably reach the pedals? That's entirely different. You bet we were trained. Disciplined for even thinking about screwing around too.

My parents put me in a canoe when I was 4 years old up at the cottage. After a few years, they let me drive the 10 hp motor boat, with them in it. I must have been 9 or 10 by the time I was allowed, with a ton of rules I dared not ignore, drive the boat by myself, always under a watchful eye. I didn't get to drive anything bigger by myself for many years after that, and by that time, I had 10 + years experience in boats.

The experience you had as a kid and the way my parents did it is not always how it's done today. Lots of these credit fuelled, inexperienced and often senseless adults who just want to keep up with the Jones buy every fast car and toy they can get approved for, including boats, ATV's and Jet skis they are simply unqualified for. When they toss the keys over to the 14 yr old kid, I get scared. It's too bad we sometimes need rules to force people learn in a responsible manner, but in my opinion, the world has changed and that's were we are now.

I have the common sense not to let my 4.5 yr old daughter drive the tractor, car, boat, lawnmower etc by herself. I think most people do, but I know not everybody does (check out youtube if you don't believe me).

 

[Mousefield]

The only thing I can think of here in IL, you must be at least 16 and hold a valid driver's license to operate any vehicle on a roadway, including a tractor.

Brin, as far as jet skis and ATVs, I believe it is a manufactures requirement that they be operated by person's over 16 to make sure the operator can reach and use all the controls safely.

Well that age thing sure doesn't work in our area, we have idiot kids roaring down our major highway and some aren't even in their teens yet. This on both dirt bikes and ATV's. Of course the idiot part comes from the parents, heres a new toy kid, go out and play.
Did have a laugh along with my wife when we heard on the news about the school baning all balls except sponge balls. :laughing: :laughing:

 

[frogfish]

So as I've been following this thread, I have to wonder where do we draw the line for govt. intervetion. Should parents be responsible for all decisions relating to kids, then we wouldn't need a law to stop kids from buying alcohol or cigarettes because that would be the parents repsonsibility, we wouldn't need speed limits because the responsible parents would be sure to see to that kids don't speed. We wouldn't need a drivers license since the parent would decide when the child could drive. Heck we don't really need a gov't because they just regulate us to death.

Just wondering where do we draw the line? :confused2:

 

[2LaneCruzer]

So as I've been following this thread, I have to wonder where do we draw the line for govt. intervetion. Should parents be responsible for all decisions relating to kids, then we wouldn't need a law to stop kids from buying alcohol or cigarettes because that would be the parents repsonsibility, we wouldn't need speed limits because the responsible parents would be sure to see to that kids don't speed. We wouldn't need a drivers license since the parent would decide when the child could drive. Heck we don't really need a gov't because they just regulate us to death.

Just wondering where do we draw the line? :confused2:

That is indeed the question. I expect the government to provide the roads we drive on, the plant to process our sewage and to require us to have our pets vaccinated for rabies. I expect the government to provide schools for our children and to provide police and fire protection. I don't think they should tell us what kind of light bulbs to buy or what kind of car to drive, nor do I think they should meddle in our private lives or our traditions. I don't think the "nanny" state should be surrogate parents.

Maybe the government should forbid firemen from entering a burning building...or maybe forbidding a policeman from carrying or using a gun. It also might be a good idea to require doctors and nurses to stay away from patients that have TB, AIDS or Syphillis. In any case, your point is well taken; where indeed do we draw the line?