The MN requirement for sprinklers in residences comes from the 2012 International Residential Code (IRC). Since this code is the basis for most state building codes in the US, each of those states will eventually be forced to accept the sprinkler requirement or pass legislation to amend the code if it hasn't already done so (the requirement was also in the 2009 IRC) Currently I believe only California, Maryland and DC have allowed the sprinkler requirement to become law unmodified. MN adopts the IRC after review and amendment and it has recently amended the 2012 IRC to exempt houses smaller than 4,500 s.f. Since the average size of a single family home in the US is 2,700 s.f. the rule appears to allow most single family homes in MN to be built without sprinklers. However, the building area includes all "conditioned space" so it can include conditioned lower levels and bonus rooms even if those spaces are unfinished. Even so, it seems easy enough to avoid the requirement if you really don't want sprinklers. The ICC has strongly advocated home sprinklers since 2006 when the requirement was included as an option to be adopted locally. The fight over including the requirement in the IRC has always been between home building associations (and the NHAB) and fire fighter associations (and the NFPA). A very small percentage of homeowners die in fires each year so the home buying public understandably cares more about price than sprinklers but about 45% of firefighter deaths occur in those home fires so the sprinkler code fight is basically between homebuilders and firefighters.

But that one's just really a booster seat after 40 lbs. -- you can even tell by the name description. You can only wear the 5 point harness up to 40 lbs.-- since it's convertible it just becomes a booster seat then. I'm looking for one where the harness can be worn over 40 lbs. My doctor swears they exist... I am beginning to think he's crazy. All I'm finding are those convertible booster types like you noted. I'm not sure what people are supposed to do with heavy 3 yr olds in the states when they aren't allowed in boosters legally until they're 4. I can legally put my kid in a booster, but I would prefer the 5 point harness thing if they exist... Thanks anyway.

I don't know a site, but I do have a friend who is a certified car seat safety inspector. The guidelines for safety are: (note that these are not the same as what the law requires in your state - the law doesn't require you to do the maximum-safety options) - infants should face rear until they are BOTH 1 year old AND 20 lbs. (so if baby reaches 20 lbs at 9 months, he should still be rear-facing until his 1st b-day) - 20 lbs and 1 year is minimum, but that really is the safest way for baby to sit. If baby is still within the weight limits for the seat and will tolerate sitting backward, leave him rear-facing as long as possible. - for 20-40 lbs and >1 year old, baby/child should be in a forward-facing car seat - 40-80 lbs, your child should be using a booster seat, which usually doesn't have it's own restraints, its purpose is to properly position the adult seat belt on the child. Rather than using weight as a guide, you can also say that the child is ready to be totally out of boosters/car seats when the back of his/her knees hit the edge of the car's seat properly - i.e. his legs don't stick out when seated upright against the seat back. My friend and the police officer who did our safety inspection also said that there is *no significant difference* in the safety quality of the car seats available today. All have to meet certain requirements to be sold at all and the different prices are simply a function of extra features, weights they will hold, and brand names. They don't recommend using a car seat more than 5 years because it is unknown whether prolonged use and heat/cold exposure reduce the safety of the seats.

I can't help but wonder if hubby and I are just hobbits. Our first house had an overhang of 10" and that was our go to spot for meals. We rarely used the formal dining. When we moved into this house it had a peninsula that was 3 feet wide, a 12" base cabinet with a 12" overhang on all sides. Once again we ate all our meals there. We ripped out the old kitchen and put a new one in. Our island is 24" wide with seating on both sides (so basically a 12" overhang) and we eat 99% of our meals there. Our dining room is only a few feet away but we only use it for special occasions. Either we are all hobbits or we have become accustomed to a small overhang. Regardless, I understand WHY the minimum recommendation exists, I've just never seen it applicable in my own life. When we've had parties or get togethers, everyone crowds/crowded around the old peninsula and the new island, even after I directed attention to the table a few feet away.