Safest Placement

[BW1426]

So, I had never heard this before, nor had the two others in my CPST class that were up on their information. Our instructors told us that when placing children the most vulnerable child should be placed in the center. They said it made absolutely no difference what seat they were in. So, from what they told us (which they said was what national curriculum says) a two year old in a seat belt should go outboard over an infant in an infant carrier because the infant is more vulnerable. This makes absolutely no logical sense to me. I would always put a RF child outboard over a FF or boostered child and that's the consensus I've reached from reading all the posts on here. What's best practice? And, where are the instructors getting this information, because I sure as heck cannot find it anywhere.

[bbartlettnfld]

I agree with you I tend to follow the "least protected child = most protected spot" A RF child is most protected no matter what location they are installed in, next safest a FF harnessed child, then a boostered child, the least protected child is one that is riding in just the seatbelt.. So YES the 2yr old in the seatbelt should always be in the center...
*I am not advocating a 2 yr old being in the seatbelt at all, but just responding to the scenario illustrated by the OP!*
BethAnn

[pastrygirl]

That came up in my class a couple of weeks ago, too, and I asked the same question here. :)

I think the curriculum might say most vulnerable, so that's what they have to teach. They really did NOT want to stray from the curriculum...

[BW1426]

That was just an outrageos scenario to point out how backwards that theory is. I agree with you as well and just wanted to make sure I wasn't going crazy and making stuff up. I'm still really curious as to where our instructors go this. They told us over and over again, "this is from the national curriculum." I'm not seeing it in my book anywhere though :scratcheshead:

[singingpond]

Maybe 'most vulnerable' is just a poorly defined term, and the instructors are misinterpreting it to mean 'youngest'. 'Most vulnerable' might include the information about what type of seat the child is in -- i.e. least vulnerable is the child riding RF, then the child FF harnessed, then the child in a booster, then most vulnerable is the person in the seatbelt. If you have two kids riding in the same type of restraint, then I imagine the younger child is the more vulnerable (i.e. RF baby more vulnerable than RF 3 y.o.). I'm guessing it's a misinterpretation because of vague language, and that the instructors are presenting their misinterpretation as gospel.... because, after all, they are the instructors and you are the student.

Katrin

[AmRo]

Maybe 'most vulnerable' is just a poorly defined term, and the instructors are misinterpreting it to mean 'youngest'. 'Most vulnerable' might include the information about what type of seat the child is in -- i.e. least vulnerable is the child riding RF, then the child FF harnessed, then the child in a booster, then most vulnerable is the person in the seatbelt. If you have two kids riding in the same type of restraint, then I imagine the younger child is the more vulnerable (i.e. RF baby more vulnerable than RF 3 y.o.). I'm guessing it's a misinterpretation because of vague language, and that the instructors are presenting their misinterpretation as gospel.... because, after all, they are the instructors and you are the student.

Katrin

This was my thought too. My take on the phrase 'most vulnerable child' is the one most vulnerable to the forces of impact in a crash - so in the original scenario, the 2 year old in a seatbelt. But I can also see how that term would be misinterpreted, which is rather troubling given the possible consequences. :(

[BW1426]

This was my thought too. My take on the phrase 'most vulnerable child' is the one most vulnerable to the forces of impact in a crash - so in the original scenario, the 2 year old in a seatbelt. But I can also see how that term would be misinterpreted, which is rather troubling given the possible consequences. :(


This is what I thought as well. I just got a little nervous when all 6 instructors insisted that this is what we had to recommend if we were doing a seat check and this came up. I'm going to go with what my gut tells me.

[Mom to a few]

My instructions said the same thing when I took my class. I even asked about specific scenarios, and they wouldn't waver on their stance--and acted like I was CRAZY!!

[BW1426]

I say screw the nation curriculum in this instance :whistle:

[Shaunam]

I agree that "most vulnerable" does not necessarily equal "youngest".

If I've got a 6 month old rf'ing in a boulevard and a 2 year old ff'ing in...say a chase, with virtually no SIP, it would make NO SENSE to put the 6 month old in the middle.

There are so many variables. I think you have to take everything into account, including what type of seat the child is in.

I was very disappointed that they taught youngest=most vulnerable.

[BW1426]

Help me sort out my thoughts. Tell me which one you think is most vulnerable. (Assume that these kids are of average stature).

infant 15lbs RF, 4yo 40 lbs in hbb = infant
infant 15lbs RF, 4yo 40 lbs FF = infant
2yo 35lbs FF, 8yo 70 lbs in hbb = ? I'm torn on this one
8yo 70 lbs in hbb, 12 yo 85lbs in lbb. = 8 yo
13yo 90 lbs in seat belt, 18 months 30 lbs RF = 18 month old

At the same age I would always say that RF was better than FF and FF better than booster and booster better than seatbelt, but when there are huge age jumps, this changes, I think :confused:

[KristiD761]

I am an instructor, and I am looking at this and wanting a definitive answer as well. I tend to think of the child with the most vulnerable physical characteristics...bone density, weight, and size...which would be an infant. Even if children are in forward facing or booster seats, their bones are more developed and stronger...
Which is why I would still put the smallest person in the center.
This Link gives you some insight on the fact that this is still being researched and discussed;
http://stokes.chop.edu/programs/injury/ and click on "New Study Confirms Current Recommendations for 0-3 year olds in Child Restraints":)

[joolsplus3]

I think any kid who's head hits the door in a side crash is most vulnerable, no matter how developed their skull is (go watch some crash tests, you'll see what I mean...). RF kids and infants' heads don't strike doors in properly installed seats, thus they are least vulnerable. :twocents:


Of course, kids and seats and cars are all so *vastly* different, you really have to take it on a case by case basis, IMO (depending on shoulderbelts, airbags, whether the seats fit next to each other at all, whether the older kid will poke the baby's eyes out, how much SIP the older kid's seat has, tether availability, seat compatibility, whether the front passengers have enough legroom to drive and sit comfortably...)

[KristiD761]

I understand what you mean...as the driver I sure don't want my head to hit the door...what little matter Ihave left Iwant to keep after two grown kids have taken most of it.:D
I worked peds before the type of nursing Ido now, and I absolutely know what you mean. I don't want anybody on the door. But it does have to go case by case looking at all the variables...I just want to know the best evidence based advice to give to a parent...that's why that CHOP article was so interesting to me. Research with better safety as the result.

When big sister or brother is in a booster, and new baby is a preemie going home...it puts a lot of pressure on the parent to ultimately decide where everybody goes...

[tanyaandallie]

I had this exact same question when I took my cert class. Our instructors said that the smallest child always goes in the center. I have learned from various boards that the least protected child goes in the center. By least protected we would mean the ff child is less protected than the rf child, the child in a booster is less protected than the child in the ff seat or the rf seat.

I can see both sides of this story. While I understand that a rf child is more protected than a ff child, I have a hard time believing that a tiny newborn is more protected than a 3 harnessed 3 year old, even though baby is rf and 3 year old is ff. Babies bone structure is just so brand new and delicate and 3 year old is not.

[steph]

RF is safer than FF and FF is safer than booster and booster is safer than a seatbelt.

It doesn't really matter the ages. If you have a 2 month old rear facing and a 4 year old ff the four year old goes in the center and the 2 month old outboard. If you have a 3 year old rf and a 2 month old rf than the 2 month old goes in the center. Just think of it as stages no matter which and age if all things equal (like both ff or both rf) put the younger one in the center.

rf - safest
ff harnest - 2nd safest
ff booster - 3rd safest
seat belt - least protected

A tech please correct me if I'm wrong:)

Help me sort out my thoughts. Tell me which one you think is most vulnerable. (Assume that these kids are of average stature).

infant 15lbs RF, 4yo 40 lbs in hbb = infant
infant 15lbs RF, 4yo 40 lbs FF = infant
2yo 35lbs FF, 8yo 70 lbs in hbb = ? I'm torn on this one
8yo 70 lbs in hbb, 12 yo 85lbs in lbb. = 8 yo
13yo 90 lbs in seat belt, 18 months 30 lbs RF = 18 month old

At the same age I would always say that RF was better than FF and FF better than booster and booster better than seatbelt, but when there are huge age jumps, this changes, I think :confused:

[An Aurora]

I posted a similar question after my class, as well. I am in the 'least protected child in most protected location' camp, while my instructors taught youngest in middle, no exception. Right now I have both kids outboard, but only because the Radian does not install in my center seat FF. If I could, I would have the baby RF outboard and my oldest FF in the center.

[joolsplus3]

I dunno that babies are really that more delicate, though...they are fresher out of that crushing birth canal experience, which OUR heads couldn't survive (they are rubbery, we aren't...they bounce, we shatter)... they aren't tensing their muscles with fear (which is what breaks bones), and car crashes are not their leading cause of death (granted, babies die for a lot of terrible reasons :( ). Sure kids 0-3 are safest in the middle but they are also the only group in the country that is routinely RF and harnessed... if you did a comparison of 4-8 yo's in boosters, they'd be safer in the middle too.

[skaterbabscpst]

Plus, the injury rates for rear-facing children are sooo low, I'm not convinced that center vs. outboard really makes a significant difference to a properly restrained rear-facing child.

[Unregistered]

Ok, i have a question - i have 2 girls - both in britax boulevards - (my youngest outrgrew her roundabout) she is 17 months old on saturday - I had to tun her front facing today because that boulevard is not going backwards (its huge!) my 17 month old is 27lbs - in the 50th % for height, 75% for weight. My 4 year old (5 in june) is 28lbs in the 50% for height and in the -3% for weight. We have minivan - they are both in the middle row. My youngest is on the side that has no seat and then the half bench starts so its kind of like the middle. My oldest is right by the door - i was going by age as far as who should be in the middle - am i wrong? is my 5 year old more vulnerable than the baby?
Thanks

[skaterbabscpst]

I'm concerned about your installation if you cannot get a rear facing seat in your minivan. What is the make, model and year of your car?

[Unregistered]

2001 dodge caravan - i tried in both seats and you cannot recline it - it hits teh front seats and you cannot get a tight fit - I could put the roundabout back in until shes the 40lbs but i really like the side impact protection of the boulevard and in comparison she is bigger in bone density and width than my 5 year old so i figured she would be ok front facing

[joolsplus3]

I think maybe you are trying to get the Boulevard too reclined when RF....an older kid can be sitting quite upright when RF and it will fit fine in your van at a more upright angle. Skeletal development (ability to hold the head on without snapping the spinal cord) is age dependent, not size dependent, so just because she's big doesn't mean she's as safe forward facing as a petite 4 yo. Maybe you can start a new thread about how to get your seat installed RF and we can help you with some installation tips?

:)

[Unregistered]

What is the suggested age limit? Its hard to figure out what to do when you have two kids the same size but ones 17 months and one is 5! that is why i bought them both the same seat since my youngest is nothing like my oldest and will probably outgrow a five point harness long before my 5 year old.

[joolsplus3]

Rearfacing to the maximum of the convertible seat is recommended... most of us here would have both our kids RF till the full rearfacing weight limit (my dd rode RF till she was 4.5 and 33 pounds in her old Marathon)
(but current data support at least age 2 as being a bare minimum to FF)
:)