Boosters vs. 5-point harness

[Adventuredad]

It's been discussed here before (at length) but a harnessed seat is not any safer than a booster seat UNLESS the child is very young. Say 2 or 3 years old. The recommendations among experts over here in Sweden is to use a booster instead of a harnessed seat. Parents are also advised not to use seats with the harness if the seat belt can be used. The recommendation is because of the tremendous force on the neck in harnessed kids.

I would say harnessed seats are about as safe as boosters, it's not a big difference. The Swedes, who are far ahead of any other country in car seat safety, have plenty of data to back up the safety of boosters. Almost no harnessed seats are used after rf until 4 years of age. Kids go straight to a booster and the death and injury rate is unbelievably small.

I'm not saying this to bash seats with harness but perhaps give you some more choices in finding a safe seat. My son is 4.5 years old and recently turned around ff. He's in a Britax Monarch which is very affordable and we're happy with the safety aspects.

Is your son riding rear facing right now? Best of luck with whatever you decide

[BookMama]

It's been discussed here before (at length) but a harnessed seat is not any safer than a booster seat UNLESS the child is very young. Say 2 or 3 years old.

Who here has said this other than you?!? :confused:

[Starlight]

A harnessed seat *is* safer than a booster, because in a crash, the force is more evenly spread over 5 points as opposed to just 3.

[BookMama]

A harnessed seat *is* safer than a booster, because in a crash, the force is more evenly spread over 5 points as opposed to just 3.

Not to mention that I've yet to see any 2-3 YO who can sit properly in a booster for any length of time. Belt-positioning boosters can only provide optimal protection when the seat belt is positioned properly.

[mommy2env]

:yeahthat:

Plus, he is only 3. Most 3 yr olds dont have the impulse control to sit properly in a booster all the time, every time.

I would go with the Nautilus or Regent. :)

ETA: we cross posted Bookmama, sorry :o

[Adventuredad]

Some members have been trying to disprove it (in a friendly and helpful way) but there is no data that shows boosters are less safe unless we're talking special needs or very young kids. My personal opinion is that kids are about as safe, the Swedish data say otherwise. Just curious, are you saying this is incorrect?

All Swedish kids age 4 and up are riding in boosters and the safety record is phenomenal. The experts here also have so much more experience regarding car seat safety. They got started in the early 1960's which is light-years ahead of anyone else. Recommending one thing and having a terrible safety record is one thing. Recommending something and backing it up with amazing data is another. It's up to each and everyone to trust whoever they want but I listen more to people who don't just talk (and I don't mean anyone on tis board, I mean in general).

Harnessing older kids is just fine in the big picture, I'm just happy to see children well protected. But many who do advocate harnessing have based judgement on a youtube video which has little to do with reality.

[Adventuredad]

A harnessed seat *is* safer than a booster, because in a crash, the force is more evenly spread over 5 points as opposed to just 3.

That is absolutely incorrect. The problem are the enormous forces on the neck. Car seat safety is not as easy as just "spreading the rode"

[Adventuredad]

Not to mention that I've yet to see any 2-3 YO who can sit properly in a booster for any length of time. Belt-positioning boosters can only provide optimal protection when the seat belt is positioned properly.

Which is why I pointed out that young kids shouldn't ride in a booster. Did you not read that?:confused: A 2 year old in a booster is ridiculous and completely out of the question.

[mommy2env]

If this is a topic that NEEDS to be debated, why dont you start a new thread. It is a bit unfair to the newbie who came here for advice. She may leave more confused than when she came here. :(

[Adventuredad]

:yeahthat:

Plus, he is only 3. Most 3 yr olds dont have the impulse control to sit properly in a booster all the time, every time.

I would go with the Nautilus or Regent. :)

He will be 4 in September, is that not amonth from now or am I confused?:confused:

[Adventuredad]

If this is a topic that NEEDS to be debated, why dont you start a new thread. It is a bit unfair to the newbie who came here for advice. She may leave more confused than when she came here. :(

Based on the comments it's very clear that it needs to be debated but definitely not in this thread. I mentioned the option of also being able to use a regular belt positioning booster so she would have some more choices, not spending tons of money, and still keep her son SAFE. That is not confusing advice.

[CPSDarren]

It's been discussed here before (at length) but a harnessed seat is not any safer than a booster seat UNLESS the child is very young. Say 2 or 3 years old. The recommendations among experts over here in Sweden is to use a booster instead of a harnessed seat. Parents are also advised not to use seats with the harness if the seat belt can be used. The recommendation is because of the tremendous force on the neck in harnessed kids.

The head is not restrained in a booster, either. It's going to stop because of the shoulder belt if properly used. If the child circumvents the shoulder belt, the head will experience tremendous force when it strikes a part of the interior. On the flip side, experts in Australia have found no issues with people turning their 9 month old front facing in a harnessed seat, though medical experts would tell you that older kids can survive such forces better as their bones and connective tissue develop.

I would say harnessed seats are about as safe as boosters, it's not a big difference. The Swedes, who are far ahead of any other country in car seat safety, have plenty of data to back up the safety of boosters. Almost no harnessed seats are used after rf until 4 years of age. Kids go straight to a booster and the death and injury rate is unbelievably small.


Some statistics would suggest it's just as safe for 2 and 3 year olds to skip boosters and go straight to a seatbelt. It all depends who you believe.

The laws of physics suggest that the more points of restraint, the better coupled you are to the vehicle and the less chance of circumventing the restraint system if properly used. At some point there are diminishing returns as a child gets older, of course. On the other hand, I would seriously doubt that a 5-point harness is less safe than a booster. If so, perhaps professional race car drivers and stunt men should go for boosters, too! I'd be very interested in Swedish statistics that show 5-point harnesses to be any less safe than boosters because of neck or cervical spine injuries for older kids. That would be worth getting a response from researchers at the next conference...

[joolsplus3]

There's just no data in this country that harnessed seats are inherently less safe than boosters. They are safe. Even Sweden finds that kids in boosters younger than about age 5 are at increased risk of head injury. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv19/05-0330-O.pdf (page 5). Really, a harnessed seat is safe. Probably safer in more types of crashes, and it's what's recommended for 4 year olds (and older, since, again, there's nothing to say they are less safe than boosters).

:)

[Adventuredad]

On the other hand, I would seriously doubt that a 5-point harness is less safe than a booster. If so, perhaps professional race car drivers and stunt men should go for boosters, too!

Last time I checked there were no 4-year old professional race car drivers or stunt men. The issue are the forces on the neck. It may look great on youtube but the neck might be severely injured. I know you are aware of this but not everyone is. There are times a harnessed seat would be better and otehr times when a booster would be better.

The head is not restrained in a booster, either. It's going to stop because of the shoulder belt if properly used. If the child circumvents the shoulder belt, the head will experience tremendous force when it strikes a part of the interior.

Incorrect use will obviously lead to terrible things in any seat. The issue with harnessed seats are that he the head is restrained too well.

Really, a harnessed seat is safe

Which is exactly what I'm saying. I said harnessed seats are about as safe as boosters. I also said kids in harnessed seats are just fine and well protected. I've also mentioned this many times before and, again, I'm not bashing harnessed seats. You and I have talked about this and the conclusion from my side was never that harnessed seats were unsafe. In that case they would never be certified. I mentioned booster to the poster so she would have more choices and since her son will be 4 in one month (if I understood her correctly) it may be an option to consider.

and older, since, again, there's nothing to say they are less safe than boosters).

I mentioned that experts who are leading in the field and with tons of safety data behind them, both in labs and real life, recommend boosters. If people don't want to believe this, it's fine. Everyone is free to make their own choices.

There's just no data in this country that harnessed seats are inherently less safe than boosters. They are safe. Even Sweden finds that kids in boosters younger than about age 5 are at increased risk of head injury.

The report mentions that kids who switch from rear facing to booster are at greater risk for head injury which is hardly unexpected. I've actually spoken to the author, Lotta, personally about this and don't think she would agree with her paper saying boosters are more dangerous than harnessed seats

[murphydog77]

Can you please provide the Swedish data in a new thread in the Car Seat Chat or Articles forums? I've seen you reference it several times, yet I've never seen any links. I'd appreciate being able to read through some studies :).

[Adventuredad]

Oh dear, you better brush up on your Swedish:love::D

To the original poster, sorry about the confusing discussion back and forth. Good luck finding a seat for your son

[CPSDarren]

Last time I checked there were no 4-year old professional race car drivers or stunt men.

But you said, "It's been discussed here before (at length) but a harnessed seat is not any safer than a booster seat UNLESS the child is very young. Say 2 or 3 years old." My thinking is that the tremendous force on the neck in harnessed kids would be a far greater risk for younger kids with less developed bodies.

The issue are the forces on the neck. It may look great on youtube but the neck might be severely injured. I know you are aware of this but not everyone is. There are times a harnessed seat would be better and otehr times when a booster would be better.

So which times is which one better? Are older kids or younger kids more at risk? How much higher are the neck forces? High enough to cause statistically significant risk of injury for an older child in a 5-point harness rather than a booster? High enough to offset the risk of increased head excursion if a seatbelt is improperly used?

Incorrect use will obviously lead to terrible things in any seat. The issue with harnessed seats are that he the head is restrained too well.

The same discussion is prevalent for RF tethering (Swedish Method of tethering toward the front of the vehicle). Is there an increased neck load during rebound when a tether is used in this manner? Based on crash testing, there probably is. Is it high enough to cause injury that shows up in real crash statistics? Not that I've seen.


Which is exactly what I'm saying. I said harnessed seats are about as safe as boosters. I also said kids in harnessed seats are just fine and well protected. I've also mentioned this many times before and, again, I'm not bashing harnessed seats. You and I have talked about this and the conclusion from my side was never that harnessed seats were unsafe. In that case they would never be certified. I mentioned booster to the poster so she would have more choices and since her son will be 4 in one month (if I understood her correctly) it may be an option to consider.

I mentioned that experts who are leading in the field and with tons of safety data behind them, both in labs and real life, recommend boosters. If people don't want to believe this, it's fine. Everyone is free to make their own choices.

The report mentions that kids who switch from rear facing to booster are at greater risk for head injury which is hardly unexpected. I've actually spoken to the author, Lotta, personally about this and don't think she would agree with her paper saying boosters are more dangerous than harnessed seats

I would say that the older the child, the more likely they are able to endure injuries from being less closely coupled to the vehicle. Going from rear facing to front facing in a harness, or a harness to a booster, or a booster to a seatbelt all are inherently less safe, because they less closely couple the occupant to the vehicle. At what age the maturity and body development makes these increased risks statistically insignificant isn't always clear cut, of course. The longer the better is the general rule. Finding the exact age where a transition causes no increase in risk is the tough part, but it's quite likely that even a small increase in safety due to better restraint is gained by adults. Thus, the comment about race car and stunt drivers.

[CPSDarren]

Based on the comments it's very clear that it needs to be debated but definitely not in this thread. I mentioned the option of also being able to use a regular belt positioning booster so she would have some more choices, not spending tons of money, and still keep her son SAFE. That is not confusing advice.

Boosters are certainly inexpensive and are a safe choice for a lot of kids. I would agree that a lap/shoulder belt (with a backless booster if necessary) can be as safe in a frontal crash as a 5-point harness. This assumes the child is mature enough to wear it properly at the time of the crash, of course.

The biggest benefit I see for 5-point harness on older kids is in side impacts, rollovers and for those squirmy kids who are less likely to be properly restrained in a lap/shoulder belt at the time of a crash.

I wish I had proof. The statistics just aren't available. That's why I was interested to have some from Sweden.

I note that my 7-year old uses backless boosters from time to time, depending on the vehicle. She was in a 5-poiint harness until she was 6, though. That was when I was confident she wasn't going to be out of position with a lap/shoulder belt.

[Adventuredad]

All very good points and opinions.:thumbsup:

But you said, "It's been discussed here before (at length) but a harnessed seat is not any safer than a booster seat UNLESS the child is very young. Say 2 or 3 years old." My thinking is that the tremendous force on the neck in harnessed kids would be a far greater risk for younger kids with less developed bodies.

I would consider a ff facing 2 year old much safer than said child in a booster. Neck injuries are an issue but a two year old in a booster just doesn't work. A child that age is simply too small and would also having trouble siting still. I have little experience with young kids in boosters, it's very unusual here. (Thank God)

So which times is which one better? Are older kids or younger kids more at risk? How much higher are the neck forces? High enough to cause statistically significant risk of injury for an older child in a 5-point harness rather than a booster? High enough to offset the risk of increased head excursion if a seatbelt is improperly used?


Older kid in harness are at less risk becasue their neck and muscles are more developed. It's difficult, actually impossible, to quantify the forces since there are no test of boosters vs. harnessing. It would be totally meaningless, except for car seat freaks like us:love::whistle:

Both have passed testing and are safe. Experts here base their recommendations on 45 years of testing seats and data from real life accidents. When I speak to them about this they always mention the same recommendation but point out that harnessing is also safe . There will be no tests, at least not fully accurate, of boosters vs. harnessing since too many subjective things need to be decided. It also a waste of time, both are certified and it would be smarter to devote more time to making parents using an actual seat (or seat belt) for their child since many are still unrestrained.

Does the increased neck forces show up in stats? I find this almost impossible to say. US safety record is horrible but keep in mind that amny kids are unrestrained or improperly restrained. To me, that makes the data look worse. It's tough to analyze things in fine detail since there are so many accidents and also so many with improper use.

The issue you mention with rf is far from the same since forces are on a totally different level and not comparable unless I'm misunderstanding you. rf offer great protection either way.

I would say that the older the child, the more likely they are able to endure injuries from being less closely coupled to the vehicle. Going from rear facing to front facing in a harness, or a harness to a booster, or a booster to a seatbelt all are inherently less safe, because they less closely couple the occupant to the vehicle. At what age the maturity and body development makes these increased risks statistically insignificant isn't always clear cut, of course. The longer the better is the general rule. Finding the exact age where a transition causes no increase in risk is the tough part, but it's quite likely that even a small increase in safety due to better restraint is gained by adults. Thus, the comment about race car and stunt drivers.

I thought this was very well written. Older kids are at less risk because of better body development, of course as long as they are restrained. As you say, it's sometimes difficult to come up with statistical data that show a specific point. The recommendation on boosters by the Swedes are based on some factors which are difficult to quantify or show through stats. But the extensive use and minimal deaths/injuries show that it works very well.

The Swedes nagged about rear facing for tens of years and researchers from other countries didn't care (many still don't care). Today, it's a different story. It's possible that the Swedish researchers will at some point come out with a recommendation saying that harnessing is better. If they do, I'll be happy to change my opinions and also put my kids in harnessed seats. But again, I think the overall safety difference is small and not really worth talking much about. I just don't like when people talk down on bosters without knowing much about them and basing many opinions on incorrect use (like a 2-year old in a booster).

Enough of this, time for some wine:thumbsup: I enjoyed your, as usually, interesting views on the subject.

[CPSDarren]

All very good points and opinions.:thumbsup:



I would consider a ff facing 2 year old much safer than said child in a booster. Neck injuries are an issue but a two year old in a booster just doesn't work. A child that age is simply too small and would also having trouble siting still.

I agree, but if the risks of a harness are enough to be any concern for older kids as you suggest, then they are certainly a big concern for younger kids.



Older kid in harness are at less risk becasue their neck and muscles are more developed. It's difficult, actually impossible, to quantify the forces since there are no test of boosters vs. harnessing. It would be totally meaningless, except for car seat freaks like us:love::whistle:

Not at all. This is the job of the experts. If they can't quantify it, they really don't have much relevant expertise.

Both have passed testing and are safe. Experts here base their recommendations on 45 years of testing seats and data from real life accidents. When I speak to them about this they always mention the same recommendation but point out that harnessing is also safe . There will be no tests, at least not fully accurate, of boosters vs. harnessing since too many subjective things need to be decided. It also a waste of time, both are certified and it would be smarter to devote more time to making parents using an actual seat (or seat belt) for their child since many are still unrestrained.

Does the increased neck forces show up in stats? I find this almost impossible to say. US safety record is horrible but keep in mind that amny kids are unrestrained or improperly restrained. To me, that makes the data look worse. It's tough to analyze things in fine detail since there are so many accidents and also so many with improper use.

I could call myself an expert. Without any data to prove my opinions, I'm no more legitimate then any other "expert". With 45 years of data, I would hope they have something appropraiate to justify these claims!

The issue you mention with rf is far from the same since forces are on a totally different level and not comparable unless I'm misunderstanding you. rf offer great protection either way.

How would you know they are a totally different level? Exactly, without any testing and quantification, you can't say.



I thought this was very well written. Older kids are at less risk because of better body development, of course as long as they are restrained. As you say, it's sometimes difficult to come up with statistical data that show a specific point. The recommendation on boosters by the Swedes are based on some factors which are difficult to quantify or show through stats. But the extensive use and minimal deaths/injuries show that it works very well.

Not necessarily. Are there any other variables as you suggested earlier? Is child restraint use more prevalent? Is misuse less prevalent? Those factors alone can be a major factor for minimal deaths/injuries relative to other countries. A safer vehicle fleet is another. I believe the USA tends to have a much older and heavier fleet than most other countries. More mass = more energy and less safety features to manage it in an older model.

The Swedes nagged about rear facing for tens of years and researchers from other countries didn't care (many still don't care). Today, it's a different story. It's possible that the Swedish researchers will at some point come out with a recommendation saying that harnessing is better. If they do, I'll be happy to change my opinions and also put my kids in harnessed seats. But again, I think the overall safety difference is small and not really worth talking much about. I just don't like when people talk down on bosters without knowing much about them and basing many opinions on incorrect use (like a 2-year old in a booster).


I think the safety difference can be negligible, given the right circumstances, such as a child who hasn't circumvented the lap and shoulder belt before a frontal crash. For side impacts, rollovers and squirmy kids, a 5-point harness has better restraint and is likely to protect better. How much, it seems impossible to say for sure, given the lack of experts with any data for us to use at present. I note that experts in Australia might debate the issue of rear facing vs. FF based on their data. Again, it could well be that their child restraints are better and more likely to be properly used.

[April]

Let me just say for the record, I am thoroughly enjoying this thread and finding it very educational. I love seeing Dads debate CPS :love:

[stayinhomewithmy4]

Let me just say for the record, I am thoroughly enjoying this thread and finding it very educational. I love seeing Dads debate CPS :love:

Me too! :thumbsup:

[seamonkeys]

Let me just say for the record, I am thoroughly enjoying this thread and finding it very educational. I love seeing Dads debate CPS :love:

Me too! :thumbsup:

Me three! I need to go to bed but had to finish reading this! I especially like that it's clearly just a "debate," instead of a "my kids are safer than your's" argument. Though I agree it should be taken to a new thread so the poor OP doesn't get overwhelmed! :o

[Adventuredad]

Boosters are certainly inexpensive and are a safe choice for a lot of kids. I would agree that a lap/shoulder belt (with a backless booster if necessary) can be as safe in a frontal crash as a 5-point harness. This assumes the child is mature enough to wear it properly at the time of the crash, of course.

The biggest benefit I see for 5-point harness on older kids is in side impacts, rollovers and for those squirmy kids who are less likely to be properly restrained in a lap/shoulder belt at the time of a crash.

I wish I had proof. The statistics just aren't available. That's why I was interested to have some from Sweden.

I note that my 7-year old uses backless boosters from time to time, depending on the vehicle. She was in a 5-poiint harness until she was 6, though. That was when I was confident she wasn't going to be out of position with a lap/shoulder belt.

I wish I had indisputable proof as well. My kids will not use a cushion in the car, I prefer to have them in a booster with nice SIP and belt guidance unttil they are grown.

[Not at all. This is the job of the experts. If they can't quantify it, they really don't have much relevant expertise.

Comparing the two side by side is too expensive, complicated , and too many subjective factors must be taken into consideration.
I'm sure they have numbers to come up with, although much is confidential, but numbers would not tell the whole story.

I could call myself an expert. Without any data to prove my opinions, I'm no more legitimate then any other "expert". With 45 years of data, I would hope they have something appropraiate to justify these claims!

They do. They have the best safety record of any country. They've helped to save more lives than almost anyone. Not for a year or two, seemingly forever. The experts are also considered excellent by peers, media, organizations, and other countries. That's to me worth a lot more than talking while having a horrible safety record. I have more trust in experts who can show results.

How would you know they are a totally different level? Exactly, without any testing and quantification, you can't say.

I don't have access to every test ever made (and not the interest either). Rear facing is the main issue, tethering is a relatively minor issue. When I speak to some expert who have done crash testing forever, I usually take theri word for many things. Plus, much information is confidential.

While speaking to my sources all information is off the record and no names are to be used. These people have companies like Volvo, Britax, and Akta come in and do extensive testing and everything is strictly confidential. An expert can't say "The Britax Two-Way performed poorly with the harness and the neck injuries compared to the booster are likely to be considerate. With my experience I would use a booster". That would not be acceptable to anyone

Not necessarily. Are there any other variables as you suggested earlier? Is child restraint use more prevalent? Is misuse less prevalent? Those factors alone can be a major factor for minimal deaths/injuries relative to other countries. A safer vehicle fleet is another. I believe the USA tends to have a much older and heavier fleet than most other countries. More mass = more energy and less safety features to manage it in an older model.

There are certainly other factors, most if not all can be traced to parents and their habits. People here are responsible with kids and 95% of kids are always restrained in cars. This obviously helps. I've mentioned before that US stats are horrible but many kids are also unrestrained. Reason for so many kids dying is IMHO not much because of bad seats, it can be blamed on parents who don't take simple and safe precautions.

The Swedes have shown that kids can be protected using a simple strategy and without spending a fortune. There are no seat checks, not seat techs, and no car seat forums here. I wish more would look at this part and realize that type of seat is important, especially rf, but using a seat at all is far more important.

I think the safety difference can be negligible, given the right circumstances, such as a child who hasn't circumvented the lap and shoulder belt before a frontal crash. For side impacts, rollovers and squirmy kids, a 5-point harness has better restraint and is likely to protect better. How much, it seems impossible to say for sure, given the lack of experts with any data for us to use at present. I note that experts in Australia might debate the issue of rear facing vs. FF based on their data. Again, it could well be that their child restraints are better and more likely to be properly used.

I agree with most of what you say, so we're back to square one.:D Side impacts, and rollovers are lower percentage crashes but of course still important. Kids can be squirmy but I can't help to wonder why parents can't teach the kids to sit still in the car? (not special need kids). We're supposed to get our kids ready for life, at five years of age kids can do an awful lot of things. Asking them to please sit still in the car is a very minor thing. Don't these kids ever have to sit at the dinner table, visit a restaurant, or sit still at day care/kindergarten/school?

Quote:
Originally Posted by proudmomofriley
Let me just say for the record, I am thoroughly enjoying this thread and finding it very educational. I love seeing Dads debate CPS
Quote:
Originally Posted by stayinhomewithmy4
Me too!
Me three! I need to go to bed but had to finish reading this! I especially like that it's clearly just a "debate," instead of a "my kids are safer than your's" argument. Though I agree it should be taken to a new thread so the poor OP doesn't get overwhelmed!

Maybe we should charge the girls for this thread:whistle: I enjoy the debate with Darren, he's very knowledgeable. Hey Darren, should we use some more trash talk to make this conversation more interesting?:p

Please don't start another thread, I have other things to do than hanging on this board.........:whistle:

[CPSDarren]

I wish I had indisputable proof as well. My kids will not use a cushion in the car, I prefer to have them in a booster with nice SIP and belt guidance unttil they are grown.


Comparing the two side by side is too expensive, complicated , and too many subjective factors must be taken into consideration.
I'm sure they have numbers to come up with, although much is confidential, but numbers would not tell the whole story.

I guess the USA is good for something. At least our limited government research and statistics on traffic safety are in the public domain. For all our shortfalls, the number of traffic fatalities has dropped considerably in the last 30+ years, both on a per million miles basis and in absolute terms. Still not up to par with other countries, no doubt, but the research and legislation has been quite effective.

They do. They have the best safety record of any country. They've helped to save more lives than almost anyone. Not for a year or two, seemingly forever. The experts are also considered excellent by peers, media, organizations, and other countries. That's to me worth a lot more than talking while having a horrible safety record. I have more trust in experts who can show results.

Experts become experts through publication and peer review. This is true of any field, in any country. Without this, there is less potential for advancement and discussion. There is also no basis for any results to be tied to any particular variable or action. Followup studies are key for measuring the effects of any type of legislation or change and they require good initial statistics.



I don't have access to every test ever made (and not the interest either). Rear facing is the main issue, tethering is a relatively minor issue. When I speak to some expert who have done crash testing forever, I usually take theri word for many things. Plus, much information is confidential.

Consumer Reports has done a lot of crash testing on child seats and is an organization that is highly respected by millions of readers. Sadly, they don't publish any of their test results or data and choose not to have it peer-reviewed. They don't even seek comments from independent experts. Not surprisingly, they have make a lot of mistakes on the topic in the past, even though they still maintain a strong reputation and many people still take their word as the final authority on everything.

While speaking to my sources all information is off the record and no names are to be used. These people have companies like Volvo, Britax, and Akta come in and do extensive testing and everything is strictly confidential. An expert can't say "The Britax Two-Way performed poorly with the harness and the neck injuries compared to the booster are likely to be considerate. With my experience I would use a booster". That would not be acceptable to anyone

We are all entitled to our own opinions, especially when it comes to making a choice for our own kids. On the other hand, making a blanket statement that a harnessed seat is not any safer than a booster for older kids might also be considered unacceptable, especially lacking at least ONE legitimate, peer-reviewed study on the topic (even if you don't have access to all of them).


There are certainly other factors, most if not all can be traced to parents and their habits. People here are responsible with kids and 95% of kids are always restrained in cars. This obviously helps. I've mentioned before that US stats are horrible but many kids are also unrestrained. Reason for so many kids dying is IMHO not much because of bad seats, it can be blamed on parents who don't take simple and safe precautions.

Again, this is a HUGE factor in overall safety statistics that completely overwhelms the difference between boosters and 5-point harness use. Driver impairment and the age/safety of the vehicle fleet are others.

The Swedes have shown that kids can be protected using a simple strategy and without spending a fortune. There are no seat checks, not seat techs, and no car seat forums here. I wish more would look at this part and realize that type of seat is important, especially rf, but using a seat at all is far more important.

I completely agree and this is exactly why overall traffic fatality and injury statistics are worthless to support a claim that boosters are just as safe as a 5-point harness, for any age child. You need specific data and studies that focus on the topic. This is what I am seeking.


I agree with most of what you say, so we're back to square one.:D Side impacts, and rollovers are lower percentage crashes but of course still important.

Side impacts cause the most fatalities to properly restrained passengers in the USA. Rollovers aren't as common, but also cause a disproportionate amount of fatalities. They are very important types of crashes.

More points of restraint is better restraint. The only question is at what age, height or other point in development does the benefit of better restraint not result in a significant reduction in injuries or fatalities. That is the answer we need from a relevant study with crash testing and/or statistics.

Kids can be squirmy but I can't help to wonder why parents can't teach the kids to sit still in the car? (not special need kids). We're supposed to get our kids ready for life, at five years of age kids can do an awful lot of things. Asking them to please sit still in the car is a very minor thing. Don't these kids ever have to sit at the dinner table, visit a restaurant, or sit still at day care/kindergarten/school?

I wonder why my own kids can't sit still after being asked 5 times, on a daily basis. Poor parenting perhaps. Some parents just can't get it right. The same applies to child restraint use. For them, a 5-point harness might help save the life of their child.

[Adventuredad]

I guess the USA is good for something. At least our limited government research and statistics on traffic safety are in the public domain. For all our shortfalls, the number of traffic fatalities has dropped considerably in the last 30+ years, both on a per million miles basis and in absolute terms. Still not up to par with other countries, no doubt, but the research and legislation has been quite effective.

Almost any country has decreased fatalities a LOT during the last 30 years. Also so in Sweden. There are obviously tests etc. in the public domain and detailed stats on injured/killed etc. I would strongly disagree with US having done anything in traffic safety even close to effective when it comes to legislation and research. Legislation is worthless if a large number of people don't follow it.

In 1970 58 kids age 0-6 died here, 70 kids age 7-14. In 2007 2 kids died age 0-6 and 8 age 7-14. I think (and hope) the trend of less kids dying is similar in many other countries, although perhaps not as dramatic as here.

Experts become experts through publication and peer review. This is true of any field, in any country. Without this, there is less potential for advancement and discussion. There is also no basis for any results to be tied to any particular variable or action. Followup studies are key for measuring the effects of any type of legislation or change and they require good initial statistics.

They may have been able to do a better job but still show remarkable results. I don't disagree that feedback and peer review is needed and I'm sure that occurs. You make it sound like they sit in a dark closet without communicating with anyone. Since others apparently are doing such a fantastic job I would expect some real results and these countries be at the top of the list instead of at the bottom.

We are all entitled to our own opinions, especially when it comes to making a choice for our own kids. On the other hand, making a blanket statement that a harnessed seat is not any safer than a booster for older kids might also be considered unacceptable, especially lacking at least ONE legitimate, peer-reviewed study on the topic (even if you don't have access to all of them).

I will dig up something when I get the time. If booster use was so dangerous LOTS of kids here would die. Strangely, in 2007 there were only 8 fatalities.

The situation here is really not complicated. The researchers have the most experience of anyone and take car seat safety very seriously. There are no hard feelings against harnessing. There is no hidden agenda, no huge money to be made, no politics, and no lobbyists dictating what people should say. The experts simply advice what saves the most lives. If harness was considered superior, it would be recommended and we would all use it.

Again, this is a HUGE factor in overall safety statistics that completely overwhelms the difference between boosters and 5-point harness use. Driver impairment and the age/safety of the vehicle fleet are others.

I agree which is why I was saying a detailed test/comparison of harness vs. booster is not worth it. Both are tested and considered safe.

I completely agree and this is exactly why overall traffic fatality and injury statistics are worthless to support a claim that boosters are just as safe as a 5-point harness, for any age child. You need specific data and studies that focus on the topic. This is what I am seeking.

I would hardly consider the data worthless. The booster is made out to be crappy by most and in that case kids here would be dying left and right. I'm not using this as my main argument but it's certainly very convincing that safety remains so much better than anyone else despite using booster at age 4-5.

More points of restraint is better restraint

It can be but what the experts consider the weakness of the 5 point harness is that kids in harness are restrained nice and tight which means the neck takes most of the impact force. The force is spread out but shoulders are held back and the neck suffers in a front collision.

I wonder why my own kids can't sit still after being asked 5 times, on a daily basis. Poor parenting perhaps. Some parents just can't get it right. The same applies to child restraint use.

You're surely being sarcastic and I don't mean to criticize parenting. Yours or anyone else's. But it's still a relevant question. I don't think it's unreasonable for parents to teach kids to sit relatively well in the car seat but maybe I'm way off in my thinking

I'm signing off from this discussion. It's been a pleasure to hear your views on the subject. You're obviously very knowledgeable. :thumbsup: To OP, sorry I ruined your relevant question.:o

Darren, don't tell me you know this much about cars as well?:whistle::D:D

[flipper68]

Interesting discussion.

Was wondering based on AdventureDad's fatalities stat (< 100 per year is amazing), how his data would translate into US statistics considering:

- USA has significantly larger population
- USA more drivers, driving more miles (especially in rural areas)
- USA has larger % of older (less safe) vehicles on the road AND

[BookMama]

I would strongly disagree with US having done anything in traffic safety even close to effective when it comes to legislation and research.

You do realize, don't you, that every time you make a comment like that, you're insulting all the people (on this board and elsewhere) who are working extremely hard to improve child passenger safety in the US?

[Adventuredad]

Interesting discussion.

Was wondering based on AdventureDad's fatalities stat (< 100 per year is amazing), how his data would translate into US statistics considering:

- USA has significantly larger population
- USA more drivers, driving more miles (especially in rural areas)
- USA has larger % of older (less safe) vehicles on the road AND

US has roughly 33 items higher population so multiply this number and see what the number would be.

The government here has taken significant steps to help people use the car less frequently and also are very aggressive towards drunk driving. This has been a gradual change during the past 20 years or so. It would obviously be much better for people to drive less in US since it's the leading cause of death.

Overall traffic fatalities per 100 000 inhabitants (a common measurement) are 4.9 in Sweden and 14.7 in US (source here (http://www.vv.se/templates/page3wide____18994.aspx))

Perhaps more interestingly, fatalities per 100 000 vehicles are 8.5 in Sweden and 17.7 in US.

This is for the overall population and not just kids.

[Adventuredad]

You do realize, don't you, that every time you make a comment like that, you're insulting all the people (on this board and elsewhere) who are working extremely hard to improve child passenger safety in the US?

I don' think so, or least I never meant to insult anyone here who I've always mentioned are extremely knowledgeable and helpful. But I can be rather undiplomatic so you might be right. Sorry to all on this board, it was not directed at you :bow:

I'm referring to legislation, enforcement, information, etc. People on this board are always great but are not the norm in society. If people in general were like this board there would be no problem with traffic safety.

Some people have surely been working hard, and I'm again not referring to this board, but looking at the stats makes it all seem very ineffective IMHO.

[CPSDarren]

They may have been able to do a better job but still show remarkable results. I don't disagree that feedback and peer review is needed and I'm sure that occurs. You make it sound like they sit in a dark closet without communicating with anyone.

Actually, it was your frequent comments about "confidential" information that makes them sound like they live in a dark closet. They may well be the best people in the world at education for parents and caregivers and regulations for auto and child restraint manufacturers and reducing impaired/distracted driving. Those are indeed critical areas where we are lacking in the USA, demonstrated by the popularity of independent forums like this one.

What they don't seem to be experts at doing is the thing we are discussing, providing relevant statistics or studies about booster seats vs. 5-point harnesses for children. I mean, if there is some secret revelation about booster seats, share it with the USA so we can save our kids, too!

I will dig up something when I get the time. If booster use was so dangerous LOTS of kids here would die.

Who said booster use was so dangerous? I didn't. I'm only asking for the information that shows boosters to be just as effective as 5-point harnesses, or something proving that 5-point harnesses are causing neck injuries in older kids. If these things are true as you have claimed, I think the data would be very interesting to share.

The situation here is really not complicated. The researchers have the most experience of anyone and take car seat safety very seriously. There are no hard feelings against harnessing. There is no hidden agenda, no huge money to be made, no politics, and no lobbyists dictating what people should say. The experts simply advice what saves the most lives. If harness was considered superior, it would be recommended and we would all use it.

Surely if they are experts and interested in improving safety even further, they have statistics on which to base their decisions. Or maybe they don't. Given the statistics you have provided on overall fatality rates, it may well be that harnessed seats for older kids would not provide any benefit given the nearly universal use of correctly used booster seats. In the USA, the situation is different. The same cost to benefit analysis would not apply here as it does there.



I agree which is why I was saying a detailed test/comparison of harness vs. booster is not worth it. Both are tested and considered safe.

A Volvo XC90 and Ford Explorer are both safe vehicles. That doesn't mean one isn't safer than the other. Again, the question is whether the difference is significant or not. This could depend a lot on the driver and driving conditions and other factors not directly related to crashworthiness, as it does trying to apply results in other countries to the USA in terms of booster vs. 5-point harness use.


I would hardly consider the data worthless. The booster is made out to be crappy by most and in that case kids here would be dying left and right. I'm not using this as my main argument but it's certainly very convincing that safety remains so much better than anyone else despite using booster at age 4-5.

My kids use boosters. I don't think they are crappy. My point was to agree with you that other variables may be more important, thus making the actual crash protection from one appropriate type of restraint system to another difficult to compare between countries by using general statistics, rather than a focused study.


It can be but what the experts consider the weakness of the 5 point harness is that kids in harness are restrained nice and tight which means the neck takes most of the impact force. The force is spread out but shoulders are held back and the neck suffers in a front collision.

Again, how high are the forces? Have they proven to cause injuries in older kids? It's easy to say it in theory, just as people said about rear facing tethers. It may even be true, though I haven't heard of any unusual incidence of neck injuries due to a 5-point harness on older kids. If it is true, I would like to have something to reference. That is all.

[CPSDarren]

US has roughly 33 items higher population so multiply this number and see what the number would be.

The government here has taken significant steps to help people use the car less frequently and also are very aggressive towards drunk driving. This has been a gradual change during the past 20 years or so. It would obviously be much better for people to drive less in US since it's the leading cause of death.

Overall traffic fatalities per 100 000 inhabitants (a common measurement) are 4.9 in Sweden and 14.7 in US (source here (http://www.vv.se/templates/page3wide____18994.aspx))

Perhaps more interestingly, fatalities per 100 000 vehicles are 8.5 in Sweden and 17.7 in US.

This is for the overall population and not just kids.

We know that the vast majority of traffic fatalities here involve non-use or misuse of restraints or impaired/distracted drivers. There's no doubt that minimizing these factors would make a tremendous reduction in fatalities, even if no changes were made to the types of vehicles or restraint systems we use.

That's exactly why the fatality rates alone cannot be used to say that vehicles or child restraints are safer there than in the USA. It may be true, but this is not the method to prove it. You could also say that because traffic fatalities are lower in Sweden, people in the USA have a higher incidence of obesity. Again, quite possibly true, but the correlation is not strong enough to base the claim on the evidence provided.

[Kat_Momof3]

Okay... I know this is late in the game, but I wanted to add something... yes, most 5yr olds can sit still in a booster...

BUT... and this is a biggie... their heads are sometimes (not all, I admit) still so big in comparison to their bodies that when you then add that their spines are NOT fully hardened (and omg, you should have seen my 8yr old at that age... he had a mild scoliosis that he has since outgrown, thank GOD), that, when asleep, they can flop... not just their heads, because the head still weighs so much... No matter WHAT I did... reclining the vehicle seat to put the booster in it's 2nd recline position, getting a booster with thicker headwings, taking corners at a SNAIL'S pace... I would turn around to find my son's head in his LAP... him totally bent in half.

It was then that I realized that I couldn't just keep Ruthie harnessed longer than I had the boys... I couldn't just put my (then) 4yr old in the Marathon (and thereby have their sister in the Scenera that was originally her spare seat)... I had to do something about the oldest one, as well.

His special needs of being bipolar, having adhd combined type, and aspergers/pdd-nos (they weren't sure back then) simply weren't the problem...

we didn't even know about the scoliosis back then.

But, when we put him in the Regent, not only did we not have that issue, but the bruising he was constantly getting on his back stopped (it could have been the padding, but the orthopedist later said that it was probably the fact that the harnesses kept him PERFECTLY upright... and not slouching even an undeterminable amount)

But, for those whose kids do this and do not have the scoliosis, my recommendation is always immediately the same... harness them.

And here's the rub... he SPURTED... so much... that he outgrew the Regent at age 6.5yrs old.

When I (nervously) put him in a booster again (the turbobooster, which he was AT the limit for in height.. just short enough that the belt didn't twist, so the exact booster he'd used before)... the problem was GONE. He still had the scoliosis... but the flopping problem was gone because his head was now more similarly proportional to his body as that of a teenager or adult.

So I really think it is age 6 that should be the minimum... when the spine is hard and the head becomes more proportional to the body.

With his brother, who started begging for a booster as soon as his brother made the switch, we let him switch at 6... and, again, the problem (and he had no scoliosis... they x-rayed him to be sure, because it is hereditary... I have a minor one), and again... the flopping was now nonexistant.

maybe other kids heads aren't as big... I don't know.. but there is a definite trend I've seen over the years of some kids just not being able to stay upright when sleeping in a booster.