Multimac in Canada -- yoohoo, calling Allport

[bubbaray]

http://www.multimac.co.uk/multimac.html

Saw this on the other (US) thread. I was telling my daycare provider about it, she thought it was a brilliant idea.

Have they even submitted it for testing here?

[Allport]

nope - neat idea though.

[bubbaray]

Figures. Sigh.

Neato concept, though.

[Allport]

If they come to us, we'll give them all the information for compliance!

[TechnoGranola]

Very cool! I wish they had a better explanation of how it installed. The thing that concerns me is the lack of head support. In these pics, every child's head is above the restraint and without head support (the vehicle headrests are offset for some kids) http://www.multimac.co.uk/news.html

[bubbaray]

There are headrests available as an accessory for each seating position.

ETA: There is also a RFg seat available for each position too -- you can use 4 RFg seats in it.

[TechnoGranola]

There are headrests available as an accessory for each seating position.

ETA: There is also a RFg seat available for each position too -- you can use 4 RFg seats in it.Heh-heh, okay I totally missed that! It's even cooler than I thought if that's the case! :thumbsup: I DID see the rear-facing option although I wondered if the age limit was necessary to be 18 months if the child was still within the weight/height of the seat.

ETA: that is so funny, I took a look at the web site again and the headrest option is shown on the SAME page as the RF option and it's attached the the seat right beside the RF seat! I don't know how I missed it!

[bubbaray]

I know -- I don't even need one (we are sooooo done at 2!) and I WANT one, LOL.

[hipmaman]

It has been discussed a while ago on one the crs forums I am on, but I can remember what the comments were about the practicality or reality of it :bag:

[QuassEE]

On the issue of head protection..as much as I would never advocate for insufficient head protection..I suppose, in a pinch, if we're protecting against a) the majority of collisions and b) the more severe types of collisions.. the poor head protection in the Multimac is probably secondary to the need to restrain four children in a row (fuel economy, childcare needs, etc), the benefits of continued harnessing, and the use of the rear seat versus putting that fourth child in front of an active airbag... But why should it have to be a choice between SAFER and SAFEST..? If they can figure out how to get four into the space for three, why can't they figure out how to give them integrated head and neck protection while they're at it?

-N.

[TechnoGranola]

On the issue of head protection..as much as I would never advocate for insufficient head protection..I suppose, in a pinch, if we're protecting against a) the majority of collisions and b) the more severe types of collisions.. the poor head protection in the Multimac is probably secondary to the need to restrain four children in a row (fuel economy, childcare needs, etc), the benefits of continued harnessing, and the use of the rear seat versus putting that fourth child in front of an active airbag... But why should it have to be a choice between SAFER and SAFEST..? If they can figure out how to get four into the space for three, why can't they figure out how to give them integrated head and neck protection while they're at it?

Check out the top pic http://www.multimac.co.uk/multimac_works.html Headrests ARE available for all seating positions. :thumbsup:

[QuassEE]

yeah I caught up and saw that--but...IMO, not really options..y'think? I really do think that as gas gets more expensive, innovative solutions such as this will become a reality.

-Nicole.

[bubbaray]

If they can figure out how to get four into the space for three, why can't they figure out how to give them integrated head and neck protection while they're at it?


Just speculating, but it might be b/c their market is smaller European sedans, where the rear window isn't huge to start with. If you had 4 integrated headrests and didn't actually need all of them, you're blocking your rear view unnecessarily, KWIM?

LOL, we posted at the same time.

[QuassEE]

I thought about that, too, but dismissed that as being the problem since headrests can pop up or flip up in order to be used... They could get pretty creative.. One thing I find when I have the headrests up in my back row is that if I raise them up enough, I still have great visibility looking through the posts.. That's why I prefer LBBs to HBBs back there.

-N.

[kattale]

Oh, that is a dream come true for child care providers. Probably costs a small fortune, just like a quad stroller.. sigh.

All my questions of safety were answered (headrests, adustable harness heights, etc.) except how would it comply with Canadian anchor laws? Would 2 rear anchors be enough? Or would it be exempt from anchors?

And how do we lobby to get it? Wish I could beta it...

[Kashi]

I just can't get the idea of those 4 kids heads knocking against one another out of my mind. There is just no SPACE between them at all.

[crunchierthanthou]

I just can't get the idea of those 4 kids heads knocking against one another out of my mind. There is just no SPACE between them at all.

but for the most part they're all going to be moving in the same direction. It's a fairly rare crash where they'll be moving toward each other.

I wonder if that CHOPS study (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-09/chop-htb090905.php) took spacing into account when they stated that it's actually safer to be seated next to another passenger.

[mommycat]

but for the most part they're all going to be moving in the same direction. It's a fairly rare crash where they'll be moving toward each other.

I wonder if that CHOPS study (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-09/chop-htb090905.php) took spacing into account when they stated that it's actually safer to be seated next to another passenger.
My feeling would be that sitting more closely together is probably in favour of safety. Reducing the space around you would minimize movement. Sitting directly next to someone means that you are probably already in contact with them and won't be flying into them, or into the car interior. Imagine putting one egg into a box and shaking it, vs filling the box with eggs and shaking it. Not quite the same, but I think it would be a similar concept. Also accounting for the fact that a person is much softer and has more give than a solid door panel. Even if the car shell was to be pushed into the occupant space, people can get pushed together quite a bit without great damage other than that from the impact, and in fact the other people would act as a sort of cushion or damper for the motion, transferring some of the forces to them and in essence spreading out the injury, and reducing the severity of it on the one person. Totally a gut feeling, though.

[Misty-Bug]

although it looks like an interesting and unique idea I just can't see how the kids heads won't hit one another. Just really looks lacking to me:twocents::whistle:

[safeinthecar]

I just can't get the idea of those 4 kids heads knocking against one another out of my mind. There is just no SPACE between them at all.

On the other hand, being able to knock their heads together might become quite tempting when the fights over lack of space start.