Sweden vs. USA Split

[Adventuredad]

I'm the annoying Swedish/American poster:D What's safer is a subjective debate since there are no tests of booster vs. harnessed seats for older kids. I know people in US believe harnessing older kids being much safer but people who work in the industry say differently. I should also point out that the opinion of boosters being as safe or safer than harnessing is not mine. It comes from the most experienced researchers in the world.

Both boosters and harnessing of older kids is safe. Swedish researchers, with the greatest experience, recommend boosters ahead of harnessing of older kids and have had great results with that. Keeping an older child in a harnessed seat is perfectly fine and safe, so are boosters. I would not recommend anyone switching due to safety reasons unless there were special needs involved.

It's a very complicated issue and unfortunately not as easy as watching a Youtube video and drawing conclusions. Especially since most of the conclusions usually are completely wrong

OP brought up a good point about being comfortable. I think this is important. A parent should be comfortable with safety decisions. If a booster doesn't feel right it might be a good idea to use a harnessed seat. I won't be any safer but it might make a parent feel better. I's no fun being worried for eery car ride IMHO

I think it's up to each parent to decide what they prefer. The safety difference is likely to be small whatever you prefer but it would be incorrect to say that harnessing is much safer. It's also very important to note that I refer to kids age 4 and older. Preferable even older. Many place much younger kids in boosters and this is clearly very unsafe.

I prefer a HBB and will use that until my kids are 10 or so. Safety difference is not large compared to regular booster but SIP helps with keeping sleeping kids in position IMHO. Previous poster also brought up a great point, that seatbelt must be under armrest to avoid submarining in an accident (child sliding under seat belt) which is dangerous.

Best of luck whatever you decide to do

[Gypsy]

Boosters Vs. Harness in frontal impacts is something we just aren't going to know for sure until studies are done on it.

If your child is mature enough to use a booster properly, it's a reasonable option.

However, we DO know that harnesses are much safer than booster in side impact crashes - side impact crashes are the most deadly. I'm not touching AdventureDad's opinion on Booster Vs. Harness in frontal impacts because I think he has some good points and after age 5-6 I tend to agree with him, but strongly disagree with kids under age 5 in boosters full time... anyways, AD only makes a case for frontal impacts which are the most common.

Because side impact crashes are the most deadly, I am simply not comfortable with full time booster use until a minimum of age 6, and I am not comfortable with full time backless booster use until a minimum of age 8 - even in vehicles with top safety ratings and side curtain airbags.

[Gypsy]

For what it's worth, my just turned 8YO rides in a backless booster once a week, and after my ds is 4 in February I'll start booster training him - but will not allow a booster full time or even half time until he is 6. I do think it's important that he know how to properly sit in a booster as soon as possible though, especially since I'll be moving closer to family next year and if they can't install/use a harnessed seat properly I'd prefer him in a booster for short trips/emergencies.

[christineka]

I have found that a booster with great sip really helps kids stay in position. My kids have gone to boosters full time at 4.5. While I wouldn't recommend it, I think it is fine for occasional use. My ds is harnessed in the main vehicle, but shares a booster in the secondary vehicle. He's fine as long as he doesn't become too used to the freedom- and our secondary vehicle does not have boosters with great sip.

[Adventuredad]

Boosters Vs. Harness in frontal impacts is something we just aren't going to know for sure until studies are done on it.

If your child is mature enough to use a booster properly, it's a reasonable option.

However, we DO know that harnesses are much safer than booster in side impact crashes - side impact crashes are the most deadly. I'm not touching AdventureDad's opinion on Booster Vs. Harness in frontal impacts because I think he has some good points and after age 5-6 I tend to agree with him, but strongly disagree with kids under age 5 in boosters full time... anyways, AD only makes a case for frontal impacts which are the most common.

Because side impact crashes are the most deadly, I am simply not comfortable with full time booster use until a minimum of age 6, and I am not comfortable with full time backless booster use until a minimum of age 8 - even in vehicles with top safety ratings and side curtain airbags.

Good points. The problem with the comparison is that there are so many complex factors involved which many don't think of. You mention side impacts, which is important. But there are also issues about installs, price of seats, ease of use, kids being comfortable, and many other "fluffy factors". I constantly get this answer rom people in the car seat safety business. THey mention how complex, expensive, subjective and also useless it is to compare which method is the safes. Both are very good and will give a child god protection in an accident. Unfortuatnely far from rear facing but rear facing my kids until college is probably a litle over the top even for a weird guy like me:whistle:

[Defrost]

This was mentioned briefly, but I wanted to emphasize - proper use is also a very important aspect in this case. A harnessed seat that is incorrectly installed and/or incorrectly used by your grandparents is not safer than a correctly used booster.

Whichever option you choose, you need to make sure they understand how to use it correctly. You should talk to them and use their input in making a decision - they may prefer to have you install a harnessed seat that never gets removed, for example, or they may prefer a booster with LATCH, or a booster with flip-up armrests so your child doesn't need help getting in, etc. They need to understand that using a booster means checking your child's position throughout the ride, so that even though it might seem easier at first, it could end up being a headache in the long run as every ride consists of "Sweetie, you need to sit up straight in your seat. Sweetie, you need to stay behind the seat belt. Sweetie, what did I tell you about leaning over? Sweetie, buckle that seat belt immediately!!!" :)

[Adventuredad]

I think Darrens post sums it up very well. Both harnessing and booster for older kids are safe. Darren says harnessing is "probably a little safer". It might be so. Or perhaps boosters are a little safer. I personally think they are about as safe. The point is that we're talking small differences.

Darren mention lots of factors which involve safety. It's a good point and also helps to explain why this is so tremendously complicated to say with certainty what's safer. Car seat researchers bring this up all the time and say this is one reason why there are not head to head testing. There are tons of other points as well I can think of. Some in favor of harnessing and some in favor of boosters.

I'm perfectly happy with something saying boosters and harnessing being about as safe.

Unfortunately, many on this board and also other places makes it seem like a parent is reckless and not safety oriented for not keeping a normal child harnessed until age 7 or something similar. They also make it seem like the difference is HUGE, kind of like difference between rear facing and forward facing. This is simply untrue and give bad information to parents.

Good luck with your booster or harness seat

[An Aurora]

Unfortunately, many on this board and also other places makes it seem like a parent is reckless and not safety oriented for not keeping a normal child harnessed until age 7 or something similar. They also make it seem like the difference is HUGE, kind of like difference between rear facing and forward facing. This is simply untrue and give bad information to parents.



On this board we tend to recommend best practice, which includes extended harnessing.

[skaterbabscpst]

This is simply untrue and give bad information to parents.

False. There is no evidence to suggest that boosters are equally as or more safe than a harnessed seat for children aged 4-6. There are no published studies or injury data to suggest such. Merely a tradition that it's "safe".

On the other hand, there is much research on brain and child development suggesting that the likelihood of proper use of a booster for children in that age range is quite small, and any booster not used 100% correctly, 100% of the time is not safe.

Few children can safely use a booster 100% perfectly at four. Some can do it at five. Most can do it by six. Which fits in with the information we have regarding the development of children's brains and their ability to control their impulses. The brain synapses governing impulse control BEGIN to develop between 4 and 6 years of age. This development isn't complete until the mid-to-late teens.

[Adventuredad]

False.

Yeah, right. With that statement you're actually seriously saying that there is a HUGE difference to harness older kids and that it can be compared to the difference between rear facing and forward facing? I don't believe someone who knows so much about car seat safety can be so misinformed.

For the 100th time, the debate is admittedly subjective since there are not, and will be no, head to head tests between boosters and harnessing.

You are perfectly right in saying there are no published studies saying boosters are safer. There is also no published data comparing boosters and harnessing with the conclusion that harnessing is better. It's simply to complex, subjective, expensive, and meaningless. Both methods are safe and certified.

It's completely false to say there is HUGE difference in safety in between the two. People who work with this every day, some of the worlds most experienced researchers, laugh at this opinion.

Some suggest the difference is huge in favor of harnessing, similar to difference between rear facing and forward facing, which is simply untrue. It may be a little safer with harnessing or it may be a little safer with boosters. That's what the most experienced researchers are saying.

Car seat use is so much more than crash test data like Darren pointed out. There and hundreds of factors which decide if your kid is safe. Many of those are against booster use and many against harnessing.

In the end, I rather listen to those researchers who have implemented a very successful approach to car seat safety instead of those who's track record is just slightly better than terrible. I think anyone who's still stuck in the 12 months 20 lbs suggestions for rear facing are tough to take seriously.

As I always say in this debate, feel free to believe anything you want.

On this board we tend to recommend best practice, which includes extended harnessing.

And I assume with that you're also saying the difference is HUGE and can be compared to the difference between rear facing and forward facing. Very entertaining:thumbsup:

This thread is derailing as usual so I'm bowing out. Discussing this with anyone suggesting harnessing is 500% safer than boosters really is not productive. :twocents:

[Adventuredad]

Good point:thumbsup:

[An Aurora]

And I assume with that you're also saying the difference is HUGE and can be compared to the difference between rear facing and forward facing.



Um, no, with that statement I am clarifying that we recommend best practice, which includes extended harnessing.

[UlrikeDG]

Discussing this with anyone suggesting harnessing is 500% safer than boosters really is not productive. :twocents:

Wait.

What?

:confused: I don't see anyone saying anything of the sort. :confused:

[Kashi]

Discussing this with anyone suggesting harnessing is 500% safer than boosters really is not productive. :twocents:


Where did that come from ?

[Blondie87]

I think he is saying that because I guess some people compared the safeness of extended harnessing vs boostering to RF vs FF and since we know that RF past 1 and 20 lbs is 500% safer than FF, he is saying that's what you are saying. If that makes sense..

[An Aurora]

I think he is saying that because I guess some people compared the safeness of extended harnessing vs boostering to RF vs FF and since we know that RF past 1 and 20 lbs is 500% safer than FF, he is saying that's what you are saying. If that makes sense..

He just likes to assume things, as evidenced by my post above and his "translation" of it in his following post.

[joyride]

For the 100th time, the debate is admittedly subjective since there are not, and will be no, head to head tests between boosters and harnessing.

Ahhhh - you can´t say it´s subjective, and in the next sentence:
This is simply untrue and give bad information to parents.
You think it´s untrue, you didn´t give us any verifiable publications.
So please don´t give such statements.

Joy

PS:
That's what the most experienced researchers are saying.
References?References?References?