Everyone is freaking out about this so let me respond and then I will go away. I'm not saying harnessed kids are unsafe, they are about as safe. Harnessed seats are great at times and not so great other times. Just like belt positioning boosters.
Please remember that research in this country does NOT support this point of view.
Just because it's not supported doesn't make it a bad idea. RF front seat installs, without airbags, are frowned upon in US but as safe as rear seat taken all actors into account.
Children under four AND 40 pounds should not be in a booster. It's not safe and in some states it's not legal.
Please read my post again. I said small children should not be a in a booster. I even highlighted this. I also said children under 4 here rarely sit in belt positioning boosters. Should I be even more clear?
Your child is more than 50% safer in a 5-point harness than in a booster seat,
That is not true at all and there is no research saying this. You're currently entitle to your opinion though. There are no crash tests comparing boosters with harnessed seat. Speak to someone experienced in crash safety and you'll find out why. It's to subjective, too complicated and the difference is likely to be relatively small.
I
f your son reaches over to retrieve a drink, a toy, a book, and a drunk driver runs a red light and plows into your car, the result will be catastrophic.
Not a fan of statistics, mathematics, or probability I suppose? It's certainly possible this could happen but you must realize someone is more likely to win Lotto twice and be hit by lightning in one day than this happening. If my child reaches over for a drink once during a 90 minute drive that's just fine. We're after all talking statistics here and the chance of something happening those 5 seconds are too small to even discuss.
This doesn't make any sense, the crash forces would be on the shoulders not the neck.
No. In a crash with harnessed child, the harness is holding the shoulder back. The only thing not fastened is the head. The shoulders are held back nicely by the harness which makes the head and neck go forward with incredible force. The shoulders certainly are under pressure but the neck takes much of the force.
He is talking about the strain that the head moving forward without the shoulders can put on the neck. However, top tethers (which are not available in many EU cars/seats) reduce these forces immensely. If you look at test results for a seat with and without the top tether, the Head Injury Criterion, which measures forces on the head and neck, is usually much lower for the tethered seat.
Good point. Forces may be reduced but are still immense for the neck of a young child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wineaux
Your child is more than 50% safer in a 5-point harness than in a booster seat, .....
Source, please?
There is nothing trustworthy that confirms this of the simple reason tests are not done with belt positioning boosters and harnessed seats head to head. Both are certified and safe, more tests would be meaningless, extremely costly, and also far to subjective.
Exactly. Testing in the United States does not show increased strain on the spinal column in FF harnessed seats. Since extended RF is rare here, and early booster use and harnessing to age 4 -6, if there were more spinal injuries to a harnessed (FF) child than a boostered child, we'd be seeing that data. The reality is, there is no injury data supporting the claim that a booster is safer than a harness for a child old enough to properly use either.
Good point. As I mentioned, there are no head to head tests between the two. I've always said that leading experts in the field, who have been doing this for a very long time, recommend belt positioning boosters ahead of harnessed seat. But the immense safety record over here, using ONLY belt positioning boosters, suggest it's extremely safe But you must also keep in mind that their are other factors which are important except for pure crash results. One should not stare blindly at theoretical tests. More on that below.
I'm offended by your casualness on this.
Sorry if you're offended. I'm known for being straight to the point and also annoying (just read my siggy). I just consider this the job of a parent. If we consider how much are 5 year old learns, shouldn't we be able to teach them to sit relatively still for a while. This may sound offensive but I mean this in the most respectful way. Special need kids are another story and usually need a harness.
Well, good for you. Want to come here and re-parent my 4-yr old and 6-yr old for me, as I'm apparently lacking in that particular skill.
No need to be sarcastic. The point is all kids 4-8-ish sit in belt positioning boosters here and are not moving around like worms. Why I don't know. If you want to send your children over to me it would be my pleasure to work with them
Do they like Swedish meatballs?
5-points protect much better in a side impact crash than a 3 point seat belt, they also protect better in roll overs.
Good point. I agree with you. Side impact is very dangerous but not so common. Rollovers are also low percentage.
My question is... and seriously, I'm not meaning to be rude at all.... What is the average length your son is in the car at one time? Do you drive long hours on a regular basis? Or is this on errands about town? How well does he manage for those long drives when he's tired of life?
My oldest is only 4.5 so I'm hoping he's not tired of life quite yet, although I can be very very boring
When we go for long drives we never drive more than 2 hours without a break. I think it's mean and too boring to have them sit longer than that without stretching. Others may think that's very long or short, I don't really know. I also have a 2 year old girl who is very impatient in her rf seat. She does not like long drives and would prefer to be without seat (big fat chance of that). I don't drive long hours on a regular basis.
In all of Sweden there's no problem with kids sitting properly in a booster? Or in all of your house there's no problem? Every child is different.
It's not a problem in my house but that is irrelevant. What's important is the big picture, the whole country. I'm sure there are kids who don't sit still all the time but it's not a worry. If kids couldn't sit still and belt positioning boosters were dangerous, they would not be used. It's that simple. Car seat safety is priority number one in this country, probably tied with family benefits, it's taken very seriously which the low amount of injuries and deaths clearly show.
I'm not naive, have been around the block a few times, and seen much of the world. I have a very realistic attitude towards parenting. I know one can get lucky with a child and it doesn't mean one is a perfect parent
Personally, I love it when a parent has that 1 "perfect" child and assumes it's because of their wonderful parenting. I've seen that all too often. That's when I pray that their next child is the "problem" child
Funny you should mention this. My 2-year old daughter is so full of energy she makes active twin seem like a picnic. She's not a "problem child" (yet?
) but she sure is a challenge. But considering all the other things she's learning stitting still will not be a problem.:twocents:
There seem to be many staring only at those youtube videos of crash tests believing that is the whole truth. Belt positioning booster have some other advantages as well. I would like to compare it with front seat install of a rf seat which is common here. Everyone knows the middle rear is safer looking at pure crash tests (about 35% safer I believe) but the front seat has other factors which makes it as safe as the rear. The boosters have other factors which are rarely mentioned but do make a difference.
Boosters are usually cheaper which means more people can afford them. They are also far easier to install making it more likely families use them. Easier to move is also a plus, it's more likely a proper seat is used when using a friend's car etc. These are just some things which are difficult to measure but do make a difference in the long run.
Another issue, which is very convincing to me, is the reputation and track record of the researchers. Kids are number one priority in this country to the government. Lots of resources are put into this. Researchers have more experience than anyone else, having tested and used car seats for 40+ years. With all this knowledge and focus to keep kids safe, wouldn't it be a little strange recommending and using belt positioning booster instead of harnessed seats since the latter is supposed to be "much safer"?
There is no agenda here. No lobby groups, no huge money to be made, no kick backs from manufacturers, no I-hate-harness-groups, etc. The safest possible seats are used and the records show this to be unbelievably successful. If harnessed seats would be "much safer" all things considered, you can be sure every single 5 year old in this country would be sitting in one.:twocents: