HWH vs. Booster. Again.

[Adventuredad]

Do we have comprehensive enough data to say this yet? Last I heard the data was comparing booster to RF, not high weight harnesses

Data comparing rf to boosters can't be fair, the difference in safety is humongous.....

I think comparing HWH harnesses and BPB boosters are more relevant since those are often a choice. "Jeanum" has very good point, there are no crash tests done comparing HWH to BPB. According to crash test staff I've spoken to it won't happen either since it's too expensive, too subjective, and also kind of meaningless. Both are approved and safe. Which one is safer depends on who you listen to but differences are not huge either way.

Swedes don't use HWH harnesses since leading experts here say BPB boosters are safer. I know that US like HWH better. I guess it's up to each person what to believe. Regardless which one is safer, the difference won't be large and it would be far better to focus on rfing vs. ffing where safety differences are huge.

The people here base their findings on 40+ years of experience and great safety statistics during many eyars. There are subjective factors involved and pure crash testing isn't everything. The different seats could test equally in the lab but one could be much safer due to other factors such as usage, costs, ease of install, etc. :twocents:

 

[Victorious4]

Re: Benefits of RF from ages 2-3

Swedes don't use HWH harnesses since leading experts here say BPB boosters are safer.

But, what is the proof? They've released the data about RF, but where exactly is the comprehensive enough data to prove that boosters are safer than harnesses? We don't have any, but we do know that harnesses contain the head better to reduce risk of brain injury & that spinal injury is much more likely to happen not merely from movement, but from impacting the front seatback (more likely in a booster since the head excursion limit allowes for greater forward movement). We also know that 5 points of contact spreads out -- reduces -- crash forces upon the body.... 40 years ago, extended harnessing wasn't common anywhere. It hasn't been tested because they keep the kids most at risk RF still.

 

[Adventuredad]

Re: Benefits of RF from ages 2-3

If you read my post again you will note I did say there are no direct comparisons between BPB and HWH. The findings and the strategy here is based on 40+ years of research, these guys and girls started far ahead of any other nation. The safety stats for both rf and BPB age 5-10 is also incredibly impressive to say the least. There are subjective criteria involved since again, there is not direct comparisons. I could give you the data of the few accidents and injuries we have age 5-10 but that would also include many other factors than pure BPB vs. HWH. Bottom line, there are no 100% solid proof which is why experience comes in handy.

Harness keeps the body relatively still but again, leading experts here say there is too much strain on not yet developed neck muscles. The harness does stop the body from moving and virtually all the force has to be absorbed by not yet developed neck muscles. In a BPB the whole body is absorbing the impact, not just the neck. It's or coure not as effective as rfing but experts here feel it's safer this way.

We're unlikely to ever see any definitive testing on this since there are too many subjective factors involved. I choose to believe the ones who have the best safety record, have always provided top notch research, and have proven themselves for many years. The difference in safety is not huge, in the end it's up to each and everyone what they want to believe. :twocents:

 

[skaterbabs]

Re: Benefits of RF from ages 2-3

Would these be the same experts saying the front seat is safe as long as there is no airbag dspite the vast amount of evidence that children do NOT belong in the front seat?

 

[Adventuredad]

Re: Benefits of RF from ages 2-3

Your so funny. The front seat is as safe as the rear for REAR FACING CHILDREN. Children who are not rfing don't belong in the front seat. This is mentioned by organizations, experts, and manufacturers such as Volvo.

Isn't it strange that these experts are so wrong, according to you and others, but the safety record is still so superior to any other country? Must be complete and total luck.:twocents:

 

[Victorious4]

Re: Benefits of RF from ages 2-3

I believe I'd rather my child's neck fling forward in mid-air rather than her head slam into the front seatback: one might cause paralysis, the other does.... I believe this is what I will continue teaching people until there is sufficient enough evidence to the contrary :twocents:

 

[Victorious4]

Re: Benefits of RF from ages 2-3

Becky is aware it's only RF kids. Sweden or U.S. the physics are still the same -- research shows the back is at least 40% (up to about 86%) safer for EVERYONE in the back....

I think the greater issue here is that this is a topic for the subforum dedicated to issues outside of the U.S.

 

[Adventuredad]

Re: Benefits of RF from ages 2-3

You are free to believe whatever you like. I guess what you're saying is that a child crashing in a BPB is being paralyzed. Isn't it weird this is not reality? Isn't it strange there are so few injuries and deaths here despite using the supposedly inferior BPB's? It think it's a good idea to at least keep an open mind towards others who have a successful strategy to keep kids safe in the car :twocents:

 

[Victorious4]

Re: Benefits of RF from ages 2-3

What I'm saying is this thread topic isn't about boosters & that boosters are allowed many more inches worth of forward movement, thus making it more likely for a child to suffer brain/spine injury by impacting a hard surface rather than air. One of the most important things we learn about the phases of a crash is that it isn't movement alone (or rather the sudden stop of movement of the vehicle around the body) that causes injury, but the body crashing into the vehicle interior is what makes the biggest difference. The spine ossifies around 3 years old when the head:body size ratio begins to even out. 3 year olds are also at higher risk of submarining out of boosters. Any person in a 3 point system has higher risk of impacting vehicle interior compared to anyone in a 5 point harness, assuming both are used correctly.

 

[ZephyrBlue]

Re: Benefits of RF from ages 2-3

AdventureDad, do you have anything that those of us who are genuinely interested in BPB vs. harnesses for our older kids can read on this subject?

I'm wondering if my 8yo who rides harnessed in a Nautilus would be safer in the Monterey, which has MUCH better SIP. I hadn't thought about the fact that an older child's head is going to be pretty darn heavy to be snapping forward during a collision if she's tightly harnessed in a 5pt.

Thanks!

 

[Victorious4]

Re: Benefits of RF from ages 2-3

Doesn't exist. Hence the debate. However, what we do know about RF vs. booster & RF vs. harnessing (both controlled crash testing & real life crash data) is a more logical base to rely life or death decisions on than merely what has been an area's tradition.

This is as close as we get. (some images have disappeared, but try to read through the whole thread for some points to ponder)

 

[snowbird25ca]

Re: Benefits of RF from ages 2-3

Your so funny. The front seat is as safe as the rear for REAR FACING CHILDREN. Children who are not rfing don't belong in the front seat. This is mentioned by organizations, experts, and manufacturers such as Volvo.

Isn't it strange that these experts are so wrong, according to you and others, but the safety record is still so superior to any other country? Must be complete and total luck.:twocents:

Can you explain what it is that makes Swedish vehicles different from american vehicles? I'm willing to grant you the possibility that if you removed the risk of airbags completely, and had some way to ameliorate the increased risk of injury due to being closest to the point of impact, there would be no harm in using the front seat.

BUT, almost all vehicles left in circulation have front airbags - some 1st generation airbags are even still around. Which are known to be unreliable enough that in collisions involving vehicles with Gen I airbags that didn't deploy, the firefighters will cut the battery wires before attempting any kind of rescue of trapped occupants - they're known to deploy well after the fact in some instances. So given that history it might make more sense for why we absolutely don't trust front airbag sensors in any circumstance. Even manufacturers warn that it is possible for an airbag to still deploy, and state to not use a rf'ing child restraint in the front seat.

Airbag issue aside, in a frontal collision at high speeds, a rf'ing child in the front seat is close enough to potentially be impacted by the damage sustained in the front of the vehicle. You've seen how people get legs trapped and pinned due to the front vehicle compartment being compromised - how do you think that force and the possible shifting of the vehicle interior in to the child restraint itself would affect protection?

Again, maybe Swedish vehicles have some sort of extra reinforcement in the dash area that lowers this risk?

There are enough variables that can't be accounted for, that it is absolutely impossible to state that rf'ing children are safe in the front seat when talking about north american cars and north american child restraints. Data says that they're not as safe up front - and that being rf'ing in the front seat can be fatal.

You've said before that you're used to bluntness and straight forwardness, so I think you can handle the following comment... it's fine to recommend what is normal practice in Sweden to people who live in areas that have the same circumstances as you. It's not ok to poo-poo what all of the highly experienced techs are saying about front seat being unsafe for rf'ing children & not being recommended here in North America.

For all I care, you could personally crash test seats and vehicles, and write the laws in Sweden. That doesn't mean that you have expertise in how North American vehicles with North American carseats installed would perform under identical circumstances. Please, when it comes to something that could make the difference between life and death, consider what best practice is in that country. There is a cultural difference, and while our safety record may not match that of Sweden, making statements that would be an acceptable practice in Sweden does nothing to protect North American children - who ride in different vehicles with different types of child restraints. I can't argue if it's safe in Sweden or not, and I won't argue that point with you. But I can tell you that North American data doesn't support allowing a rf'ing child to ride in the front seat if there is an airbag present - even when the vehicle is showing it as disabled.

 

[joolsplus3]

Re: Benefits of RF from ages 2-3

AdventureDad, do you have anything that those of us who are genuinely interested in BPB vs. harnesses for our older kids can read on this subject?

I'm wondering if my 8yo who rides harnessed in a Nautilus would be safer in the Monterey, which has MUCH better SIP. I hadn't thought about the fact that an older child's head is going to be pretty darn heavy to be snapping forward during a collision if she's tightly harnessed in a 5pt.

Thanks!

An 8 yo's head is heavier, but *proportionately* much smaller than a younger child's. Since we (and Australia and Canada and the EU) know that kids 1-4 are very safe in harnesses FF, then Sweden had better come up with some better data insisting that this 'heavy head' notion is so dangerous, when we know that 5 pt harnesses are the standard for racecar drivers (and while they do have a HANS device to hold the head back, they are also going MUCH higher speeds than we do, and 5 pt harnesses have been a good safety standard for them for a long time).
:twocents:

 

[canadiangie]

I'm sorry, but is there a back story to this thread?

 

[joolsplus3]

I'm sorry, but is there a back story to this thread?

Yeah, pretty much all of AdventureDad's posts have devolved into this same argument :thumbsup:

 

[minismom]

Re: Benefits of RF from ages 2-3

Can you explain what it is that makes Swedish vehicles different from american vehicles?

I think the deal is that European cars allow the user to disable the airbags with a key the same way only 2-sitter cars allow in the US. It's not just a sensor, it turns it off and must have been proven to be safe. I agree that it would be irresponsible to suggest that anyone in the US try RFing in the front seat, but I dont think adventuredad is saying that.

I'm sorry I started the whole HBB vs HWH thing on the other thread, I wasn't planning on starting a debate. But I still stand by my point that it makes no sense to turn a 2yo FF just so they could still be in a harness by 6yo and I wanted the OP to know that before she made a decision. RF is way more important IMO, especially at the ages we're talking about. Not to mention that while it's smart to get a seat that will last you a long time you can crash tomorrow and have to replace them or they can be stolen damaged etc. I wouldnt sacrifice safety now for something that might be an issue in 4 years.

 

[minismom]

I'm sorry, but is there a back story to this thread?

Darren split it from a thread where the mom was asking about the benefits about RF from 2-3 years old. Her twins were outgrowing the RA RFing and her husband wanted them to get Frontiers instead of another convertible. She wanted them to be in a harness as long as possible and didn't think they'd make it in an MA past 6 (they were petite). I suggested getting a convertible with high top slots like the Radian and keep them RF cause RF at 2 is better than harness at 6. That started a debate...

 

[skaterbabs]

Re: Benefits of RF from ages 2-3

I think the deal is that European cars allow the user to disable the airbags with a key the same way only 2-sitter cars allow in the US.

Actually, the knowledge that kids are not safe in the front seat predates airbags by over a decade. The reason the front seat is not safe (for anyone really, but especially kids) is that the most common type of crash is frontal. Sitting in the back seat puts passengers further from the most likely point of impact.

 

[BW1426]

I'm curious if part of the RFing in the front seat is different because all Swedish RF seats are tethered.

I also think that any information we have about the front seat being more dangerous than the back seat is strictly related to FF passengers. To say that it applies the same way to a RFing passenger would be an assumption, while an educated assumption, still an assumption (unless there is data that I'm unaware of).

In the grand scheme of things, we're not going to be able to say which is actually safer--HWH or BPB/ RF in front or RF in back--until crash testing is done. Most of these arguments really cannot end in I'm right and you're wrong until we have more information. It's kind of like comparing apples and oranges at this point, imo. :shrug-shoulders:
Disclaimer: NEVER, ever, ever, ever put a RFing child restraint in the front seat unless your carseat manufacturer and vehicle explicitly allow for it.

I also think it matters what kind of BPB you're using. Does the belt fit properly, does it have good SIP, etc. Not all of our boosters are like that. From what I've seen, the Swedish boosters appear to be more in line with styles like the Monarch and Monterey.

And, most of all, I think the largest issue at hand is the lack of proper carseat usage overall. Sweden seems to have all around decent carseat usage, which we (US--I can't speak for Canada) don't.

While I enjoy these topics because is it allows me to look at things in a different way, I do agree that we should not be saying these things to new members. I think that RFing beyond the limits of North American seats should be reserved for the International, and Community Member areas. Or, if someone needs help with a SN situation. This is very confusing for parents and to add into that what other countries do is A) not helpful because it isn't something they can legally use or easily get their hands on and B) further confuses the already troubled individual.

 

[minismom]

Re: Benefits of RF from ages 2-3

Actually, the knowledge that kids are not safe in the front seat predates airbags by over a decade. The reason the front seat is not safe (for anyone really, but especially kids) is that the most common type of crash is frontal. Sitting in the back seat puts passengers further from the most likely point of impact.

I agree with you on that, and I wouldnt put a child in the front instead of back for no good reason. That being said, the exact same logic applies to a child in the center vs outboard in the backseat and most of us here are comfortable putting our kids outboard, sometimes for no better reason than it gets too hard to lift the child into a seat in the middle. I would say that even if side crashes are less common they are more deadly and a child outboard is a lot closer to the point of a side impact than a child in the front is to the point of frontal impact. Plus we're talking about RF only, so the seat shell is between the child and the impact point. Granted, there are a lot more situations in which one needs to put they're child outboard then in the front seat. All I'm saying is it's good to have the choice. Some kids have special needs and need to be watched. Some kids make such fuss in the car seat it's more distracting and more likely to cause a crash if the parent is looking behind their shoulders all the time. And some people just like being able to see their kids and turn them FFing. I think RFing in the front seat is probably safer than FFing in the back.

The HWH vc HBB thing drives me nuts, I really wish the answers were more clear. Some of you know I bought a Brio Zento recently and while it RFs to 55lbs it only FFs to 40lbs (I think - it's 18kg and I suck at math). Bonnie (CRS) contacted Brio to ask why and she posted here their explanation of why they wanted kids to either RF or be in a booster because of neck loads. It makes me mad they're not giving data cause I'd really like to know for sure what's best!

PS: yes, I do get the irony that the child in the front is also outboard...