Outboard seats without deep sides.

Do they worry you? For example, the Radian. It seems* to have short, shallow sides. Does it make you a bit more leary about using the Radian, rather than something with deep sides like the MyRide? I'm dealing with putting a RF seat in my mother's car, outboard, and this thought ran across my mind. I'm interested to see other people's opinions, and to be comforted by any facts/statistics you can throw this way.




*I've never seen a Radian IRL...yet.

Justified or not, Radian freak me out due to their lack of sides. I cringe every time I see a pic of an older RF child with their legs flipped over the side. Even if they aren't outboard I imagine them outboard and their leg being crushed by the door in a side impact. I like that the TF and MR have higher sides so my outboard child keep her limbs inside the seat.

I remember asking similar questions before I considered the Radian because it didn't make much sense to me...having the low sides.
Here is what I have gained; the Radian allows you to keep your child RF longer & more comfortably which is of course safer. Older RF kids can be taught how to sit frog legged, criss crossed or feet up onto the back of the vehicle seat. Protecting the child's head, neck & spine is #1 and RF does that.
Also, I would think that the Radian's steel alloy frame, reinforced side impact wings and RF tether adds to strength & performance but that is just my guess
I really don't know if there is any documented cases of limbs being crushed because of ERF

firemomof3 said:

I really don't know if there is any documented cases of limbs being crushed because of ERF

Click to expand...

Maybe because there is no place to get that documentation? Realistically, how many RF older kids that are hanging their legs over the side are getting into side impact collisions? We've barely been ERF for any length of time in NA, really the only place you could get data is Sweden. And their accident rate is lower than NA. And their seats offer more leg room in general so might not be as many kids hanging their legs over the side.

Additionally, I don't give a darn about documented cases. Even though child restraints move with the impact, it is still attached to the vehicle seat which impedes it's movement somewhat so I'd rather not have my kids' limbs between the door and the seat.

I like higher sides for intrusion protection and no matter how enforced the Radians small sides are, they can't protect a child from intrusion if there is no side there. And maybe having higher sides just gives an appearance of intrusion protection and really they do nothing. But since there isn't much documentation if any documentation on it, I feel better about the perceived intrusion protection from higher sides that not.

Others can disagree which is fine by me. Don't get me wrong, if the Radian was my only option due to my child's weight, I'd take it over FF a child in a seat with high sides. But I'm speaking *if* I had a choice of RF seats (which I did and I did not choose a Radian for many reasons, the main reasons NOT being the low sides).

Actually, I do worry about it...that's why I have the Radian in the Van and the GN in the sedan with no side curtain airbags

While I do not think there is anything wrong with the lack of depth to the sides in terms of preventing intrusion or whatever(and didn't we do a thread a while back where we fouind the difference between the sides on a ma and a rn were very close, it was just that it looked different?), I do VERY MUCH think there is something to be said on the issue which techno raisee about the fact that the lack of sides allows kids to put their limbs outside the seat. And while, as firemom points out, there might not be any data to back it up, i cringe when I see pics of big kids with their legs hung over the sides of teh radian....you CAN NOT...absolutely CAN NOT convince me that in a crash, there isn't teh chance that that leg is getting crushed, torn or chopped off completely. I don't see at all how it can be safe. i prefer my rearfacers to criss cross their legs inside the shell of teh seat or have bent knees, etc.
No, i have nothing against the radian as a seat. in fact, i would use it tomorrow if it were compatible with my car. BUT..I would never let my kid hang their legs over the sides. I think the harness does plenty to protect in a side impact, and that any potential perceived benefit of a plastic shell is hypothetical at best.

Rearfacing, I don't think it matters. Since most side impacts have a degree of frontal motion, the legs are going to fly up and out of the way whether they are dangled over the sides or not, IMO. And knowing how huge the risk of leg injuries are to FF kids, I think it's a wash (dangling side off the seat versus being FF--though the statistics still don't bear it out, leg injuries are SO rare in US RF kids--, but I also think that we won't have any good stats on older kids for a few more years. Swedish kids dangle their legs out, surely they must in some seats, how many crushed legs to they suffer? I have no idea, but it's where we'd have to look).
For FF, I'd probably want deeper sides in a car with very poor side impact ratings, but don't worry so much in a bigger, newer car with good ratings. When they are in boosters I'm pretty adamant about deep headwings, but not in a harness.
:twocents:

I think that this is a great thread :thumbsup: I agree that the TF & MyRide will give a child more containment for their legs, absolutely. Even the CA might offer a little more but for my kids...they will not ride rf in anything BUT the Radian. My 2.5y/o ds hates the CA because of the lack of leg room and he's 40" now and I have made the parental choice to follow manufacture's recommendations :twocents:
I still like the TF and my ds still would have a little time left in it at he's 32lbs.
I'm not sure if he has any growing room or not in the MyRide...hmmm I may check this afternoon
So, for me the Radian is my only choice but my kids enjoy riding rf in it and thats huge



Here is what your concern is, right?

Pixels said:

Radian side impact crash test video

Click to expand...

That proves my point that I don't want my kids' limbs hanging over the side in ANY seat.

firemom- Thanks for the pictures.

Now for the video-- isn't the frame of the Radian constructed of steel? So would that potentially cause more damage to a child's legs hanging to the side, rather than a seat contructed of plastic?

NannyMae said:

firemom- Thanks for the pictures.

Now for the video-- isn't the frame of the Radian constructed of steel? So would that potentially cause more damage to a child's legs hanging to the side, rather than a seat constructed of plastic?

Click to expand...

Well if you look at it like : the child's leg/s is either going to be wedged between plastic and car (plastic from doors,metal frames,intrusion from other cars) or steel and car. Theoretically a plastic seat would give more and possibly save the leg or it could still destroy the leg and allow more intrusion into the seat and injury to the child. Imo whats six to one is 1/2 a dozen to another and it all falls down to what you feel the best doing.

We own a myride which is now ff and I'm scared. I was never afraid when it was rf, but now every time we get in the car I see ff crash test videos I'm weighing the thoughts and allowing myself time to get okay with this and if not we'll by a rn :twocents:

Personally, it doesn't bother me. Then again my kids sit criss cross and aren't close to the sides of a vehicle like in a car(captains seat and middle bench in minivans)

However, I've always had a very different outlook on crashes. Because I see them every single day. I think some of us get so wrapped up in statistics and crash test data and crash videos and "what ifs" we lose sight of the big picture, and that is real world data. What is "really" happening in the real world. Not what's happening in data with a 25 mph crash causing this much head excursion and this many g's of force, and this size child in this size restraint with this head protection and that harness and this booster and so on and so on. Soon we think so hard our heads start spinning and we lose sight of what is really happening in the real world during collisions.

I've been on many many crashes. Hundreds probably. Everything from rural 65 mph undivided roads, to Milwaukee freeways, to urban freeways with no medians, to city intersections, to rural country roads to subdivisions. More than I can count.

And while I have been on numerous fatal accidents of adults, out of those hundreds of accidents, I've been on 3, yes THREE, fatal accidents involving children. And TWO with serious injury. The fatal accidents were non survivable. Didn't matter if they were in the best seat and everything was 100%. No human could have survived it. The serious injury, one was un restrained, one was a 2 year old in a backless booster.


I've seen a good amount of moderate injuries-cuts, broken bones, concussions, nothing major. A trip to the ER and home. Yes you don't want your child hurt and to that parent it's a major ordreal, but overall, they are minor injuries in the grand scheme of things.

The vast majority of children in crashes I've seen have been unhurt. Very very few have had serious injury or death. In hundreds of accidents. I also worked in a level 2 trauma center ER as a nurse for the past 6 years. I think we admitted maybe 4 children in that time period for injuries after an accident. The rest went home after xrays, CT's, stitches etc.

And I can guarantee, without a doubt, that almost every single child in an accident I've seen has been improperly restrained. Either the seat wasn't tight, wasn't the right size, was in a booster too soon, forward facing too soon, cheap/expired/broken/recalled seats, loose harness, belly clips, everything you can imagine. Yet, even though they were improperly restrained, we still aren't seeing the injuries frequently

Out of all those children I've seen in accidents, overall, very few have been hurt seriously. Yes, a cut here and there, or a broken wrist or something, but for not being properly restrained, not anything even remotely serious seems to be happening. Even in serious collisions which are rare to begin with. Most collissions are not serious(high speed, significant intrustion, T bone, etc). Yes, there are still many but in the grand scheme of how many accidents happen every day in this country, most are not serious. And even in those serious ones, kids aren't dying by the droves. Yes, many many kids die every year from collissions. But in the grand scheme of how many kids overall are involved in accidents every day, it's a low percentage.

I see accidents every day. I'm not seeing kids with internal decapitation, I'm not seeing submarining 3 year olds in boosters with seatbelt syndrome (and no one harnesses past 3 or so here), I'm not seeing legs chopped off in side impacts, I'm not seeing boosters flying around cars hitting and killing people, I'm not seeing kids seriously injured by leaning forward for a cup at the moment of impact. Do they happen? Yes. most definately. Is it common overall? No.

Now, that doesn't mean don't properly restrain your child. As parents we MUST properly restrain our child to give them the best chance of survival. Now, should we analyze every crash test and video and data and think and think about every possible horrible scenerio until our head is a blubbery mess?? No.

Like Jools said, yes it could happen. In the right circumstances maybe it could. But real life data isn't showing that in the big picture. There aren't massive amounts of children with chopped off legs (yes I knwo ERF is new still). There aren't huge amounts of submarining children. There aren't kids whacking their heads on front seat in Marathons. There aren't huge amounts of kids being ejected after their harness rips out. Despite almost no one still ERFing, there aren't huge amounts of children with internal decapitation. In studies and testing, yes it sometimes happens and we get those studies sent to us. But in the real world, a lot of this stuff isn't a huge problem. Despite almost always being improperly restrained, most children in accidents are not suffering catastrophic injury. I see this leg over the edges thing as the same deal. Yes. It could happen. Yes the video shows the crash test. However, in most crashes would it happen? In a side impact that child's legs are not gonna stay in that spot. They are gonna be flying all over and chances are won't be impacted.

I think crashes are a very scary foreign thing to most people. All you hear about are the awful crashes on the news. We only get sent the statistics. We only get sent the crash videos. We only get sent the horrible news stories. We only see the horrible stories online and in the news. You don't really see the every day crashes that happen every day. But when you are one of the ones who sees them every day, it makes it much less scary. That's why I don't freak out about parents turning forward facing at 34 pounds and not buying a new seat. Or sitting there worrying about their 39.5pound child going into a booster and waffling back and forth between seats. Or spending time sticking a pen in a harness slot and worrying about if it's "at" or "a smidge above". Or taking off shoes and clothes to make sure you don't go past 34.95 lbs. Or worry if the lapbelt on the booster is 1/4 cm too high. Or stressing over which child to put in which position. I rarely sit and stress over things like that. Because to me, real world data in all sorts of accidents, is not showing the catastrophic injuries. These injuries are the exception, not the rule. And our kids ARE properly restrained, meaning their chance of overall severe injury is slim to begin with.

For example-yesterday we had 5 accidents (first nice day in a long time makes for stupid drivers) and 2 already today.

Yesterday-

Drunk lady drives 40 mph straight towards the firehouse and turns at the last second striking a tree. No injury. Taken to the ER for an eval.

Semi driver also drunk carrying 9000 pounds of lead rolls over on a highway. He is trapped. Has a laceration to his leg. He was not restrained. Taken to the ER for stitches.

Car is T boned by a car going straight because they tried to cut across without enough room. Hit at about 25 mph. 8" of intrusion. Two 16 year olds inside were not injured and signed AMA (with parents approval). 75 year old in the other car was not injured

Motorcycle vs car. Motorcycle driver signed AMA. Driver in the car was not injured.

Child with no helmet hit by a car at a low rate of speed. Had scratches. Signed AMA

Today-
Car rear ended by a car going about 20 mph. Car that was hit had an infant in a bucket and a 4 year old in a booster (high back). Infant was not properly restrained. 4 year old looked to be large enough. Neither was injured. Mom said she had a sore neck and went to the ER to be evaluated. Other driver complained of shoulder pain and signed.

Another T bone car was travelling about 45 mph when it struck the car that cut across-we have a LOT here!. Car that was struck had a possible broken wrist on the side that was hit. Other driver had lacerations on her face from the airbag and some bruising from the seatbelt. Both went in. Both will be out by night fall.

So, those were real life crashes. Some were more severe than others. No one was seriously hurt. And we repeat this day after day.

So for me, since I see this everyday, it puts things more into perspective and gives me a reality check. These children are not dying or being mutilated by the droves. Most children don't sustain injuries or sustain minor to moderate injuries. Even when completley improperly restrained.

So try to keep that in mind. Yes, all these scenerios *could* happen and you want to protect your kids the best you can. But the chances of that type of accident happening are slim to begin with, the chance that your child's legs will be in that exact position at that time is even slimmer, and the chances of that particular injury is even slimmer still. Sometimes crash test data and testing just doesn't line up with real world crashes. No one knows why. And add in the fact that you child is more properly restrained than 90% of her peers and you fare even better

Don't drive yourself crazy with *what ifs* Kids, even improperly restrained children, do well in most accidents.

TechnoGranola said:

Maybe because there is no place to get that documentation? Realistically, how many RF older kids that are hanging their legs over the side are getting into side impact collisions? We've barely been ERF for any length of time in NA, really the only place you could get data is Sweden. And their accident rate is lower than NA. And their seats offer more leg room in general so might not be as many kids hanging their legs over the side.

Additionally, I don't give a darn about documented cases. Even though child restraints move with the impact, it is still attached to the vehicle seat which impedes it's movement somewhat so I'd rather not have my kids' limbs between the door and the seat.

I like higher sides for intrusion protection and no matter how enforced the Radians small sides are, they can't protect a child from intrusion if there is no side there. And maybe having higher sides just gives an appearance of intrusion protection and really they do nothing. But since there isn't much documentation if any documentation on it, I feel better about the perceived intrusion protection from higher sides that not.

Click to expand...

This, exactly. I decided against a Radian for a number of reasons, mainly that DD's head was nearing the top already anyway, but I personally don't like the lack of substantial side depth. I wouldn't be as concerned about it in my new van with side airbags, but outboard in DH's 2003 Civic... I'm just not not comfortable with it, RF or FF. I know, I know, RF is safer than FF no matter what, and I did make the parental choice to turn my 3.5 year old FF when she outgrew her True Fit RF (though she's since lost weight and could RF again, she remains FF in her Frontier 85 and Signo). There were a variety of reasons, like I said, that I just never felt the Radian love (and the MR was outgrown by height and the CA didn't work out either, so FF she went).

Who knows... maybe the deeper sides really don't make much difference in side impact and/or protrusion protection. However, in my mind, it makes sense that it would provide increased protection, so I've made the choice to use seats with substantial head wings and/or deeper sides.

We all have to do what we feel is safest for our kiddos, and that means following our gut instincts... but what seems great for one family might not work for another.

My 13month-old hangs his legs over ... in the Radian, Coccoro, Marathon, MyRide. Of course right now in the Coccoro and MyRide his legs aren't totally out but in a few months to a year they will be. As soon as he gets in he gets his legs up and out and falls asleep. Of course as he gets older I can try and get him to sit criss cross like DD does.

I would love to get a True Fit for the deep sides but last I had one I hated the fit on him because the harness was on the edge of his shoulders.

I would love to find info on this because I am sure there are kids in Sweden who sit like this.

firemomof3 said:

I

]

Click to expand...

WOW.. What a difference in rearfacing room in your vehicle versus mine.
Okay, now i understand why i see people saying they don't have much Rfing legroom in a CA.
The shape of the seat in my car, the angle at which my CA is installed, and...uh..i don't know.....something about the space-time continuum where I live (lol) must be drastically different, because our CA/AOE gives a BUTTLOAD of RF legroom. Granted, he isn't big, but you can see in my sig pic, my ds's legs don't even reach the seatback yet!!! And my 5.5 yo, 45 lb 43 inch tall dd (who can not use the seat RFing of course) FITS in it, with more legroom than your kids there.

Okay, random hijack over.

I agree with Techno on this.. the radian or any seat with very low sides makes me nervous. Maybe it doesn't make a difference, but to it me it does.

fyrfightermomma said:

Personally, it doesn't bother me. Then again my kids sit criss cross and aren't close to the sides of a vehicle like in a car(captains seat and middle bench in minivans)

....SNIP....

Don't drive yourself crazy with *what ifs* Kids, even improperly restrained children, do well in most accidents.

Click to expand...

Thank you so much for posting this. I find myself obsessing and second guessing my decisions regarding my DD's car seat often, especially after hanging out on these forums. You really gave me perspective and let me feel some peace about having my 3yr 2 month old 39lb 38in DD forward facing in a GN/EFTA instead of buying her a Radian to ERF. Thank you.

fyrfightermomma said:

The vast majority of children in crashes I've seen have been unhurt. Very very few have had serious injury or death. In hundreds of accidents. I also worked in a level 2 trauma center ER as a nurse for the past 6 years. I think we admitted maybe 4 children in that time period for injuries after an accident. The rest went home after xrays, CT's, stitches etc.

And I can guarantee, without a doubt, that almost every single child in an accident I've seen has been improperly restrained. Either the seat wasn't tight, wasn't the right size, was in a booster too soon, forward facing too soon, cheap/expired/broken/recalled seats, loose harness, belly clips, everything you can imagine. Yet, even though they were improperly restrained, we still aren't seeing the injuries frequently.....


So try to keep that in mind. Yes, all these scenerios *could* happen and you want to protect your kids the best you can. But the chances of that type of accident happening are slim to begin with, the chance that your child's legs will be in that exact position at that time is even slimmer, and the chances of that particular injury is even slimmer still. Sometimes crash test data and testing just doesn't line up with real world crashes. No one knows why. And add in the fact that you child is more properly restrained than 90% of her peers and you fare even better

Don't drive yourself crazy with *what ifs* Kids, even improperly restrained children, do well in most accidents.

Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
Thanks for the awesome real-life perspective. Of course we can still harbor our own preferences (seats we will or won't use, for no other reason than our gut feelings), but I know this helps me get a bigger picture and eases my nerves a little.

The lack of sides didn't bother me when Elizabeth was in the middle but I now had to move her to the outboard and will be glad when my XT gets here.