Mythbusters question idea...

vermontmoms

New member
Ok, so we are addicted to mythbusters in our house...My twins love the show. Recently they crashed two cars multiple times which got me thinking.

I think all of us should write into mythbusters and ask them to test the 5pt harness vs. the booster theory of a 40lb, 60lb, 80lb child to see if the forces are greater on the head, neck, & torso. I would like them to take this on so we can see the impact while the testing occurs and their detailed measurements.

What are your thoughts? We should agree on a question and all write in similar questions. It would have to be in a true/false format...

So should we do it?
 
ADS

mommyfrog

Active member
That would be so cool. How about "True or False, children are safer riding in a high weight harnessed car seat instead of a high back booster past 40 pounds?"

We don't have cable anymore because we watched entirely too much tv, if they do it we could always watch it online.
 

carseatcoach

Carseat Crankypants
The problem is that they're not going to be able to account for good booster behavior, or age, which are, IMO, crucial factors in the "booster or harness" equation. A 42# 2yo is different in many ways from a 37# 7yo.
 

Maedze

New member
The problem is that they're not going to be able to account for good booster behavior, or age, which are, IMO, crucial factors in the "booster or harness" equation. A 42# 2yo is different in many ways from a 37# 7yo.

Yeah. I love Mythbusters, but I don't want to see them try this one. At least, not without an advisory panel from c-s.org. LOL.
 

An Aurora

Senior Community Member
The problem is that they're not going to be able to account for good booster behavior, or age, which are, IMO, crucial factors in the "booster or harness" equation. A 42# 2yo is different in many ways from a 37# 7yo.

They could totally program a robotic Buster Jr to spaz out and move around instead of sitting totally still ;)
 

BeckC

Well-known member
Yeah. I love Mythbusters, but I don't want to see them try this one. At least, not without an advisory panel from c-s.org. LOL.

I agree. They simply don't know what they're doing. Engineers are typically the worst when it comes to installing carseats. I wouldn't be surprised if I saw a bungee cord or two.

However, I would pay to be on that advisory panel. Tory :love:
 

mommycat

Well-known member
That would be so cool. How about "True or False, children are safer riding in a high weight harnessed car seat instead of a high back booster past 40 pounds?"
For me, it would have to be, "True or False, older children are safer riding in a high weight harnessed car seat instead of a high back booster?" peppered with liberal disclaimers about proper positioning and maturity, etc etc. But I am also not entirely convinced I would want to see them do it, because goodness only knows what the show would really end up like and then we might have yet another popular pseudo-study to contend with.
 

skydancer

New member
What about ERF vs. early FF?
ie
T or F
Myth: It's just as safe for a child to ride FF, as long as they have met the manufacturers min limit for FF.
or
Myth: Keeping a child RF beyond 20 lbs and 1 year has no additional benefit.

or, on the harnessed vs. booster idea...

Myth: Once a child meets the minimum requirements for a booster, there is no additional benefit to keeping them in a harnessed seat vs. a booster.


I agree though, that if it's not done with proper advisory oversight. The last thing we need is for more incorrect info to be out there.
 

steph_s

New member
I think it would be awesome if they just did a true or false rf vs ff just so the word spreads about it! More people would get the message that's for sure!

I totally agree that they could make a dummy sort of spaz out, but would it get the ratings they truly need for the show to make it worthwhile for them to film it? The show is geared more towards guys and a lot of people think car seats= mom's. Perhaps if you could email that one girl who just had a baby (my mind is going blank on her name) and get her on board??
 

Maedze

New member
Honestly, I really don't think putting the idea in their heads is a good one :eek:

This is something that should be done in a scientific manner, in a legitimate testing facility. Mythbusters is fun for meaningless myths, but it's not a good place to test child restraint fact or fiction. The possibility for frankly bad information getting out is way too high.
 

monstah

New member
Honestly, I really don't think putting the idea in their heads is a good one :eek:

This is something that should be done in a scientific manner, in a legitimate testing facility. Mythbusters is fun for meaningless myths, but it's not a good place to test child restraint fact or fiction. The possibility for frankly bad information getting out is way too high.

I couldn't agree more. The risk of the average person installing the car seats wrong are what, like 96%?

I envision them putting an 18 month old dummy FF and a 6 month old dummy FF, concluding that the injuries are almost identical, so go ahead and FF at 6 months old. Or some other horrifying similar conclusion.
 

carseatcoach

Carseat Crankypants
Agree with Maedze and 2mykids. Interesting idea, but I could very easily see it doing more harm than good. (Especially if they conclude, as I speculate they would, that 40# test dummies are safe, or at least "safe enough", in boosters. There are a LOT of children who have hit 40# on the scale but are nowhere near booster-ready.)
 

Pingbns

New member
What about a 5 point haness for s race car driver vs. regualr seat belt on the dummy it could be like which is most protected,why racecar driver's need a 5 pt. harness etc. kind of simular in the 5 pt. vs. harness debate.
 

carseatcoach

Carseat Crankypants
Because race car drivers' harnesses are actually 6-point harnesses, tethered at the head, and therefore substantially different than a carseat harness.
 

jessi f

New member
I think I remember them doing an episode on whether adults are safer RF or FF on an airplane. It was a long time ago and I dont recall how it turned out :confused: Does anyone else remember it?
 

lil.miss32

New member
I think I remember them doing an episode on whether adults are safer RF or FF on an airplane. It was a long time ago and I dont recall how it turned out :confused: Does anyone else remember it?
Episode 33: Killer Brace Position and Cellphones vs Drunk Driving

* The brace position on airlines increases chance of death: mythbusted
* Talking on a cellphone while driving is as dangerous as drunk driving: confirmed

Killer Brace Position

Myth: The reason that airlines tell you to get into the brace position is because it increases your chance of dying -- it is cheaper to pay out for death than injury.

120 people are killed and 350 are seriously injured in commercial airline crashes.

According to the MythBuster research department, it is cheaper to pay out wrongful death settlements ($3M-5M) than to pay for injuries ($8M-50M over the course of the victim's lifetime).

Tested with three seat configurations: * Economy seats * First class seats * Rear-facing flight attendant seat

They interviewed Richard Deweese at the FAA/Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. He showed off a test sled that they use for crash simulation that gets to 14Gs in 80ms, and they showed video of the dummies being flung forward.

Test setup: * Drop the seat rig from a crane * 15 ft off the ground * 30-40Gs of impact * 35 ft/s at impact (replicates speed as FAA setup) * Used Buster and some extra 'simulaid' dummies. The simulaid dummies are the correct weight, but not distributed like a human body, so not quite as sophisticated as Buster.

Grant rigged up a new neck for Buster, as Buster's regular neck does not bend backwards. The new neck contains a potentiometer that measures the neck's angle.
Economy seats

* No brace position: seats were completely trashed, hit at 41 ft/s. The frame took 21Gs. Buster's body took less than 50Gs of impact, and his head took 56.4Gs. Neither were deadly injuries -- it takes 100Gs to the head to sustain major trauma. There was one major injury: Buster's leg came off (broken femur).
* Brace position: 35Gs to Buster's head -- 20Gs less than the unbraced position -- and there was less neck deflection. Buster's leg broke off again.

Only 20% die on impact in a plane crash. 80% of people survive, but the rest die from smoke inhalation and fire damage, so the broken leg injuries are significant.
First class seats

They only tested with the brace position with the first class seats. This was one of the more satisfying drops, as Buster's leg went flying (broke both the femur and tib-fib) and a seat phone went flying as well. Still less than 50Gs to the body. 43Gs to Buster's head. Almost no neck deflection.
Back-facing flight attendant seat

They didn't test with the brace position with the back-facing flight attendant seat. Buster's neck hardly moved, but there was 87.4Gs of impact to the head, and the 50G meters tripped on Buster's body.

Dr. Strap crash survival research program. Humans can take more Gs in the backwards position, topping out at 85Gs. However, the main problem with backwards facing seat is that debris from the impact will fly towards your face after impact.
With Real MythBusters

Kari, Adam, and Tory were dropped in the economy seats. For obvious safety purposes (visions of Buster's legs flying off), they were dropped from 5 ft instead of 15.

Kari: "I promosed my mom I wouldn't do anything dumb and unsafe again." "I would like to say I'm sorry to you mom and dad. I dunno. I'm a little stupid."

Tory: "I'd go higher."

None of them were serious injured, but they were definitely banged up.
Overall

Brace position was safer than sitting upright. As for the seats, the flight attendant seat safest, followed by first class, then economy.

According to the FAA guy, using the brace position is 3 times safer than sitting upright.


I'm not finding a video for it... But basically, it showed that the RFing position was safest in a crash.
 

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Forum statistics

Threads
219,657
Messages
2,196,902
Members
13,531
Latest member
jillianrose109

You must read your carseat and vehicle owner’s manual and understand any relevant state laws. These are the rules you must follow to restrain your children safely. All opinions at Car-Seat.Org are those of the individual author for informational purposes only, and do not necessarily reflect any policy or position of Carseat Media LLC. Car-Seat.Org makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. If you are unsure about information provided to you, please visit a local certified technician. Before posting or using our website you must read and agree to our TERMS.

Graco is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Britax is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Nuna Baby is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org!

Please  Support Car-Seat.Org  with your purchases of infant, convertible, combination and boosters seats from our premier sponsors above.
Shop travel systems, strollers and baby gear from Britax, Chicco, Clek, Combi, Evenflo, First Years, Graco, Maxi-Cosi, Nuna, Safety 1st, Diono & more! ©2001-2022 Carseat Media LLC

Top