Weird wording in Radian Manual about RF limit

marciemp

New member

• Jul 27, 2010

• #1

While I was shopping around for a new seat for almost 8 month old I was flipping through the radian xt manual and near the front of it, in the warnings part, I thought it said something like "Use only in Rear facing position with an infant weighing less than 22 pounds (10kg)"

Did I read this wrong? What is with the do not use RF over 22 pounds, what is that supposed to mean?

Yes I just found the manual online and that is what it says: page 4 http://www.skjp.com/product/97556/195XX/_/RadianXT®#

The link to the manual is at the bottom on the right.

 

ketchupqueen

CPST and ketchup snob

Staff member

• Jul 27, 2010

• #2

That's standard wording, though it's confusing. That means that when a child is under 22 lbs. you may ONLY use it rear-facing. You may not use it forward-facing under 22 lbs. That does not mean you can not use it rear-facing beyond that.

It's a word order thing. If they wanted to forbid use over 22 lbs. rear-facing they would say "Use in rear-facing position only with child weighing under 22 lbs." See how switching that word order makes a difference? In that case, it would be saying "only for children under 22 lbs. may it be rear-facing." In this case, it's saying "for children under 22 lbs., it may only be used rear-facing."

 

marciemp

New member

• Jul 27, 2010

• #3

OK I get it but that is really confusing as it sounds like you can use it only in a RF position with a baby under 22 pounds, and then you shouldn't use it RF anymore, but then 2 lines down it says it can be RF to 45 pounds. The problem is that scanning through the manual at the store it sounds like do not use RF after that point. There really should be better wording, like an infant under 22 pounds must ride RFing, much clearer. When I pointed it out at the store she said, well they can be FF after 1 and 22 pounds anyway.

 

Qarin

New member

• Jul 27, 2010

• #4

ketchupqueen said:

If they wanted to forbid use over 22 lbs. rear-facing they would say "Use in rear-facing position only with child weighing under 22 lbs." See how switching that word order makes a difference?

Click to expand...

Nope. Your wording can be read both ways too.

The wording is required by the FMVSS- every convertible seat has it.

 

ketchupqueen

CPST and ketchup snob

Staff member

• Jul 27, 2010

• #5

Well, I know, but I think it leans more one way than the other that way.

The wording is pretty ambiguous, but it is required. That exact wording, at least in the US. Though the poster put this in the Canadian forum so I'm betting FMVSS 213 doesn't apply.

 

marciemp

New member

• Jul 27, 2010

• #6

Do the people who write the laws not actually read them afterwards!? There really are better ways at describing that an infant should always be rear facing! Like always keep an infant under 22 pounds rear-facing, or infants under 22 pounds must ride rear facing. Or "for infants less than 22 pounds, always use rear facing..." I don't know!

 

Qarin

New member

• Jul 27, 2010

• #7

ketchupqueen said:

The wording is pretty ambiguous, but it is required. That exact wording, at least in the US. Though the poster put this in the Canadian forum so I'm betting FMVSS 213 doesn't apply.

Click to expand...

:doh:

The link posted was for the US version, though. And if they have that wording on the Canadian ones, I'm betting FMVSS 213 (S5.5.2(k)(2)) is, in fact, the reason for it.

 

marciemp

New member

• Jul 27, 2010

• #8

No the link is for the Canadian version, look at the bottom right, you have the choice of English or French in the manual and i went from the Canadian section of the Sunshine Kids website.

 

Qarin

New member

• Jul 27, 2010

• #9

Oh, ha, probably not if you're coming from a US IP address, as I am!

 

marciemp

New member

• Jul 27, 2010

• #10

lol funny, these computers are WAAYYY to smart!

 

Qarin

New member

• Jul 27, 2010

• #11

OK, well, I found my way to a Canadian manual and it's sort of interesting to compare that page between CA and US. They clearly made a decision to use the same approximate wording (the number is 20lbs (9.1kg) on the US version) on the CA version as the US version. Perhaps canada ganked hunks of FMVSS213 and it's required wording in Canada, too. What's it say in French?

 

ketchupqueen

CPST and ketchup snob

Staff member

• Jul 27, 2010

• #12

Or it could well be that it was just easier to change the number rather than all of the wording.

In any case, I completely agree that it's a stupid and confusing way to word it!

 

marciemp

New member

• Jul 27, 2010

• #13

French: utiliser seulement en position fece vers l'arriere avec tout enfant pesant moins de 10kg
direct translation: to use only in position deposits towards the arrear with any child weighing less 10kg

so basically: use only in rear facing position with any child weighing less that 10kg/22lbs

Which makes much more sense to me, except when I read the french myself and put in the words I know without using a translator I see: use only with a position facing the rear with an infant less than 10kg/22lbs, which I guess could mean either as well.

 

E

equilibrium

New member

• Jul 31, 2010

• #14

This is so coincidental that I was reading our Radian manual again last night and saw the same line and I had to reread it. It took a few mins then understood they mean if child under 22 lbs, cannot be FF...yes, they need to reword it, or something for sure.

 

ketchupqueen

CPST and ketchup snob

Staff member

• Jul 31, 2010

• #15

As mentioned, all seats in the US have this language, this exact language is required by law. So probably many Canadian seats have it too, though I don't know what the law says on the subject there.

 

Kat_Shoshin

New member

• Aug 1, 2010

• #16

I had a HUGE fight with my cousin over this wording, or something like it, for her 3-in-1. Eventually she was convinced she could put her 1 year old rear facing.