NewEngland
New member
Does anyone know any ACTUAL studies comparing the safety of, say, a 5-7 year old in a booster vs. a carseat? If so, where and when was it published?
Google turns up nothing but recommendations: better than 90:10 in favor of extended harnessing. Elsevier (my favorite search engine for serious research) found nothing this morning either. I'm looking for actual, peer-reviewed research. Preferably dealing with probability of injury or death. Please don't link me videos; I just consider them propaganda. Sorry, too many years of engineering research to be swayed by them
I know there is some information (that I can't find) regarding forces on the neck, but I don't know how or whether that can translate directly into an increased probability of injury or death, or whether that's just speculation. For example, maybe a 5 pt harness puts more strain on the neck but a regular seatbelt puts more strain on the lower back. I have no idea, and I'm not yet convinced anyone else does either. Not knowing is fine too; however, at some point someone is going to ask me about this. Because, as family members and friends keep telling me, I choose to research everything. When they ask, I'd like to be armed with the correct information as well as the proper disclaimers
I'm asking because I keep reading that there's no safety reason to harness beyond the point where a child can sit safely in a booster. If that is true, AND there is also no research to indicate that it is safer to booster a child that is still in a harness, then we are left with what I would term a "decision making under uncertainty" problem. In my line of work, that involves some speculation and a lot of disclaimers and limitations. In these situations, we generally go with the existing solution (5 pt. harness) unless there is reason to change--as in, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Which leads to the development of a list of reasons to change: child asking for change, child outgrowing harness, requirement for school, parental preference, etc. In the absense of a reason, why booster as a default, particularly if it means purchasing a new seat? When folks ask me "should I get a booster?" with a total absense of other information, I'd like to know why I should say "A booster is a perfectly safe choice for your 6 year old, but what you're doing now is also fine" instead of "A harnessed seat is a perfectly safe choice for your 6 year old, but a booster is also fine." I see the former a lot, but not the latter (I'm also assuming that the kid will be fine in both situations).
Google turns up nothing but recommendations: better than 90:10 in favor of extended harnessing. Elsevier (my favorite search engine for serious research) found nothing this morning either. I'm looking for actual, peer-reviewed research. Preferably dealing with probability of injury or death. Please don't link me videos; I just consider them propaganda. Sorry, too many years of engineering research to be swayed by them
I know there is some information (that I can't find) regarding forces on the neck, but I don't know how or whether that can translate directly into an increased probability of injury or death, or whether that's just speculation. For example, maybe a 5 pt harness puts more strain on the neck but a regular seatbelt puts more strain on the lower back. I have no idea, and I'm not yet convinced anyone else does either. Not knowing is fine too; however, at some point someone is going to ask me about this. Because, as family members and friends keep telling me, I choose to research everything. When they ask, I'd like to be armed with the correct information as well as the proper disclaimers
I'm asking because I keep reading that there's no safety reason to harness beyond the point where a child can sit safely in a booster. If that is true, AND there is also no research to indicate that it is safer to booster a child that is still in a harness, then we are left with what I would term a "decision making under uncertainty" problem. In my line of work, that involves some speculation and a lot of disclaimers and limitations. In these situations, we generally go with the existing solution (5 pt. harness) unless there is reason to change--as in, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Which leads to the development of a list of reasons to change: child asking for change, child outgrowing harness, requirement for school, parental preference, etc. In the absense of a reason, why booster as a default, particularly if it means purchasing a new seat? When folks ask me "should I get a booster?" with a total absense of other information, I'd like to know why I should say "A booster is a perfectly safe choice for your 6 year old, but what you're doing now is also fine" instead of "A harnessed seat is a perfectly safe choice for your 6 year old, but a booster is also fine." I see the former a lot, but not the latter (I'm also assuming that the kid will be fine in both situations).