The Radian is taller than the MT. I mean RF tethering to the same seat the carseat is installed on.
as shown here with the MT
Lena
-
Welcome! CLICK HERE to ask a question about the best carseat or safest choice for your family. Visitor posts subject to approval.
Question MT users-does this look right?
- Thread starter LuvMyCharlie
- Start date
The Radian is taller than the MT. I mean RF tethering to the same seat the carseat is installed on.
as shown here with the MT
Lena
ADS | |
Adventuredad
New member
- As I mentioned there is lots of testing done by manufacturers which is never published. I can just tell you it's been tested thoroughly and no negative effect on safety has been found. We have been doing it over here since 1965 and not negative effects on safety has been found. It's considered safer to install a seat this way.
I'm not really a random guy who just popped into the forum and said some weird things. I have a track record, work with car seat safety and also have the privilege of working closely with the elite in the world in this area.
As mentioned previously, if someone doesn't feel comfortable with leaning against front seat then perhaps it's not a good idea.
- Height of seat shell is at best a rough guide of how long a seat can be used. There are seats with shorter seat shells which can be used longer than those with taller seat shells. One example would be Britax Two-Way vs. Britax Multi Tech. Seat shell of Radian is taller than Multi Tech but Multi Tech can be used longer. Two-Way can be used far longer despite having a shorter seat shell than Radian.
- Swedish seats are used used until tip of ears are at top of seat shell. That means about one third of the head is above seat shell before it's time to switch seat. This adds lots of extra rear facing time.
Pixels
New member
You still haven't provided any sources or references to support your claim that it's perfectly safe to brace the carseat against the vehicle seat. I refer to the LATCH manual and to the vehicle owner's manuals, which in some cases indicate that bracing is dangerous. There are some cases where bracing is perfectly fine. I have such a combination of vehicle and carseat, and the seat is braced.
Admin
Admin - Webmaster
If it is not included in the owner's manuals, then it is hearsay as far as instructions go. Lots of testing is done in a proprietary manner and it is of little use to anyone unless the results are peer-reviewed and published.
You can be a leading expert in crash test safety, but if the results of your work and experience are not published in scientific/medical journals, public policy or put into owner's manuals and instructions, than your comments are really no different than mine or any other advocate here. Great stuff for interesting debates, but also potentially harmful if it is contrary to printed instructions or a consensus of best practice policy.
There has been a lot of study on the topic of bracing and RF height limits in the USA, too. In my conversations with elite researchers at conferences and via email correspondence, the conclusions vary. Some consider bracing as a good way to restrict downward and forward motion. Others say that in a real crash or in a crash test with two seats, the seat in front moves similarly and provides little beneficial bracing effect. The same is true for height limits. For example, Britax used to allow the "tip of the ears" limit for rear facing. The reason was that even the potential risks of head injury or spine injury from extension beyond the shell were thought to be smaller than the risks of forward facing. Others disagreed and felt that combined with the misuse rates seen in the USA, the risks could be substantial. With the single seat bench used for government certification in the USA, none of these risks could be demonstrated in federally required compliance. I don't exactly know why Britax changed their recommendation, but I suspect that at least in part, consistency of message was a factor.
The issue of front seat airbags is a very important one when it comes to bracing, too. There is a very real risk to a front seat occupant if the airbag is incorrectly enabled or disabled, or fooled to use a deployment force that is not appropriate for the occupant.
In short, I don't see bracing as an issue, provided it is not prohibited by the carseat or vehicle owner's manuals. My opinion is that because rear-facing is inherently quite safe, that any difference provided by bracing (unless prohibited) is likely to be relatively small when installed in this way in the back seat. Bracing against the dash in the front seat may be different, and at least in the USA, has a host of other concerns related to airbags, instruction manuals and best practice policy. I used to brace seats when it was convenient and not otherwise prohibited by the manual. In newer cars, I generally allow some space. I'm also not convinced about allowing the head to exceed the shell rear-facing. A great part of the benefit of rear-facing is that the head remains well contained within the protective shell in frontal and side impacts. I can see a lot of that negated when the head extends beyond the shell, especially if combined with misuse. Perhaps it is still safer than forward facing, but without published data, it's all speculation.
Admin
Admin - Webmaster
snowbird25ca
Moderator - CPST Instructor
(bolding mine)
If the car seat manufacturer is saying not to do it, it is a reasonable thing to believe that they are telling you not to do it due to safety concerns. It doesn't matter if we have more info than that or not - when the carseat manufacturer doesn't allow it, that's end of story. Especially when you're talking about an optional feature on US and Canadian seats...
Adventuredad
New member
I have already mentioned that lots of testing has been done by manufacturers in US and Sweden and no negative effect on safety has been found. This kind of testing is confidential and obviously not published. Therefore nothing can be published. This is also why I have not given any further details of the testing, manufacturers, etc.
There would be no upside to say bracing is safe if this was not the case. If someone doesn't want to brace against front seat then it's a good idea not to do so.
Placing a seat half an inch from front seat means it will hit the front seat in a frontal collision. It's preferable to have contact between the two from the start. Bracing against dashboard, always with deactivated airbag, would have larger benefit than against front seat. The car seat would then stay still and the chassi of the vehicle would absorb the large crash forces.
Using a support leg, like with the Swedish seats, means free standing installation is allowed. Also bracing the seat adds to overall safety although the diference is not large. In the larger perspective, like when comparing between FF and RF, the added safety of bracing would be insignificant.
Britax Two-Way is installed bracing against front seat. Other Britax manuals say a small space between car seat and front seat should be used. This will shortly be changed.
We have been bracing car seats agains front seat/dashboard since 1965 and not found any negative effects. Not in real life and not through research. That does IMHO say a lot.
newyorkDOC
New member
I live in italy, have a TWE, and drive a European 2010 prius with advanced airbags. Obviously my britax manual says to brace and my car manual specifies that you can brace as long as it doesn't interfere with a proper install of the car seat.
Interestingly, the prius manual in the US says not to brace. I don't know why it's different but I'm sure britax would have prohibited bracing in Europe if it were dangerous.
Interestingly, the prius manual in the US says not to brace. I don't know why it's different but I'm sure britax would have prohibited bracing in Europe if it were dangerous.
Admin
Admin - Webmaster
That's the problem with top secret testing. It doesn't benefit the community. Imagine if all this wealth of information had been published and peer reviewed in a respected journal. If it is as comprehensive and accurate as you suggest, then the rest of the world could benefit by having the results. Then, we wouldn't be here in a theoretical debate, because all the manufacturers would have concrete proof that bracing is beneficial and it would not be prohibited in any owner's manual.
The differences from country to country are not hard to explain. Vehicle fleets vary. Driver education and demographics vary. Federal standards on cars vary. Federal standards on child seats vary. Best practice recommendations vary. Even if the concept is proven to be beneficial in terms of the physics behind it, there could still be a variety of reasons it may not be permitted. Differences in airbag systems and recommendations being a key reason.
That is a good question. There are various generations of advanced airbag systems. The type in question is the one that deploys the frontal and/or side airbags with varying force (or not at all) depending on the type of passenger detected in the front seat. This detection is done by sensors in the seat itself that can detect occupant size, seat position and seat belt use. If any of these sensors are fooled, the results could be dangerous to the front seat occupant. These systems were required by 2006 in the USA. If they are not required in other countries, it would be relatively easy to omit the necessary electronics to save money in those markets.
mommycat
Well-known member
:yeahthat: And all the historical data of bracing since 1965 does not address this question since these are newer airbag systems, and also the same ones may not be in use outside of US/CA. I would go with tha manufacturer recommendations on this one. I would love to see seat options like the MT legally available here. Very cool seats.
The USA is one of the worst markets, because you could face a million dollar lawsuit if you fart in public and curled a nostril hair in someone´s nose by it. A bit blunt I know, but I´m sure you know eactly what I mean
I know a few people in the business just like AD. It really IS true that not everything can be published nomatter where you would like to publish it - including this forum. It´s annoying. But that´s the way it is.
The only thing that can tell what is safe and what isn´t is not statements. It is research papers.
Lena
snowbird25ca
Moderator - CPST Instructor
The USA is one of the worst markets, because you could face a million dollar lawsuit if you fart in public and curled a nostril hair in someone´s nose by it. A bit blunt I know, but I´m sure you know eactly what I mean
I know a few people in the business just like AD. It really IS true that not everything can be published nomatter where you would like to publish it - including this forum. It´s annoying. But that´s the way it is.
The only thing that can tell what is safe and what isn´t is not statements. It is research papers.
Lena
This honestly makes absolutely no sense to me. Research papers are useful, but if you're going to tell me that a research paper should trump a vehicle manufacturer's instructions which are specific to their vehicle, then it's a ridiculous assertion.
I would assume that vehicle manufacturers do their own research. I don't care how connected a person is, they are not connected to every company. They do not know the internal testing of company B if they're involved in company A.
It doesn't matter if company A has done a whole lot of testing with their vehicles and seat combos and found it to be perfectly safe. If company B is telling you to not do it - DON'T DO IT! Period. End of story. Exclamation mark intended.
Sorry to be blunt myself, but parents don't have access to research, techs don't have access to research, and while the US may be quite sue happy in some areas, to write every warning off for that reason isn't right either.
If a company feels strongly enough about their research that they think it should apply with every vehicle out there, then they need to pull their heads out of the "confidential" mud hole and publicize it in a journal or something. Because research is meaningless until it is peer reviewed and proven to be sound. Just my honest 2 cents from someone who is fed up with secret research being used as justification for something. Unless and until it becomes public knowledge, it doesn't exist and it is not something that parents can be advised on. Do what you want with your own kids, but you can't pass it on to somebody else as fact - if it's confidential, then it doesn't exist to the rest of the world and the rest of the world has to follow the warnings in their vehicle manuals and child restraint manuals.
Word of mouth is nothing more than hearsay - not something I would use to protect my child in a collision. I don't care if it's accurate or not because someone has access to confidential information - It could be entirely accurate. But it cannot be acted on until it's public. Plain and simple. I think confidentiality on research that has already been completed - at least when it comes to vehicle and child seat safety and performance and general things that influence safety, is nothing more than a cop out for not wanting to have your research peer reviewed and subject to scrutiny.
(Sorry to quote you Lena, this isn't all directed at you. It is directed at the notion of all this top secret research that is ok to use to give advice but has never seen the light of day outside of whatever companies are supposedly doing it.)
Admin
Admin - Webmaster
The USA is one of the worst markets, because you could face a million dollar lawsuit if you fart in public and curled a nostril hair in someone´s nose by it. A bit blunt I know, but I´m sure you know eactly what I mean
Litigation is an issue, though to be fair, in general, allowing something dangerous is more likely to result in a successful lawsuit than allowing something safe.
Of course every manufacturer and research institution has unpublished work. Unfortunately, being unpublished makes it hearsay. Even with published and peer reviewed articles, the data is often not as comprehensive as you might like. The good thing is that all the methodology is right there so that it can be debated, right or wrong. With unpublished results, there is absolutely no telling what errors may have been made with the testing or data or interpretation. There's also inherently no basis to determine fundamental things like who funded the study or to even assure the study's authenticity. Again, great for speculation and discussion, but essentially worthless in regard to instructing parents on how to keep their kids safe. For example, if some stranger on the internet said they were privy to a secret study saying that it's a good thing to give your child some elective medication or supplement, would you take it at face value even if the directions on the supplement said that it is not for use in children? I know some people do this sort of thing daily, but that doesn't make it a wise choice.
I think that ultimately, if there is enough compelling, published research, it does trickle down into manufacturers instructions and best practice policy. For example, hopefully we will see the 2-year old age recommendation for rear-facing trickle down not only into infant and convertible seats, but also into combination seat instructions as a minimum requirement (like Britax did with the Frontier a few years ago).
Really, some of this is quite silly. We're not talking trade secrets that could cost a company millions or billions of dollars. Relatively speaking, to brace or not to brace a RF seat is not going to revolutionize an industry or even create a small stir. We're talking public safety. If the data exists and it is statistically significant and relevant, there's really no reason it should be kept proprietary or secret in the first place. The main goal of keeping track of this type of testing and statistics is to keep the public safe, after all.
Of course, there are good reasons to keep data proprietary. Most of those have to do with flaws in the data, issues with the testing, inability to correlate results to injury risk, inability to demonstrate that the results are applicable to other markets or results that may needlessly create panic. For example, remember the whole third row seat panic issue created by one writer at USA Today based on a single, unpublished internal Ford study? Even though the study (quoted in a questionable manner with minimal supporting detail) seemed to show the potential for injury to adults, many parents were panicked even though the injury mechanism did not necessarily apply to children in child seats that provided their own head support.
Adventuredad
New member
Yes.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. Extensive testing has been done in Us and Sweden, surely also other countries, and not negative effect has been found on child or front seat passenger.
In a frontal collision the front seat is not subject to large forces when car seat is bracing. Front seat moves slightly forward and so does car seat. Movement or car seat is limited and overall forces on front seat are low.
Agreed. The issue of not allowing bracing against front seat is likely due to theoretical possibility of misuse (like manual saying no cats in the microwave or babies in the tumbler). One could theoretically brace something extremely heavy, not a car seat, against front seat which might not be a good idea.
Rear facing car seats were constructed to brace against dash/front seat. We find that performance is better and installation easier when bracing. This is why bracing against dashboard is so great. The car seat stays in perfect position, chassi of the car absorb the forces.
Legal discussion is also interesting..... It's difficult for companies to even discuss car seat safety (or other safety) due to the US legal system. The system encourages ridiculous lawsuits which are often settled. The financial burden of these lawsuits is one part. Another part is that it's very difficult to discuss overall safety issues since there is always a risk of getting sued regardless if the lawsuit is without merit.
In the long run this means worse safety for consumers (and children) which is unfortunate.
newyorkDOC
New member
Admin said:
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.
 |  |  |
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