Question S/O: Under 40 lbs= higher risk of submarining?

An Aurora

Senior Community Member

• May 21, 2011

• #1

I saw this in a different thread and didn't want to derail. Can I get a link to this study? The reason I ask is, my almost 6 year old is 37 pounds. She has not gained an ounce in over 18 months (but has grown 4"). She does not fit on any seat we have. The only seat she would fit in is a Frontier 85, which are not available locally so I would need to buy it online and pay $$ shipping. I also couldn't get a Frontier to fit in my car with a CCO and Radian.

Is she really that much more at risk than a child that weighs 3 lbs more? Is 40 really the magical number here?

I am going to be in BIG trouble with DD2 who is 30lbs 2oz at four and only has an inch left in her Radian.

Posted by a robot and susceptible to unrelated and potentially inappropriate AutoCorrects.

 

lovemybabies924

New member

• May 21, 2011

• #2

What about the parkway sg? Wouldnt that fix your issue?'

Sent from my iPod touch, sorry for any auto-correct typos!

 

T

thepeach80

Senior Community Member

• May 21, 2011

• #3

I'm not sure how 40# could be the magic number as wouldn't height play into this. A very tall child I think would submarine easier even at 40# then a shorter 40# child. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

An Aurora

Senior Community Member

• May 21, 2011

• #4

I though there was some odd rule with the Parkway SG where smaller kids don't use the SG clip? And doesn't the seat have a 40 lb minimum?

I would think taller kids would be less likely to submarine than shorter ones because of their proportions, but that's just a wild guess and I really have no idea.

Posted by a robot and susceptible to unrelated and potentially inappropriate AutoCorrects.

 

T

thepeach80

Senior Community Member

• May 21, 2011

• #5

Yes, you have to be 40# to use the PWSG. Would I use it in this case? Maybe. I never let Evan use it before he hit 40# and AJ has been 40# since he turned 4 so that was never an issue.

 

MommyBoha

New member

• May 21, 2011

• #6

IM ok with a 37lbs 6 year old in a booster. They are more developed than a 37lbs 4 year old. I have a 5.5 year old who is 35lbs. She is currently booster training for emergencies. Id rather have the booster for her than an improperly installed harness.
Also, Id probably make the parental decision to USE the SG clip on the PW for a 37lbs 6 year old.

 

monstah

New member

• May 21, 2011

• #7

Was that the study that included all boosters? 2 year olds in ill fitting AOE's etc. (What you see on the road every day... scary booster use.)

That would make me feel that as a well educated CPST with concern for belt fit, sitting position, etc, that the risk is nothing compared to my cousins 30 pound 3 year old with a lap belt that doesn't even touch his body. KWIM?

Sent from my Nexus One using Car-Seat.Org

 

D

DahliaRW

New member

• May 21, 2011

• #8

I would think that bone/hip development would help prevent submarining. A 6yo definitely has an advantage there.

If I were really concerned, I'd probably get a vest.

 

An Aurora

Senior Community Member

• May 21, 2011

• #9

She has super awesome belt fit, flat across the thighs, which makes me feel she would be fine. Of course that could be a false sense of security, but who knows.

I have considered a vest, but the no SIP scares me. If she were in the center I'm not sure if I could buckle it.

Posted by a robot and susceptible to unrelated and potentially inappropriate AutoCorrects.

 

canadiangie

New member

• May 21, 2011

• #10

Im guessing this thread is based off a thread that pertains to Canada.

Transport Canada has a firm belief that kids shouldn't booster until a solid 40lbs is reached. I believe there is information about this in the research crash testing outcomes (the testing stuff with the controversial Britax footage, among other interesting stuff).

That said this isn't a new rule by any means. We've had a 40lb min on our boosters since grass was green. It doesn't mean that don't have 35lb kids riding illegally in boosters... *but* we tend not to have a lot of 30lb 2 y/o's in boosters, either (like i know you guys see often, it seems). That 40lb min is well known by most parents, and IME the vast majority of kids are hovering very very close to 40 or have surpassed that mark prior to being moved from a 5 point harness.

 

carseatcoach

Carseat Crankypants

• May 21, 2011

• #11

Under 40# may have a slightly higher risk of submarining, but being older would lessen the risk and being in a well-fitting and properly used seat would definitely lessen it. I would not be at all uncomfortable with a child her size and age in a booster.

 

An Aurora

Senior Community Member

• May 21, 2011

• #12

canadiangie said:

Im guessing this thread is based off a thread that pertains to Canada.

Transport Canada has a firm belief that kids shouldn't booster until a solid 40lbs is reached. I believe there is information about this in the research crash testing outcomes (the testing stuff with the controversial Britax footage, among other interesting stuff).

That said this isn't a new rule by any means. We've had a 40lb min on our boosters since grass was green. It doesn't mean that don't have 35lb kids riding illegally in boosters... *but* we tend not to have a lot of 30lb 2 y/o's in boosters, either (like i know you guys see often, it seems). That 40lb min is well known by most parents, and IME the vast majority of kids are hovering very very close to 40 or have surpassed that mark prior to being moved from a 5 point harness.

Click to expand...

Yea it is, and yes I understand that TC has had the rule for ages, but my specific question pertains to the comment in that thread about a child under40 lbs being at increased risk of submarining. I wanted to know what this was based from and where the data was that showed it's a risk. If I need to harness the kid I will

Posted by a robot and susceptible to unrelated and potentially inappropriate AutoCorrects.

 

jess71903

Ambassador

• May 21, 2011

• #13

I think the 40lb thing is just like all of our other weight things. It's not magic, but people need a number. I think it's meant to keep those 30lb 3 year olds in harnesses, not 37lb 7 year olds.

 

bree

Car-Seat.Org Ambassador

• May 21, 2011

• #14

I've personally never seen a post where someone has shared the reference for the under 40 pound = higher risk of submarining stat. The closest thing I could come up with when searching on my own in the past was the dead link reference on this page showing that kids 30-40 pounds were safer in a harness than a shield booster (interesting, but not relevant to current belt positioning boosters).

Sometimes I wonder if there really is a study that shows kids under 40 pounds have a greater risk of submarining, especially where there never seems to be a specific numerical stat attached to the risk statement (like kids under 40 pounds are 3 times more likely to submarine or whatever). Maybe it's merely a long time recommendation based on the old 40 pound weight limits that seats used to have or from the data in the shield booster study (or maybe there really is a study or even multiple studies; I'm just throwing out theories ).

I hope someone will share the reference in this thread, though. I've been curious about this for a long time.