Regarding selling used seats come January 1st, 2012

Keeanh said:

I just have to ask, out of curiosity, were you intending to criticize Canada for being too "Big Brother", or were you perhaps warning us? Or maybe I misunderstood the tone of your comment.

Click to expand...

I'm playing Devil´s advocate here, but there is an important side to it as well.

Regulations should be focused on matters that really makes a difference, that can be explained and enforced. Neither seems to be true in this case. Instead it's something that just annoys people, makes them say "whatever", do what they like, and the trust is lost.

Big brother is sometimes necessary, but it should be important things that matters, that saves lives. Do You see what I mean?

I'm no expert in Canadian regulations, but what I know is that they have slightly different requirements than the US, creating a trade barrier that I bet the manufacturers love. And now this utterly strange thing about banning lending of seats to friends? That's what I call fiddling, not making any real progress.

Where are they on the ERF cause? That is the single most important change they can make, instead of this crap they could focus on a combination of information and regulations to promote and enforce rearfacing.

If they really want a better standard to test seats to, and don't mind going their own way, make neck load measurements compulsory. It's not rocket science, we've done them here for decades. That's something else that would actually make a difference.

Sorry for the rant, but this whole thing is silly!


/Marcus

sailingdaddy, your missing that there are 2 organizations here. Transport Canada is the one to develop car seat regulations, testing standards, etc. They are not the ones saying that it is illegal to sell/loan used pre-2012 seats. That is Health Canada saying that who has nothing to do with rear-facing limits, neck load measurements, etc.

With regards to baby gear, Health Canada tends to focus on recalls and safety of items. They will make sure dangerous baby items aren't sold in the country (i.e. baby walkers, drop side cribs). (as an aside, I am not sure who defines "dangerous"). This car seat one is just strange though, because they can't exactly claim that all pre-2012 seats are dangerous, they merely don't meet the new regulations. Safety standards change all the time, for example, air bags and daytime running lights are required in all vehicles now but no one has made it illegal to sell or loan older vehicles without air bags or DRL.

ETA: and Canada does "go their own way". We've had cumpulsory top tethering for FF harnessed seats for a long time and we also have an anti-rebound standard now.

Its not quite that simple as just permitting Swedish seats to be sold in Canada. For example, as I understand it, Swedish CARS have the ability to have front passenger airbags keyed off or completely disabled when you install a RFg Swedish child restraint in the front seat. We dont' have that feature on our vehicles here in Canada and a mechanic can only legally disable a front airbag with a permission form from Transport Canada.

Don't get me wrong, I think Swedish seats and ERF to boostering is a really cool idea. I just can't see it working here, at least not without some significant changes in not just seats, but the regulations with respect to seats & testing AND with respect to vehicles.

I would hate to see someone use an ERF Swedish seat in the front seat of a vehicle with an active airbag and/or an improperly deactivated airbag.

TechnoGranola said:

sailingdaddy, your missing that there are 2 organizations here. Transport Canada is the one to develop car seat regulations, testing standards, etc. They are not the ones saying that it is illegal to sell/loan used pre-2012 seats. That is Health Canada saying that who has nothing to do with rear-facing limits, neck load measurements, etc.

Click to expand...

Oh, please, they are both part of the government, arent they? HC bases their judgments in this case on updated CMVSS regs that TC develops? Look at the bigger picture: What could they do together that would seriously improve safety?

/Marcus

bubbaray said:

Its not quite that simple as just permitting Swedish seats to be sold in Canada.

Click to expand...

That's not what I was saying at all, you are missing the big picture here: Governments should care about things that are important and always ask themselves if new regulations improve things enough to be warranted.

As to your point, while unified testing standards would be good, they do have their drawbacks. In this case, joint ECE-regulation of car seats actually prevents Sweden from banning forward-facing only seats for toddlers and neck-load-testing is no part of ECE testing either, while it was in the older Swedish T-mark (and now again in the volountary Plus test).

It was just an example of what you can do if you can set your own standard, which we no longer can, unfortunately. On the other hand, we can now use our seats all over Europe instead, pros and cons as always.

bubbaray said:

For example, as I understand it, Swedish CARS have the ability to have front passenger airbags keyed off or completely disabled when you install a RFg Swedish child restraint in the front seat. .

Click to expand...

Some (many newer) do, some require a mechanic, some can't be disabled at all (mainly some US and Japanese), so it varies, it's not universally true and we seem to be able to handle it...

But all this is kind of off-topic !

/Marcus

tam_shops said:

I could use a RN for the next year or so, then ODS can stay RF past 6.

It must be illegal to sell expired seats like the ones we all see on CL...and nothing has stopped or even slowed that down...Though, when I put my MA on CL last night, I did notice they added a line about not being aloud to sell drop side cribs, so add that line about car seats and it will slow some people down...

And, after only being up for one day, I have 2 CL enquirers about my MA, which I thought was rather over-priced at $150 w/ 3yrs left on it. Though, one person offered me $100 and I'm kind of on the fence about that. Of course, I'd be able to buy a spare Maestro for YDS for that, next sale...Shame paying for shipping in Canada is so crazy $$, doesn't make anything but a local sale worth it...

I think the trick for techs is to not ask where the seat came from and if someone starts to tell them, just say, "I'm sorry, I can't install this seat if you tell me you borrowed it or bought it 2nd hand" and most intelligent people will just say nothing. This removes the liability from the tech and lets them install reasonable seats. Really, if these pre-2012 seats are so *dangerous* that we can't loan them out, they should all be re-called and repaired...and we all know that isn't going to happen!

tam

Click to expand...

The tech should not be installing the seat anyway, the parent should be. The tech's job is to educate the parent and leave the final installation to the parent. Part of the education should be on the dangers/risks of second hand and expired seats already so I don't feel this has changed much.

Holy cow this turned in to a fast growing thread in the last few hours.

Keeanh said:

You're right, it is a limitation of personal freedom, but it can't be enforced anyways. Seems like Transport Canada probably just didn't think through the details very clearly. And forcing all children under 40lbs to RF would be a harsh limitation on some families too in certain circumstances.

Click to expand...

This really has nothing to do with TC thinking things through at all. Techno already mentioned it, but I just wanted to repeat it - this is a Health Canada thing. I suspect it's a case of a broad thing of importance being taken down to a tiny little point.

Prior to the act including carseats, did you know it WAS LEGAL to sell a recalled carseat? The act is intended to protect consumers in the end - I just think the whole give away and loan thing is a bit overboard... then again - baby walkers were the same. You can't give away or loan a baby walker if you have one. I don't for a minute believe that seats which don't meet the new standards fall in to the same cateogry as a baby walker... if they did then parents wouldn't be being told that their current seats are safe to keep using.

So I don't think there's anything simple about the hazardous products act part - it needs to include the car seats so far as not being allowed to sell recalled seats or seats which don't comply with updated standards. And yet somehow it seems to have gotten caught in to a similar category as baby walkers... and that part of things is going to give really conflicting messages to parents.

bubbaray said:

Its not quite that simple as just permitting Swedish seats to be sold in Canada. For example, as I understand it, Swedish CARS have the ability to have front passenger airbags keyed off or completely disabled when you install a RFg Swedish child restraint in the front seat. We dont' have that feature on our vehicles here in Canada and a mechanic can only legally disable a front airbag with a permission form from Transport Canada.

Don't get me wrong, I think Swedish seats and ERF to boostering is a really cool idea. I just can't see it working here, at least not without some significant changes in not just seats, but the regulations with respect to seats & testing AND with respect to vehicles.

I would hate to see someone use an ERF Swedish seat in the front seat of a vehicle with an active airbag and/or an improperly deactivated airbag.

Click to expand...

My turn to play devil's advocate... just because lots of Swedish parents install theirs seats in the front seat doesn't mean they're the only place they can be installed.

Also, TC basically rubber stamps requests to have airbags disabled - it's not a matter of getting approval from them, it's a matter of finding a mechanic or dealership who will actually do it. Most don't want the responsibility of having been the one who disabled the airbag if the owner fails to have it reactivated prior to selling it.

sailingdaddy said:

Oh, please, they are both part of the government, arent they? HC bases their judgments in this case on updated CMVSS regs that TC develops? Look at the bigger picture: What could they do together that would seriously improve safety?

/Marcus

Click to expand...

Actually, the Health Canada act was separate from the updated regulations. It's primary intent was to prevent the sale of recalled baby items - prior to this act it was legal to sell recalled items, thankfully most stores didn't. I'm sure there were some other goals, but I believe that was one of the key ones.

Separate branches of government have their own separate areas of regulations and enforcement. The act that is affecting the non-compliant seats come January 1st 2012 is a broader act. And I don't think anybody would argue over the validity of recalled items being banned from being sold.

However, I think we also can all agree that a seat which complied to the old standards doesn't fall in to the same category as a baby walker - something which is confiscated at the border pretty much without fail and Health Canada agents have the ability to confiscate them at garage sales or thrift stores or whatever.

Additionally, as I understand it, Swedish law does NOT require rf'ing to 40lbs. Most parents just do it because of the societal attitudes towards safety. And there is a gigantic difference between government mandating 40lbs rf'ing (unreasonable for most people and something I would never ever suggest or advocate for,) vs telling parents to rf as long as possible. Transport Canada already recommends rf'ing as long as a child fits the seat, and to not hurry to turn a child ff'ing.

On top of that, TC does NOT regulate the use of child restraints - the provinces each regulate the use of child restraints. This is why some provinces have just proper use combined with a minimum age/weight combo, while others specify 20lbs, while others specify 22lbs - etc etc - Pretty much every province has a different law in one way or another. Some provinces a ticket for incorrect child restraint use gets the driver demerits, others it doesn't... it all depends on what the provincial law is.

That's right, such a shame we use the fire department here, not only do they do it for you, they don't do it right! LOL

It's all rather crazy for the government to put any effort, energy or policy in place on something that will expire in 6 years anyway...If my Canadian made MA is unsafe for me to give you, then I shouldn't be able to use it either. It's the kind of thing that could start mass unnecessary car seat replacement by those that do not know the difference! It will certainly be interesting to see if anything ever comes of it. How many people, not from here, would even know this?

tam

Also, just a reminder - while I'm sure some of the comments were made just for the sake of being made, please don't discuss trading or loaning of seats in this thread. Conversations like that need to kept to the swap forum.

tam_shops said:

It's all rather crazy for the government to put any effort, energy or policy in place on something that will expire in 6 years anyway...If my Canadian made MA is unsafe for me to give you, then I shouldn't be able to use it either. It's the kind of thing that could start mass unnecessary car seat replacement by those that do not know the difference! It will certainly be interesting to see if anything ever comes of it. How many people, not from here, would even know this?

tam

Click to expand...

This isn't a policy that will expire in 6 years. The Hazardous Products Act has been a long time in coming. It prevents retailers and individuals from being able to sell products which don't meet standards or are banned etc. It doesn't just apply to carseats, it applies to other things as well - carseats just happen to be included in it.

Enforcement in the end will likely be the same way that baby walkers are enforced - confiscation by those who have the authority at garage sales etc.

The biggest conflict as I see it, is that these seats are still considered safe to use - some of them will be in use for another 8! years considering that the complete Air, AOE, and Symphony are all good for 8 years... I think with baby walkers a massive public campaign was done that told people to quit using them and destroy them. Baby walkers led to injuries, disability, and maybe even death for all I know - seats which don't comply to new standards most certainly don't fall in to that category.

I get the need to not allow them to be sold. I get the need to not allow them to be advertised. I can see the loaning/giving away within reason since loaning and giving away could just become the "loophole" for private people to keep passing seats on to unknown 3rd parties. (It's different if it's your nephew's seat which youve even used at times vs. some stranger off kijiji.)

I feel it's important though to know that the hazardous products act wasn't done for the sake of the changing standards with car seats. And it will not expire or disappear. Carseats just happen to fall under the act and because of the change in standards, it's created a giant group of seats that are falling under it.

As for recalling or repairing the seats to bring them up to new standards, it is impossible on multiple levels - both regulatory and physically. However these seats are safe to keep using by the original owner and we've never encouraged people to loan or give away their used seats before anyways - in fact, most people don't loan or give away to people other than family members - they sell their used seats. And often they are selling them for more than what a new seat costs to buy. So I really don't have issues with the selling part. It might be a bit wasteful, but I don't have any complaints - it is going to stop a lot of seats from being sold that never should be sold in the first place.

Oh - I think I may have just figured out where the loan/give away part comes in in a way that actually matters. And I know a couple of people on here are going to know the exact circumstance I'm thinking of. I am aware of a seat recycling business who gives away seats without fully knowing their history. Programs like that aren't helping anyone and do actually make the loan/give away part useful.

AND - it also means carseat rental companies will need to get compliant seats - which is going to be a good thing when you think of all those expose's that are done on rental car companies and the seats they rent and how some of them are 10 to 15 years old and missing parts/instructions...

So there are some good things out of the loan/give-away part. Maybe not all of it, but I can see some benefit. And there is really no doubt in my mind that the new standards are a big improvement. While current seats aren't dangerous, it does make a certain amount of sense that someone who is just starting a family has seats which are going to match up with the publicly available information. :shrug-shoulders:

I don't know - thinking about the friends/family level of things, it doesn't make sense, but when you think bigger picture like seat rental and loaner programs, or recycling programs that include donating seats dropped off for recycling that they consider to still be usable, well, it suddenly doesn't make the technicality seem all that bad.

Thanks Trudy. Sorry for the "swap-ish" goofing around. I'm pretty sure no-one meant anything, but it does detract from the thread. My bad for saying Transport Canada. I know the hazardous goods thing is Health Canada. Neither of which have anything to do with provincial motor vehicle acts.

Those are some good thoughts on the lending/giving stuff. Rental & recycling businesses didn't even cross my mind. I do still think it's an awful shame that we can't publicly sell or lend perfectly good seats (eg. on a local moms swap board). Too bad it couldn't just be "expired carseats" and leave out the non-compliant thing. Oh well...

Me too! Sorry!

IDK if the seat is not expired or recalled, then it should be aloud to be sold, used and/or rented. Should people actually listen to it, it could remove a lot of *safe* seats off CL and leave some families with out the money with too limited options.

Forgot that some would in fact be in circulation for 8 more years, guess it kind of reminds me of those 2006 3pt harness baby buckets. Just b/c it is still legal doesn't make it safe...

tam

sailingdaddy said:

That's not what I was saying at all, you are missing the big picture here: Governments should care about things that are important and always ask themselves if new regulations improve things enough to be warranted.

As to your point, while unified testing standards would be good, they do have their drawbacks. In this case, joint ECE-regulation of car seats actually prevents Sweden from banning forward-facing only seats for toddlers and neck-load-testing is no part of ECE testing either, while it was in the older Swedish T-mark (and now again in the volountary Plus test).

Click to expand...

I have asked about the newfound interest in the rebound of rear-facing seats. I'm actually surprised that such a regulation was made, apparently without a significant amount of real world injury and fatality data to support it. Certainly, the physics of a crash and dummy testing would indicate that there is a potential risk from rebound in severe crashes, but typically federal regulations like this are made in response to convincing statistical evidence, rather than theory.

For example, in the USA at least, we don't yet have a large data sample, especially in terms of fatal crashes, even to support top tethers or rear-facing beyond a year. I've yet to see any published study to support a recommendation for anti-rebound features, let alone the data to warrant a federal regulation. (Anyone have a link?)

Honestly, there is enough data showing that rear-facing seats are inherently very safe, it's an extreme stretch (and even perhaps disingenuous) to in any way imply they suddenly might become "unsafe" overnight because they don't meet a new anti-rebound requirement.

It will be interesting to see how closely agencies in the USA are following Canadian developments and I've heard rumours that there is some interest...

All just my opinion, of course. As they say, your mileage may vary!

Many Canadian provinces require boostering to age 9 or 57", IIRC. That's something I could get behind, far more than foot props or requiring all seats to RF to 40#.

Baby steps...IRL I don't know a single person that RF to 2yo or 30#. The *best* I've seen is 18mth #22, so I don't see the point in knocking a bunch of seats off the market if they don't pass the test needed to RF to 40#.

Then, if you take the new Britax seats, they RF to 40#, but my 23# (then) almost 2yo was too tall to RF in them, so *yeah* then it just becomes deceptive advertising.

tam

CPSDarren said:

I have asked about the newfound interest in the rebound of rear-facing seats. I'm actually surprised that such a regulation was made, apparently without a significant amount of real world injury and fatality data to support it. Certainly, the physics of a crash and dummy testing would indicate that there is a potential risk from rebound in severe crashes, but typically federal regulations like this are made in response to convincing statistical evidence, rather than theory.

For example, in the USA at least, we don't yet have a large data sample, especially in terms of fatal crashes, even to support top tethers or rear-facing beyond a year. I've yet to see any published study to support a recommendation for anti-rebound features, let alone the data to warrant a federal regulation. (Anyone have a link?)

Honestly, there is enough data showing that rear-facing seats are inherently very safe, it's an extreme stretch (and even perhaps disingenuous) to in any way imply they suddenly might become "unsafe" overnight because they don't meet a new anti-rebound requirement.

It will be interesting to see how closely agencies in the USA are following Canadian developments and I've heard rumours that there is some interest...

All just my opinion, of course. As they say, your mileage may vary!

Click to expand...

I have pondered over the anti-rebound thing as well. The interesting thing about it, is that it has always been part of the CMVSS 213 rear-facing standard. But it used to be much easier to test because the Hybrid II family of crash test dummies was smaller. Combine that with our old test bench being softer and more upright - seats rotated down further, and subsequently rebounded less.

On the other hand - infant seats have never had to meet the standard until the revision. Infants are arguably the least likely to be hurt as a result of rebound either - and if you want my honest opinion, I'd wager that the reason we don't see a lot of injuries from rebound is in large part due to the fact that erf'ing is still the exception and not the norm, and that not all collisions are high enough speed/force to cause a degree of rebound that is likely to cause injury.

That being said, I don't for a minute believe that rf'ing seats have up until this point had a serious flaw with them - however, we've always known rebound wasn't really good or bad - it just was something rf'ing seats do. It makes good sense that if you have an older and heavier rf'ing child that there is going to be a higher risk of injury due to rebound, but as of yet we haven't seen any kind of statistics that bear that out.

So while I don't think that there is an inherent danger in rebound, I do think that less rebound is likely safer, and I view the changes in that regard to be a good thing.

Something else not being discussed is that there were changes with more than just rf'ing seats. The minimum ff'ing weight limits all had to move up to 22lbs from 20lbs - for some kids that's a few more months rf'ing.. same with the walking unassisted - average walking age for girls is 13 months with the upper range being 18 months. These changes in standards could require parents to extend the length of time they would otherwise keep their child rf'ing.

I think perhaps the most important thing is the testing with the lap/shoulder belt. I know of one seat that would've not been allowed on the Canadian market had l/s belt testing been required many years ago. And yet the company never had a recall on the seat because l/s belt testing wasn't part of CMVSS standards. The l/s belt actually has a very different interaction with a rf'ing seat than a lap belt or UAS because of the forces the shoulder belt applies in a collision if it is locked pre-crash. And that is something that manufacturers should've been testing for and designing models with that knowledge in mind IMO. At least Combi was pro-active and recalled their infant seats when they released the seat could release from the base in a collision when the base was installed with a l/s belt...

I know much of the focus, especially in this thread, has been on the anti-rebound standards, but it extends further than that. Rf'ing, ff'ing, and booster seats have all had changes made to their standard and I think overall this is a very positive step for child restraints in Canada and possibly for North America in general - it has pushed a number of manufacturers to think about things they haven't previously had to think of, and I think that is a good thing.

By any chance, does anyone happen to know if Sweden has anti-rebound standards? I believe that some European countries do (I think Australia? maybe?) but I don't know for sure.

Keeanh said:

Thanks Trudy. Sorry for the "swap-ish" goofing around. I'm pretty sure no-one meant anything, but it does detract from the thread. My bad for saying Transport Canada. I know the hazardous goods thing is Health Canada. Neither of which have anything to do with provincial motor vehicle acts.

Those are some good thoughts on the lending/giving stuff. Rental & recycling businesses didn't even cross my mind. I do still think it's an awful shame that we can't publicly sell or lend perfectly good seats (eg. on a local moms swap board). Too bad it couldn't just be "expired carseats" and leave out the non-compliant thing. Oh well...

Click to expand...

No worries about the goofing around. I was 99.9% sure it was meant more in a venting/complaintive/rage-against-the-machine type of way than as an actual offer/discussion. I just wanted to make sure things didn't go off track. :thumbsup:

I think in the end it comes down to there needing to be a line in the sand of allowed and not allowed and because the act is not specific to carseats but also includes things like baby walkers etc - that's where the loan/give away part comes in. I don't know. I don't mourn the reduction in seats on kijiji and CL - people often wanted more for their 4 or 5 year old used seats than what it would cost to buy a new seat in the store, and the seats were frequently in horrible condition. I'm glad to see it become illegal to pass those seats on. It just sucks when you have a black and white rule that affects a 3 month old seat the same way it affects a 6 year old seat...

Trudy, up until now what have our standards been as far as the installation goes? Our seats have had to pass testing with UAS and lap belt (separately) but not the lap/shoulder belt? Is that correct?

selinajean said:

Trudy, up until now what have our standards been as far as the installation goes? Our seats have had to pass testing with UAS and lap belt (separately) but not the lap/shoulder belt? Is that correct?

Click to expand...

That's right. Fmvss doesn't require lap/shoulder belt testing either, so until now it's never been part of the standards in either country. Of course some manufacturers have always done it... And id have to guess some others haven't done it initially just based on info notices and recalls. I don't know if the belt on the new bench is a switchable or just an elr. That is something I'd have to ask about.

Sent from my iPhone using Car-Seat.Org

I am pretty sure there is a minimal anti-rebound wording in the ECE regulations, but it was a while back that I read them. I will go do it again and report back.