Regarding selling used seats come January 1st, 2012

Ok, went and re-read.

UNECE R44, while it is worded and, well, conceptualized differently than NA test standards, does have what I would consider a "rebound standard" for rear-facing seats.

That is, the standard, instead of dictating inches or cm from a point past which something may not travel, instead defines a series of planes, that describe a box around the child. This box changes in size in relation to the interior of the vehicle, which is why car seats sold to this standard must indicate if they are only intended for use in one specific vehicle, in several vehicles (with a list), in most vehicles (with a list, and descriptions of which types of vehicles are not suitable), or in all vehicles covered by the law. For rear-facing seats, one of the directions included in the box is toward the rear of the vehicle. It doesn't specify "during this phase of the crash, the dummy must not be here;" instead, it specifies "at all times during the crash or to a certain time after, or until the dummy comes to a complete stop, the dummy must not leave this box in any part." It also specifies that if there is an anti-rebound bar/device which is a removable part of the seat, it must pass the testing both with it on and removed. Further, the testing must be conducted from the front and the rear, and in the case of the front with the support leg, if there is one, in both the highest and lowest compatible positions, and in the rear-impact test it must be conducted with the support leg in what is determined to be the worst-case usage scenario.

Hopefully that helps. I couldn't find language of the Swedish Plus Test (formally T Standard) (probably because I'm searching in English, not Swedish ) but that is an optional test, while ALL restraints sold in Europe must pass UNECE R 44/04.

Incidentally, I haven't got a chance to read the new Canadian standard in full but I'd like to, if you have a link. Also, if anyone knows where I can read the latest Aussie standard I'd like to read that too.

Thanks KQ. I believe the updated CMVSS 213.1 and 213 also talk about the "plane" on rebound, but I don't recall the wording. I'll have to look and see if I have it saved - I think it would have been in the Canada Gazette - but I don't know if it was a summary or if they actually published the entire CMVSS minus the diagram packets that show the set-up of the test bench etc.

I like how the ECE requires the seats to be specific to certain vehicles - that makes so much more sense than a test bench that is supposed to simulate a vehicle seat.

Do you happen to know if all EU rf'ing seats use tethers and/or an anti-rebound bar to manage rebound? I wonder if rebound management really gets more important when you start talking about bigger kids? (Oh how I'd love to sit down with an engineer and ask questions like that...)

How are they going to know which seats are which? While in some cases it will be obvious seats made in 2012 will of course be *fine* to sell, but some of the seats were already compliant but made in 2011.

Surely compliant 2011 made seats will be spared the land fill, but how would anyone tell? Beyond if it says FF @22# vs @20#.

And, are there even 2010/2011 seats that have 22#FF but are not compliant? How would anyone know the difference?

Just processing what I should tell those that care and ask me...I'm crossing my fingers on my 2009 30# MA going out the door in a few minutes and will otherwise be using the seats I have (RN, GN & LBB) until expiry. Then, waiting on a good sale for a Frontier, I think...though will give a good go at the GN and see how much I like what $75 got me! LOL

tam

tam_shops said:

And, are there even 2010/2011 seats that have 22#FF but are not compliant?

Click to expand...

My Graco My Rides with a DOM of end of October 2009 had a 22# minimum for FF and I think the manual stated "walking unassisted" as well. I don't have the seats anymore so can't confirm the "walking unassisted" part. And I'm taking a wild guess that they aren't currently compliant since they can't easily be found anywhere at this time. Whether there will be actual changes to the seat or it's just labelling and manuals, not sure.

tam_shops said:

How are they going to know which seats are which? While in some cases it will be obvious seats made in 2012 will of course be *fine* to sell, but some of the seats were already compliant but made in 2011.

Surely compliant 2011 made seats will be spared the land fill, but how would anyone tell? Beyond if it says FF @22# vs @20#.

And, are there even 2010/2011 seats that have 22#FF but are not compliant? How would anyone know the difference?

Just processing what I should tell those that care and ask me...
tam

Click to expand...

No infant/child or child/booster seats were compliant prior to July 2011. The My Ride isn't compliant - Graco said at ABC kids that they were close to being done testing of the My Ride. All of the Britax infant/child seats had to have their minimum ff'ing weight limit increased. All Evenflo seats had to have their minimum ff'ing weight increased. All Cosco/Dorel/Safety 1st etc infant/child and infant/child/booster seats will have modifications made to the shell. Additionally, those that have adjustable headrests and a reclining base have had the color of the plastic changed on them. The only company who had some earlier infant seats complying was Cosco and I don't know the date they became compliant - but I do know that there's a variation in the color of the little maple leaf and the numbers on the side stickers (and possibly placement too.) Not the national safety mark, but Cosco has a small maple leaf on every one of it's instructional stickers as well - and that color has changed on the seat stickers of seats that comply to 2012 standards.

True Fit you'll know because of the anti-rebound foot. The Radian won't be compliant until the R100, R120, and RXT arrive.

So in the vast majority of cases, we have physical changes that will be obvious, or else an increased ff'ing minimum weight limit - and in the case of the Radian, we'll know by the change in company name. The only seat that won't be easy to tell apart is the On Board infant seats that were made in 2011 because I don't know what day they started to comply - they have possibly been compliant since close to the beginning of the year, but i really don't know for sure.

snowbird25ca said:

Thanks KQ. I believe the updated CMVSS 213.1 and 213 also talk about the "plane" on rebound, but I don't recall the wording. I'll have to look and see if I have it saved - I think it would have been in the Canada Gazette - but I don't know if it was a summary or if they actually published the entire CMVSS minus the diagram packets that show the set-up of the test bench etc.

I like how the ECE requires the seats to be specific to certain vehicles - that makes so much more sense than a test bench that is supposed to simulate a vehicle seat.

Do you happen to know if all EU rf'ing seats use tethers and/or an anti-rebound bar to manage rebound? I wonder if rebound management really gets more important when you start talking about bigger kids? (Oh how I'd love to sit down with an engineer and ask questions like that...)

Click to expand...

I've yet to see a larger rf eu seat (like, not an infant bucket) that manages it without either tethers, an ARB, an ISOFIX base with rebound management, or some combination thereof.

The infant seats often have a forward position for the handle.

Thanks Trudy! Can you elaborate on this: "Additionally, those that have adjustable headrests and a reclining base have had the color of the plastic changed on them". Just curious. And, what will the new colour of the stickers be? I can check the old colour myself! LOL

tam

TechnoGranola said:

My Graco My Rides with a DOM of end of October 2009 had a 22# minimum for FF and I think the manual stated "walking unassisted" as well. I don't have the seats anymore so can't confirm the "walking unassisted" part. And I'm taking a wild guess that they aren't currently compliant since they can't easily be found anywhere at this time. Whether there will be actual changes to the seat or it's just labelling and manuals, not sure.

Click to expand...

My June 2010 says 1 year, 22 pounds and walking unassisted. I know it said it in the manual for sure, but it's in DH's car so I can't double check the labels. I thought it was though.

If they are compliant, perhaps they are just all gone to make way for the new stock with the new buckle and infant insert?

snowbird25ca said:

No infant/child or child/booster seats were compliant prior to July 2011. The My Ride isn't compliant - Graco said at ABC kids that they were close to being done testing of the My Ride. All of the Britax infant/child seats had to have their minimum ff'ing weight limit increased. All Evenflo seats had to have their minimum ff'ing weight increased. All Cosco/Dorel/Safety 1st etc infant/child and infant/child/booster seats will have modifications made to the shell. Additionally, those that have adjustable headrests and a reclining base have had the color of the plastic changed on them. The only company who had some earlier infant seats complying was Cosco and I don't know the date they became compliant - but I do know that there's a variation in the color of the little maple leaf and the numbers on the side stickers (and possibly placement too.) Not the national safety mark, but Cosco has a small maple leaf on every one of it's instructional stickers as well - and that color has changed on the seat stickers of seats that comply to 2012 standards.

True Fit you'll know because of the anti-rebound foot. The Radian won't be compliant until the R100, R120, and RXT arrive.

So in the vast majority of cases, we have physical changes that will be obvious, or else an increased ff'ing minimum weight limit - and in the case of the Radian, we'll know by the change in company name. The only seat that won't be easy to tell apart is the On Board infant seats that were made in 2011 because I don't know what day they started to comply - they have possibly been compliant since close to the beginning of the year, but i really don't know for sure.

Click to expand...

Don't know how I missed this post when I just posted.

How will we be able to tell the compliant MR's from the not? Other than the July 2011 date?

Emi's Mommy said:

Don't know how I missed this post when I just posted.

How will we be able to tell the compliant MR's from the not? Other than the July 2011 date?

Click to expand...

Trudy was referring to seats in general, that there wasn't any conpliant ones until July 2011 (were those Britax seats?). My Rides are not yet compliant. Only the newest My Ride DOMS will be compliant which will likely be somewhere between Nov 2011 and Dec 2012.

Sent from my iPhone using Car-Seat.Org

TechnoGranola said:

Trudy was referring to seats in general, that there wasn't any conpliant ones until July 2011 (were those Britax seats?). My Rides are not yet compliant. Only the newest My Ride DOMS will be compliant which will likely be somewhere between Nov 2011 and Dec 2012.

Sent from my iPhone using Car-Seat.Org

Click to expand...

Yep, July was Britax - I don't know the exact date, but it was in the end part of July I believe.

I don't know if MR's will have something obvious or not, but I expect they will. They had the 22lbs and walking unassisted in the manual right from the point that it came in to Canada. So something had to hold it up... I think they were hoping for November shipping based on what they said at ABC kids?

Just found this: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/cons/garage-eng.php

Everyone holding a garage sale is legally responsible for ensuring that products sold, whether new or used, are safe and meet current safety standards. It is important to only sell items that are in good condition. Damaged articles should be discarded.

Click to expand...

The Hazardous Products Act is administered by Health Canada. It has safety requirements for certain consumer products, many of which are intended for use by children. Under the law, you cannot import, sell, give away (including lending), or distribute products that do not meet the requirements of the Hazardous Products Act.

Click to expand...

So this is it in plain English. HPA was updated to include child restraints, and come January 1st, 2012 anything that isn't certified to the new standards won't meet the requirements for sale, lending, or giving away.

The info is on the garage sale page, but the 2nd quote makes it clear that the HPA applies to anyone who has an item in their possession which is covered by the hazardous products act.

snowbird25ca said:

Just found this: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/cons/garage-eng.php





So this is it in plain English. HPA was updated to include child restraints, and come January 1st, 2012 anything that isn't certified to the new standards won't meet the requirements for sale, lending, or giving away.

The info is on the garage sale page, but the 2nd quote makes it clear that the HPA applies to anyone who has an item in their possession which is covered by the hazardous products act.

Click to expand...

That is the text I have always quoted when emailing people selling expired seats on Craigslist.

The catch is that the Hazardous Products Act has been replaced by the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. I looked through the new Act one day last week and I couldn't find that same wording about giving away and lending in there at all. It is very possible I missed it, but I didn't see it. I could only find references to advertising and selling. :shrug-shoulders:

Me again. The other day I had looked at the Act itself (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-1.68/index.html) and couldn't find anything, but out of curiosity I just looked at the quick reference guide to the Act on the Health Canada website (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/indust/ccpsa_ref-lcspc/index-eng.php) and found this under the heading "Does the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act apply to you?":

You have responsibilities under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act if you:
- manufacture a consumer product;
- import a consumer product into Canada;
- sell a consumer product;
- advertise a consumer product;
- test a consumer product; or
- package or label a consumer product.
...
Selling a consumer product includes leasing the product or distributing the product to one or more persons even if there is no money or other consideration exchanged for the distribution.

Click to expand...

The actual definition of "sell" in the Act is:

“sell” includes offer for sale, expose for sale or have in possession for sale — or distribute to one or more persons, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration — and includes lease, offer for lease, expose for lease or have in possession for lease.

Click to expand...

I don't see a definition of "distribution" anywhere, so I'm not sure if giving or lending something constitutes a "distribution".

If HC has confirmed that there are restrictions on lending and giving away under the new Act then I'm inclined to believe them - I just can't find it written in black and white.

Thanks for digging deeper Sparky. I think the people who will be most affected or the people who sell or give away seats. In some cases there are businesses centered around the giving away and selling of used seats, so those businesses are going to be affected by having to destroy anything that doesn't comply to the new standards.

My 2 cents is that it's unlikely an individual is going to get caught unless HC decides to do a blitz, but retailers - whether they be new or used or donation centers, are likely to get checked on. I would imagine that as word spreads that it's illegal to sell non-compliant seats that complaints might be made by the general public as well. I know that there are a number of different people in my area who seem to monitor seats for sale and are very aware of the carseat scene - and yet they are people whom I don't know and have never met even in passing. (I emailed one of them once asking if I knew them, lol - but I didn't get a response.)

bubbaray said:

There are very few/any harnessed restraints in Canada for $50-60. I can't think of one off the top of my head, only boosters. Even a Scenara is $79 at Walmart last time I checked (which admittedly was a while ago).

Click to expand...

I was at Walmart today, the Scenara is $89. With 5% HST (there is a rebate for the provincial portion), that's $95. I think HC is completely out to lunch if they think that the average family will pay $95 for a new seat instead of borrowing a non-compliant one. JMHO.

bubbaray said:

I was at Walmart today, the Scenara is $89. With 5% HST (there is a rebate for the provincial portion), that's $95. I think HC is completely out to lunch if they think that the average family will pay $95 for a new seat instead of borrowing a non-compliant one. JMHO.

Click to expand...

Walmart likes to do that - they roll the prices up and down on their seats. But the Scenera will drop down to $60 for weeks to months at a time. I've seen it multiple times in the last couple years...

I think that most people end up needing a new seat at some point with their child anyways. If a kid is in a harness for 5 years, then any seat they borrow is going to expire before the kid is ready for a booster anyways. They're going to have to spend the money at some point, they might as well spend it at the beginning and get their kid a new seat. Women are pregnant for 9 months, and I'd say over 75% of women know their pregnant by the time they reach 4 months. That leaves 5 months to save for a seat even at $100 - $20 a month is less than what most people spend on coffee, cigarettes, or alcohol... Most people who borrow seats aren't unable to purchase - they just don't see the need. I see lots of parents who have borrowed seats and when something is wrong with them, they go out and replace them. They've borrowed them simply because somebody was trying to help them and they didn't need the seat anymore.

Of the "borriowed" seats that I see, at least half of them are expired, recalled, or otherwise damaged. That percent may be closer to 75%. And the majority of borrowed seats I see are infant seats - they've just typically sat around for awhile before someone is thinking of giving them away.

Personally, I think the hostility over legislation that is ultimately designed to protect kids isn't really warranted. Perhaps in some aspects it's a bit hard to swallow. But I don't think it is worthy of hostility. Overall it will protect more kids than not. :shrug-shoulders:

I just wanted to make it clear that I am not picking through the details of this legislation because I disagree with the premise that people shouldn't lend or give away non-compliant seats. I actually kind of like it. However, I'm on the board of an organization that runs clinics and helps hundreds of people with their car seats every year and I have no idea how we are supposed deal with this issue. We have a more or less standard speech we give to people when they aren't the original owner of the seat they came in with, but this is a grey area and I can't figure out whether we would be liable for helping someone install a "non-compliant" seat if it was given to them by a friend. It's OK if it's their own seat they've had for three years, but not OK if they got it from their sister? The seat is perfectly safe even it doesn't comply with the new Regs, but illegal to use if someone gave it to you? This is mixed messaging at its worst.

sparkyd said:

I just wanted to make it clear that I am not picking through the details of this legislation because I disagree with the premise that people shouldn't lend or give away non-compliant seats. I actually kind of like it. However, I'm on the board of an organization that runs clinics and helps hundreds of people with their car seats every year and I have no idea how we are supposed deal with this issue. We have a more or less standard speech we give to people when they aren't the original owner of the seat they came in with, but this is a grey area and I can't figure out whether we would be liable for helping someone install a "non-compliant" seat if it was given to them by a friend. It's OK if it's their own seat they've had for three years, but not OK if they got it from their sister? The seat is perfectly safe even it doesn't comply with the new Regs, but illegal to use if someone gave it to you? This is mixed messaging at its worst.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's illegal to use - it's illegal for the person who is passing it on. It's a slight difference, but it's a difference.

I find myself looking at this from a number of different angles and overall I think it's a good thing. I will admit that when customers have had the choice between 2012 compliant and not-yet-compliant to 2012 seats, I have steered them towards the 2012 compliant seats with the knowledge of how many people do pass on seats - and I have mentioned the not being able to pass non-compliant seats on come January 1st. We have a few choices and our selection of not-yet-compliant is almost zero as it is...

I think in the end, it's designed to protect children. Some parents already take the route of using 10 and 15yr old seats because it's "good enough" or because they can't afford differently. This won't change anything for them. But it will change those who are getting a used seat just because they can - not because they're unable to pay for a seat. And my experience is many people using 2nd hand seats are fully able to afford new seats - they just figure if they have a perfectly good seat, they might as well use the free one.

Lots of new parents who have no carseat "background" knowledge may have no clue a year from now that the seat they buy in store has been tested to different standards than the one that their friend bought 3 yrs ago. I think those parents are having a service done for them by having only new standard seats available for purchase. The new standards are designed to offer a higher level of protection.

And looking at it from one perspective - and this is purely hypothetical and devil's advocate... Actually - it's not hypothetical because I can think of one instance where a seat would outright fail the new standards in a predictable way despite passing the old standards.

Designer 22 seats prior to the base modification consistently detached from the base when tested with a lap/shoulder belt. They passed the standards in effect at the time - but they would fail under 2012 standards since the updated standards require testing with a lap/shoulder belt.

So imagine you're a new parent, innocently using a friend's designer 22 seat, and you just check recalls and not consumer information notices. You decide to install the seat in the center position with the seatbelt because it's the most protected position in the vehicle and it's what all of the literature tells you to use when possible. You're subsequently in a collision and the seat detaches from the base and either injures the baby or someone else in the vehicle.

Would you be upset if you found out that had you bought a new seat it wouldn't have happened? Would you blame your friend just as much as the manufacturer of the seat for lending you a seat that didn't meet current standards? You can pretty much bet that someone who experienced a seat detaching from the base and had injury to somebody in the vehicle as a result would be researching the seat and car seat safety - it's quite probably they would find out that the seat should never have been lent to them, and that a newly purchased seat wouldn't have done that.

What if there are other seats out there similar to that? It's improbable that the exact circumstances would happen in the future if it hasn't happened in real life collisions up until now - but what if it did?

What about passing on a 20lb minimum ff'ing seat - parent turns child who weighs exactly 20lbs ff'ing on their first birthday. Parent is in a collision and the child suffers head and neck injuries that would've been prevented by a rf'ing seat. Same child would've still been legally required to be rf'ing had they been in a seat that met new standards. Yes, it's improbable that a parent is going to crash in a way that causes those injuries in the exact time period when a child is between 20 and 22lbs - but it's possible. Would you want to be the person responsible for passing on that 20lb minimum seat?

Yes - these are extreme examples that I've pulled out. But they are ones that could happen. And they are benefits of the new standards that do increase kids' safety. (Yes, I know not all old seats have 20lb minimums, but plenty do.) So in the end, parents who haven't done research and are just following minimums, are being protected if it is only legal for seats which meet new standards to be passed on. I know that's an ideal view - I know that people are still going to pass old seats on. But I hope that some sites get notified and that we see a big reduction in the sale of used seats that don't comply to the 2012 standards. I also hope that there is some sort of public education campaign so that people know they can't give away, sell, or lend their non-compliant seats.

And I guess bottom line, having thought these through, I don't want the liability of helping a parent who has a used seat that doesn't meet 2012 standards. Because I don't want any part in any potential liability that could come if the "perfect storm" happened and a kid was injured. And when it comes down to it - used seats pose a pretty high risk all on their own due to the unknown history factor.