Rear-ended

I was interested to read another thread about a poster getting rear-ended because I too was rear-ended 2 weeks ago. I was at a stop light and the kids were not in the car. The hatch needed to be replaced but the bumper was untouched. I was torn up about whether to replace the 4 seats we had in the car at the time. According to Britax and the NHSTA guidelines I did not need to replace plus the other driver who was 18 had no insurance so I knew that he would be screwed it he had to pay for the kind of quality,(read expensive), seats I would need as replacements. I did go out a buy another seat initially, but felt conflicted because I had no injuries, and I felt that there would have been more damage to our seats if I had dropped them, so I returned it. Now I am wondering whether I did the right thing, especially after ScatterBuuny's comments. I did have one Graco HBTB in the car and Graco has different guidelines, (which is totally confusing), so I was thinking of replacing that seat with a CarGo, but then if I do that, shouldn't I then replace the other seats in spite of the guidelines set down?

Any thoughts appreciated

I was always told that in a crash, and yours sounded severe enough, that the seat should be replaced whether or not the child is in it. Damage can and will still be done that you may not see. Whether there is a child in there or not. And I am sorry to sound so cold, but it is not your fault that the 18 year old didn't have insurance. He has to pay for what has happened, whether he has it or not. It will show him that insurance is important for instances like this. I understand the guilt and I would feel bad too but I would feel worse if I found out my child was injured in another accident or something cause of a stress fracture or something from the first one.
but I am not a tech or a professional. This is all my opinions. Someone can correct me but I am honestly a very strong believer that if in an accident the seat should be replaced, no matter if it is my fault, another persons fault or a minor accident.
Hope that makes sense

You make a very good point about the difference between car seat manufacturers. Honestly, I would feel equally conflicted about one manufacturer saying replace and another saying it's ok to continue using the seats. Although the NHTSA has minor collision recommendations as well.

But I think what it comes down to, is that car seat manufacturers don't want to take the risk that there could possibly be any hidden damage - and they don't want parents deciding for themselves if a seat is still usable. When it comes to collisions, black and white is much easier for most to understand - hence the pretty much blanket recommendation of if you're in an accident to replace the seat.

Why Britax has chosen to set criteria for seat replacement, I'm not sure. Maybe it's based on crash tests? Maybe it's based on NHTSA's defining and recommendations on minor crashes?

Whatever the case, I don't think I'd be comfortable continuing to use some carseats if others were being replaced. While I think it's sweet that you were worried about causing the other driver financial hardship, it's really not your problem.

As for the Britax seats, where's your comfort level? You saw the damage to your car, you were in it when the other guy rear-ended you. If your kids had been in their seats, would you have replaced the seats? If the answer is yes, then I'd replace the seats in a heartbeat. Britax doesn't differentiate between occupied vs. unoccupied seats, so if you'd replace them had they been occupied, replace them now too. :twocents:

I appreciate your comments so far. I would really be interested in hearing the viewpoint from a trained tech also. I don't want to put my kids in danger and had I felt there was definate damage to the seats, and Britax and the NHTSA had other guidelines, I would replace them in a heartbeat, but like I said before it seems as if they would have received more damage had I dropped them on the sidewalk. Am I mistaken?

Thank you.

shirada said:

I appreciate your comments so far. I would really be interested in hearing the viewpoint from a trained tech also. I don't want to put my kids in danger and had I felt there was definate damage to the seats, and Britax and the NHTSA had other guidelines, I would replace them in a heartbeat, but like I said before it seems as if they would have received more damage had I dropped them on the sidewalk. Am I mistaken?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

I am a trained tech. :thumbsup:

And it's possible your seats might've received more damage being dropped on a sidewalk, but dropped seats are also supposed to be replaced depending on the height they fall from.

Part of what you're asking though is a judgement call, that I'd have difficulties making if I were in the same position. Personally, I'd err on the side of caution and replace all the seats if there was a way to. I would have doubts about replacing one and not the others - even if britax ok's it.. you know what I mean? If Graco adopted the NHTSA's guidelines also, then I'd have no qualms if your collision met all of the criteria.

Although something that does bug me about that criteria, is that it says no visible signs of damage - yet we know that most damage isn't visible. I saw a seat that was actually crooked from being in a collision, but there wasn't a single stressmark in the plastic. If the seat hadn't been tethered, it wouldn't have been skewed like that & who knows if there would've been any visible damage at all... so the visible damage thing kind of doesn't sit right with me. But that's another story...

Sorry snowbird, I read your signature now and see that you are a tech .

I know what you mean about the undetected damage part being worrisome. Another point that confuses me is the part about the vehicle door closest to the seat being undamaged as criteria for not needing to replace the seat. The hatch was damaged on my minivan and needs to be replaced, and I wonder if the hatch counts as a door. I did speak to Britax about that and they seemed unclear. Two of the seats were closest to the hatch in the 3rd row bench.

Sorry to go on and on about this.

I count the hatch as a door. That's just me though and I would think twice about being so nice to the other person if it's their fault. Plain and simple they are at fault and they should pay for your seats whether or not they have insurance. To me if you have any kind of damage I would be replacing the seats. I would not feel comfortable placeing my kids back in the seats. Just my opinion though.

Even the brand new monster sized Regent? It looks pretty invincible.

If it doesn't qualify as a serious crash by Britax's standards, then I feel pretty comfortable not replacing. I only said, in the other thread, that since the insurance company was willing to replace, I would take full advantage of that for my own peace of mind. I am pretty confident that Britax knows what their seats can handle. They go above and beyond in crash-testing, from what I've been told by other techs who've visited the factory.

Graco says definitely replace, though. Oh, and I consider the hatch a door, too. Two-door, hatchback cars are called 3-door, aren't they?

Absolutely, you have no idea what kind of hairline damage could have happened to the inside of the seat. To me if there was enough force to damage your car, there was enough force to damage your seats hands down.

Since the hatch was damaged and needs over $3000 worth of repairs, I guess I should replace the seats.

Thanks everyone for all your informative advice. :thumbsup:

it has nothing to do with the value of the damage done to the car. as long as it meets britax's standards for whether or not to replace the seet, i would trust that 100%... especially if that is what is recommended from britax. i am sure they've thought of the potential liability and deemed their checklist to be safe.

but that's all moot point since the other party's insurance is paying for a new seat. in that case i personally would get a new seat. but i wouldn't get one just because i "felt" that it should be replaced. we have to be able to rely on guidelines set forth by the manufacturers (they know better than we do!) more than our own instincts. britax know what they are talking about with their guidelines. the reason most other mfrs take a blanket "replace, regardless" stance is because it's just easier for them and it eliminates any chance of liability on their part.

Oh I didn't mean because there was $3000 damage that I should replace the seats, (I can see why the misunderstanding ). I meant that because the hatch was badly damaged and that was the door closest to the 3rd row seats, then according to the Britax and NHTSA guidelines the seats need replacing. I wasn't sure before whether the hatch counted as a door.