S/O - What cps-related change/update would be hardest for you to handle?

Kecia · Sep 15, 2011

I don't want to derail the Diono recline adjuster thread but my last comments there got me thinking about this...

We all have some strong cps-related beliefs and certain changes or new concepts are harder for us to accept than others. I know quite a few cps techs and instructors who are still desperately clinging to old ideas about things because they just can't accept the new info for whatever reason (ie, handle positions on infant seats, the concept of "cocooning", grippy shelf liner, etc.)

Even though most of the advocates here have embraced the new schools of thoughts on such matters, we all still have our prejudices. For example, some people hate the mighty tite so much that they can't bring themselves to trust the similar device built into the new Summer Infant Prodigy.

I'm going to ask each of you to ask yourself which theoretical/hypothetical change or new info would be hardest for you to accept. And how would you handle it? Could you find a way to come to terms with it?

For me the perfect example is the belief that rear-facing is almost always going to be superior to forward-facing in a crash. Last year the Kiddy folks were heard boasting claims that their FF energy-absorbing impact shield technology was actually safER than rear-facing. Most of us dismissed their claims because we believe so passionately that RF is almost always preferable to FF, especially for infants and toddlers. But what if they're right? What if they prove (and Euro crash data backs it up) that 12 month olds fare better outcomes in most crash types if they are FF in one of these types of CRs. Could you accept that?

What other scenarios would you have a hard time with and how would you deal with them?

Pixels · Sep 15, 2011

I think the actual claim Kiddy was making is that their seat is AS safe as RFing, not safeR. Yes, that is a good example for me. Unless they can show data that it's at least as safe, I don't and won't believe it, for several reasons. So as not to derail this thread on the very first reply, I won't get into them here, but anyone truly interested can PM me.

Straps above the shoulders RFing would be difficult for me to accept, especially in light of our misuse rate with straps way too loose. You might be able to convince me that it's okay for perfect use, but not in the general public.

carseatcoach · Sep 15, 2011

I have felt angst over the theories that it's better not to top-tether a child over the LATCH limit and that an inch of movement is better than a rock-the-car install. (ETA that I do accept that installs don't have to rock the car to be safe and that an inch of movement is *acceptable*, but I have a hard time believing it's actually better.)

jess71903 · Sep 15, 2011

Yep- the top tether limit thing is a big one for me now. That's one that "because we said so" isn't going to fly with me.

Kecia · Sep 15, 2011

Pixels said:
I think the actual claim Kiddy was making is that their seat is AS safe as RFing, not safeR. Yes, that is a good example for me. Unless they can show data that it's at least as safe, I don't and won't believe it, for several reasons. So as not to derail this thread on the very first reply, I won't get into them here, but anyone truly interested can PM me.

Straps above the shoulders RFing would be difficult for me to accept, especially in light of our misuse rate with straps way too loose. You might be able to convince me that it's okay for perfect use, but not in the general public.

Actually, I heard them say it and I'm fairly certain they said "better than RF". That the numbers they were seeing in their testing were actually better than the numbers you would get/expect to see in a RF seat. I didn't ask them for details because their booth was busy and that would have been a long conversation but I'll follow up with them and clarify, just for the record.

Oh, and FWIW, my beloved FPSIV infant seat required "at or above" and I had no problem with using it that way. Of course, it only had 2 sets of harness slots and DS2 was 9 1/2 lbs and 21.5" at birth so there wasn't much room for misuse in this case. I remember having to move up to the upper slots at 2 weeks old. Then again, he outgrow the seat entirely at 4 mos which was such a drag. :/

Kecia · Sep 15, 2011

jess71903 said:
Yep- the top tether limit thing is a big one for me now. That's one that "because we said so" isn't going to fly with me.

ITA!

But in the spirit of this thread, let me put a twist on this. If someone comes out with a seat tomorrow that they claim performs better without tethering and even though there is a tether strap on the seat they recommend that it NOT be used unless the child weighs more than 65 lbs - could you accept that? Would you be able to put aside your own personal beliefs that tethering is always better and embrace this new info?

Kecia · Sep 15, 2011

carseatcoach said:
I(ETA that I do accept that installs don't have to rock the car to be safe and that an inch of movement is *acceptable*, but I have a hard time believing it's actually better.)

Does anyone actually say that? If they do, I would challenge them to back up that claim. It isn't in the curriculum, current one or old one. And I've never seen it stated in any CR instruction manual.

Pixels · Sep 15, 2011

Kecia said:
ITA!

But in the spirit of this thread, let me put a twist on this. If someone comes out with a seat tomorrow that they claim performs better without tethering and even though there is a tether strap on the seat they recommend that it NOT be used unless the child weighs more than 65 lbs - could you accept that? Would you be able to put aside your own personal beliefs that tethering is always better and embrace this new info?

The ProSport is not too far off this description. It must be untethered at 52 pounds or more.

carseatcoach · Sep 15, 2011

carseatcoach said:
that an inch of movement is better than a rock-the-car install

Kecia said:
Does anyone actually say that? If they do, I would challenge them to back up that claim. It isn't in the curriculum, current one or old one. And I've never seen it stated in any CR instruction manual.

I've heard second- and third-hand stories that CPSTs/CPST-Is have claimed that. No one has ever said it to me. Still, I include it as a change that would be hard for me to handle.

monstah · Sep 15, 2011

Probably because I'm still fairly new to the CPS gang, immersing myself only 4 years ago. I find it easy to accept new rules and information on what is better. For example,

Kecia said:
ITA!

But in the spirit of this thread, let me put a twist on this. If someone comes out with a seat tomorrow that they claim performs better without tethering and even though there is a tether strap on the seat they recommend that it NOT be used unless the child weighs more than 65 lbs - could you accept that? Would you be able to put aside your own personal beliefs that tethering is always better and embrace this new info?

I would have no problem with that especially with companies using steel and magnesium in their seats now. I imagine it like catching an egg. KWIM?
I also believe it's possible the shield is better than RFing but wont believe it without data.
Harness above shoulders for RFing? Also, no problem for me to accept.

Insisting no TT after my cars 48 pound LATCH limit? That's the one thing that wont fly with me since it's clearly a CYO, IMO.

ETA: Holy smokes, I've been here for 4 years, not 3.

carseatcoach · Sep 15, 2011

Kecia said:
ITA!

But in the spirit of this thread, let me put a twist on this. If someone comes out with a seat tomorrow that they claim performs better without tethering and even though there is a tether strap on the seat they recommend that it NOT be used unless the child weighs more than 65 lbs - could you accept that? Would you be able to put aside your own personal beliefs that tethering is always better and embrace this new info?

Embrace? I doubt it.

I would, I think, be able to tell parents that they are legally obligated to follow the instructions in the manual and that they should trust the manufacturer's testing.

LISmama810 · Sep 15, 2011

Kecia said:
Even though most of the advocates here have embraced the new schools of thoughts on such matters, we all still have our prejudices. For example, some people hate the mighty tite so much that they can't bring themselves to trust the similar device built into the new Summer Infant Prodigy.

*coughcoughcough* What? I can't hear you!

No, sorry, once people have had a chance to play with that seat and can demonstrate that it doesn't unnecessarily overtighten the belt, then I'll believe it's different.

And that does sort of play into the rock-solid vs. less-than-an-inch theory.

I, too, haven't heard that an inch of movement is better than less, but I have heard that there's no difference between rock-solid and less than an inch. And I'm inclined to believe that (no significant difference, at least).

But SafeKids did put out a notice a few months ago about how we should avoid using "tricks" to get tighter-than-necessary installs (reclining then uprighting the seat back, for example).

To me, the Summer Infant device falls into that "unnecessary trick" category.

But anyway.

Yeah, not tethering past 40/48 pounds is something I just will not accept without some sort of logic or evidence provided, neither of which has been. I don't consider that an evidence-based recommendation.

Angela · Sep 15, 2011

carseatcoach said:
I have felt angst over the theories that it's better not to top-tether a child over the LATCH limit and that an inch of movement is better than a rock-the-car install. (ETA that I do accept that installs don't have to rock the car to be safe and that an inch of movement is *acceptable*, but I have a hard time believing it's actually better.)

This was stated in the class I observed back in April. They said the seat shouldn't be 'cemented' in because it can cause undo stress to the seatbelt/car seat and the seat might not perform how it was tested.
I, personally, don't believe this. I agree that unnecessary tricks shouldn't be used to get a good install, but I feel better if I can get a seat rock the car solid.

CTPDMom · Sep 15, 2011

LISmama810 said:
Yeah, not tethering past 40/48 pounds is something I just will not accept without some sort of logic or evidence provided, neither of which has been. I don't consider that an evidence-based recommendation.

This.

But I'd go further and say that any recommendation or rule that isn't evidence based...meaning you can SHOW us some data, SHOW us something concrete that this is the reason for it...I would have a hard time with.

Kecia · Sep 15, 2011

The tethering HWH seats issue is unique because in this situation we have loads of data from real life crashes AND lab testing AND at least one peer-reviewed study from CHOP that prove that tethering is beneficial and the anchors are NOT failing. And now we're being told to forget that all of this proof exists and take a different stance based on data that no one has been able to produce. That is not Kosher. It's also what makes this issue different from all the others gray areas in our field.

Baylor · Sep 15, 2011

Thanks for this thread. As someone new to the site and planning on becoming a CPST, This is informative and enlightening!

kaitlyn · Sep 15, 2011

I do have a hard time with the Might Tite and similar products. I think I could handle it if it were built in though, I would just have to stress to parents not to go overboard with it.

As a Canadian tech the top tether stuff doesn't matter for me, since we legally need to TT in any FF harnessed seat.

monica-m · Sep 15, 2011

monstah said:
I also believe it's possible the shield is better than RFing but wont believe it without data.
Harness above shoulders for RFing? Also, no problem for me to accept.

This

carseatcoach said:
Embrace? I doubt it.

I would, I think, be able to tell parents that they are legally obligated to follow the instructions in the manual and that they should trust the manufacturer's testing.

this

LISmama810 said:
Yeah, not tethering past 40/48 pounds is something I just will not accept without some sort of logic or evidence provided, neither of which has been. I don't consider that an evidence-based recommendation.

and this.

Kecia said:
The tethering HWH seats issue is unique because in this situation we have loads of data from real life crashes AND lab testing AND at least one peer-reviewed study from CHOP that prove that tethering is beneficial and the anchors are NOT failing. And now we're being told to forget that all of this proof exists and take a different stance based on data that no one has been able to produce. That is not Kosher. It's also what makes this issue different from all the others gray areas in our field.

I agree with this as well. I really seat and car manufacturers would do some real research on this so they would either change their stance or we would have real reasons why to discontinue tether use. As a tech I have to inform the parent of the limits knowing full well that I will disregard them myself when the time comes. If you're going to tell us we have to discontinue tether use then give us some evidence as to why.

That was my first multi-quote post. I feel like a big kid

bnsnyde · Sep 15, 2011

Extended harnessing as more dangerous than a booster. That would be hard to accept. But I really want more research to come out.

I'm the kind who will buy the Frontier85 and use it until my child is 9 or whenever he outgrows the harness. He could be 11 for all I know!

To say there is no evidence a booster or harness is safer than the other (for say, a 9-year-old) doesn't cut it for me. That means no data.

I want to know what is safer for an older kid who COULD ride in a harness or booster. Head excursion comes into play. NASCAR, hans device, etc. I want to know more. I am not aware of any answers yet. I would ride in the harness if it fit, but that seems wrong somehow for head excursion...

Brigala · Sep 15, 2011

I also simply cannot accept that tethering to a 40-lb weight-limit tether with a 65 lb child is worse than not tethering at all. Someone is going to have to prove it to me before I make the blanket recommendation not to tether a seat over the vehicle's weight limit. In my car, I tether a 50 lb child's seat to a 40 lb tether (although of course I do use the seat belt and not the lower anchors). That said, I am ordering an EZ-On high-weight tether anchor instead of the Honda tether retrofit for my step-daughter's car because I figure it's better to tether the Frontier to an appropriate tether than an inappropriate one.

As far as the rock-the-car install, I understand the reasons for it as taught in my CPST class. We weren't required to leave any movement in the seat for the one-hand "reasonable force" test, and I still try in my car, when possible, to get my seats to a "zero movement with non-dominant hand and reasonable force" level of tightness rather than just the "less than an inch" rule. But it also makes sense to me that if you yank the car seat with both hands and the car moves but the car seat doesn't, that you may have overtightened the belt to the point where, over time, it can weaken the seat belt and potentially put undue stress on the belt path of the child restraint, as well as damaging your upholstery. Basically, if our standard is to get a seat that tight, we might as well just use the Mighty-Tite anyway, and I think we all agree that's a bad idea.

S/O - What cps-related change/update would be hardest for you to handle?

Admin - CPST Instructor

New member

Carseat Crankypants

Ambassador

Admin - CPST Instructor

Admin - CPST Instructor

Admin - CPST Instructor

New member

Carseat Crankypants

New member

Carseat Crankypants

Admin - CPS Technician

New member

Ambassador - CPS Technician

Admin - CPST Instructor

New member

Senior Community Member

CPST Instructor

New member

CPST Instructor

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics