luckyclov
New member
Discussion in another thread has me genuinely curious. I was unaware that encouraging TT use beyond LATCH weight limits is a reportable act, which can lead to re-education. Persistence can lead to certification revocation.
This is news to me, since, as of last week, in my own tech course (revised curriculum), we were taught to encourage TT use beyond limits, as benefit outweighs potential risk(s) of non-use. As with all decisions, however, the final "say" rests on the parent/caregiver.
It has always been my understanding - through my own research, through seat checks over the years, through this forum, and, most recently, through my own CPST course last week - that top tethering is encouraged (though, ultimately the decision of the parent/caregiver) for forward-facing installations, even beyond the vehicle's stated LATCH weight limit. Logic being that if the TT were to fail, it would likely do so after having already provided some benefit in reducing head excursion. Less head excursion = less injury. And that we've not had any data suggestive of TTs failing over the years, while, assumptively, our TT use has increased over the years.
I am a firm believer in the benefit of top tethering. I drive a Toyota, which defers to the child seat manufacturer, but I'm pretty confident I'd still continue TT use beyond the stated LATCH weight limit, if my vehicle had one (parental decisions and all that).
This is news to me, since, as of last week, in my own tech course (revised curriculum), we were taught to encourage TT use beyond limits, as benefit outweighs potential risk(s) of non-use. As with all decisions, however, the final "say" rests on the parent/caregiver.
It has always been my understanding - through my own research, through seat checks over the years, through this forum, and, most recently, through my own CPST course last week - that top tethering is encouraged (though, ultimately the decision of the parent/caregiver) for forward-facing installations, even beyond the vehicle's stated LATCH weight limit. Logic being that if the TT were to fail, it would likely do so after having already provided some benefit in reducing head excursion. Less head excursion = less injury. And that we've not had any data suggestive of TTs failing over the years, while, assumptively, our TT use has increased over the years.
I am a firm believer in the benefit of top tethering. I drive a Toyota, which defers to the child seat manufacturer, but I'm pretty confident I'd still continue TT use beyond the stated LATCH weight limit, if my vehicle had one (parental decisions and all that).