-
Welcome! CLICK HERE to ask a question about the best carseat or safest choice for your family. Visitor posts subject to approval.
2012 compliant exemption?
- Thread starter smackeen
- Start date
ADS | |
jess71903
Ambassador
I don't know the answer to your question, and I'm not even Canadian, but I had a comment anyway. I always thought the developmental requirements for seat use were really arbitrary. There are so many kids with developmental delays or disabilities that would cause them to walk/sit up/whatever late. Now, for us, that's kind of a good thing since we can say "oh, see? You need to keep him RF because he can't walk yet." On the flip side of that, you know there are parents going "oh, he's only 10 months old, but he's 25lbs and can walk unassisted, so I'm sure it's fine.
snowbird25ca
Moderator - CPST Instructor
I've had this discussion a little bit and it's a toughie because in "technicality" the only "legal" option would be a special needs seat - but special needs seats aren't easy to find, and a kid who has an amputated leg isn't necessarily going to need to be harnessed an extra long time.
On the other hand - don't many kids with an amputation still learn to walk in one way or another? I don't think you could reasonably expect all parents to keep those kids who were unable to walk rf'ing until 40lbs and then stick them straight in to a booster...
I would imagine something will eventually create an issue over this. One year old is not part of the standards for going ff'ing - it's a rule that manufacturers put on their seats, but it's not required to be there.
From what I've been told a child walking unassisted does reflect a change in the development of their skeletal system and that's the reason why it's there. Apparently it better reflects the beginning point of when a child can *begin* to withstand the forces in a ff'ing collision better than saying 1 yr old. Of course that doesn't mean a kid can be ff'ing prior to a year old since manufacturers require the one year age minimum - but it does mean that the 15 month old who isn't walking yet would be less able to withstand a collision ff'ing than an 11 month old who is walking - at least so far as skeletal development goes. (Not saying this is safe, just explaining the rationale behind the walking unassisted.)
So not really an answer to the question being asked I guess, but there's no answer on this one right now. On the positive side, kids who don't walk before age 2 are going to be an exception and not the norm.
On the other hand - don't many kids with an amputation still learn to walk in one way or another? I don't think you could reasonably expect all parents to keep those kids who were unable to walk rf'ing until 40lbs and then stick them straight in to a booster...
I would imagine something will eventually create an issue over this. One year old is not part of the standards for going ff'ing - it's a rule that manufacturers put on their seats, but it's not required to be there.
From what I've been told a child walking unassisted does reflect a change in the development of their skeletal system and that's the reason why it's there. Apparently it better reflects the beginning point of when a child can *begin* to withstand the forces in a ff'ing collision better than saying 1 yr old. Of course that doesn't mean a kid can be ff'ing prior to a year old since manufacturers require the one year age minimum - but it does mean that the 15 month old who isn't walking yet would be less able to withstand a collision ff'ing than an 11 month old who is walking - at least so far as skeletal development goes. (Not saying this is safe, just explaining the rationale behind the walking unassisted.)
So not really an answer to the question being asked I guess, but there's no answer on this one right now. On the positive side, kids who don't walk before age 2 are going to be an exception and not the norm.
QuassEE
Moderator - CPST Instructor
Walking unassisted is a developmental marker. Special needs children do not meet all developmental markers, or do not meet them at the same time as children who are not considered special needs. Since I wouldn't recommend that a non-special-needs child be forward-facing at the bare minimums, I wouldn't recommend that a special needs child do so, either. While clearly eventually that child is going to have to turn forward-facing, I would recommend that the parents forward-face at the limits of the seat. When you've already been through a trauma or a life event that has resulted in having a disabled child, the last thing those parents should have to go through again would be another injury--especially one that could have been prevented.
Once the child hits the maximum for rear-facing, and goes forward-facing.. it would be difficult to fault them on the "walking unassisted" part. So at least at that point there's no legal solution whereas when the child still fits rear-facing, the only legal answer is that they continue to rear-face to the limits of the seat.
The special needs training reinforces that children remain in a standard restraint until they've outgrown all available standard restraints.. so that's not much help in this case, either.
-Nicole.
Once the child hits the maximum for rear-facing, and goes forward-facing.. it would be difficult to fault them on the "walking unassisted" part. So at least at that point there's no legal solution whereas when the child still fits rear-facing, the only legal answer is that they continue to rear-face to the limits of the seat.
The special needs training reinforces that children remain in a standard restraint until they've outgrown all available standard restraints.. so that's not much help in this case, either.
-Nicole.
safeinthecar
Moderator - CPS Technician
I've done a little bit of research on the walking/physical development link and the act of walking is not only a marker for physical development, but a catalyst for it. Weight bearing activities increase bone density in the supporting bones. This is true even in adults. Astronauts returning from extended stays on the space station have considerably lower bone density than before they went, and have to build it back up carefully to avoid fractures.
Given this, I would want to keep the child rear facing until the maximum capacity of the seat.
snowbird25ca
Moderator - CPST Instructor
So if I'm understanding this correctly, a 3 year old child who has never walked could have a skeletal system more similar to a 1yr old child?
Does this also translate to kids who have walked at a younger age being less at risk than kids who have just recently started walking before turning ff'ing? Theoretically anyways if a parent was set on turning ff'ing at the minimums? (Sorry, curious question here, but since you've researched it I thought you might have an answer.)
safeinthecar
Moderator - CPS Technician
I don't know, the studies I've read were all on adults and older children.
You must read your carseat and vehicle owner’s manual and understand any relevant state laws. These are the rules you must follow to restrain your children safely. All opinions at Car-Seat.Org are those of the individual author for informational purposes only, and do not necessarily reflect any policy or position of Carseat Media LLC. Car-Seat.Org makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. If you are unsure about information provided to you, please visit a local certified technician. Before posting or using our website you must read and agree to our TERMS.
 |  |  |
Please Support Car-Seat.Org with your purchases of infant, convertible, combination and boosters seats from our premier sponsors above.
Shop travel systems, strollers and baby gear from Britax, Chicco, Clek, Combi, Evenflo, First Years, Graco, Maxi-Cosi, Nuna, Safety 1st, Diono & more! ©2001-2022 Carseat Media LLC