KWP and child death?

Baylor · Aug 15, 2012

So they posted a pic on their facebook page about the KWP. It was a pic of a child sleeping folded over the front.

Someone asked if that was considered out of position and got a snarky reply.

But she then asked again because she said there was a death associated with the seat in Europe and the reason for the death is because the child had been sleeping and out of position.

Anyone have any other information? I have been searching but so far am only getting hits on other discussions about the death.

Brianna · Aug 15, 2012

There was a thread about that somewhat recently, try searching for it.

Sent from my DROID4 using Car-Seat.Org

Baylor · Aug 15, 2012

Ive been trying with no luck...

SoCalCarSeatMama · Aug 15, 2012

http://www.car-seat.org/showthread.php?t=214016

SoCalCarSeatMama · Aug 15, 2012

And I think the child survived, but suffered a broken neck.

Baylor · Aug 15, 2012

Thank you. I was searching for a while and could not find it.

Baylor · Aug 15, 2012

So after reading what I can and getting the reply, do people really feel the claims about this seat is true?

LISmama810 · Aug 15, 2012

We really have no way of knowing. I suspect it might perform better in some regards; worse in others. There is no way in hades that it's safer than or as safe as rear-racing.

Baylor · Aug 15, 2012

LISmama810 said:
We really have no way of knowing. I suspect it might perform better in some regards; worse in others. There is no way in hades that it's safer than or as safe as rear-racing.

I agree based on just what I have learned here. So how can they make that claim? Im still confused by the safety standard. I know they all have to meet the same standards to get onto the market but what about a claim like that?

Is there anyway to get them not make that claim?

djma · Aug 15, 2012

LISmama810 said:
We really have no way of knowing. I suspect it might perform better in some regards; worse in others. There is no way in hades that it's safer than or as safe as rear-racing.

Totally agree!

LISmama810 · Aug 15, 2012

Baylor said:
I agree based on just what I have learned here. So how can they make that claim? Im still confused by the safety standard. I know they all have to meet the same standards to get onto the market but what about a claim like that?

Is there anyway to get them not make that claim?

I dunno. It's marketing. They can all claim to be "the safest." Or maybe they're basing it on criteria that do tend to be lower FF than RF. That doesn't mean it's safer overall.

SafeDad · Aug 15, 2012

Baylor said:
So after reading what I can and getting the reply, do people really feel the claims about this seat is true?

True or not, the same could easily happen in a typical 5-point harness. Most harnesses are a little loose, with the chest clip a little low. A child's head can easily flop forward while sleeping, especially in models where the head restraint pushes the head forward slightly. I'm sure there are records of similar incidents in the USA for a variety of models, though here, many go unpublicized due to our legal system. Of course, this would be for a forward-facing child. I also find it unlikely that an energy absorbing forward facing shield restraint system would compare to the safety of a rear-facing seat, but I am open to data showing otherwise.

Anyway, I think an individual incident with an injury is not a good indicator of safety. If it was, there would be a lot of popular seats that would be questioned as well! I'd be far more interested in real world highway data comparing one type of restraint system to another.

Baylor · Aug 15, 2012

CPSDarren said:
True or not, the same could easily happen in a typical 5-point harness. Most harnesses are a little loose, with the chest clip a little low. A child's head can easily flop forward while sleeping, especially in models where the head restraint pushes the head forward slightly. I'm sure there are records of similar incidents in the USA for a variety of models, though here, many go unpublicized due to our legal system. Of course, this would be for a forward-facing child. I also find it unlikely that an energy absorbing forward facing shield restraint system would compare to the safety of a rear-facing seat, but I am open to data showing otherwise.

Anyway, I think an individual incident with an injury is not a good indicator of safety. If it was, there would be a lot of popular seats that would be questioned as well! I'd be far more interested in real world highway data comparing one type of restraint system to another.

Thanks Darren. Its hard to understand all the information as a layperson. I appreciate all the information here available to parents like me. It can just be a lot to process with out the proper training and understanding of neck loads, and mechanics.

But I appreciate the chance to learn and the experts here who help me along in my ignorance..

safeinthecar · Aug 15, 2012

I've been thinking about this seat. The main benefit in rfing is that it keeps the child contained in the seat in a side impact, right? The head and body moving as a unit is a secondary benefit. Well I can see how the shield might do a better job of keeping a child back inside the side impact features that a 5pt harness would. I remember back from when I had kids riding in the Britax Laptop how annoying it was to not be able to hand stuff back to them. Technically, they should have been able to reach, but the way the shield prevented their upper bodies from curving they couldn't get a full extension of their arms and shoulders.

SafeDad · Aug 15, 2012

safeinthecar said:
I've been thinking about this seat. The main benefit in rfing is that it keeps the child contained in the seat in a side impact, right? The head and body moving as a unit is a secondary benefit. Well I can see how the shield might do a better job of keeping a child back inside the side impact features that a 5pt harness would. I remember back from when I had kids riding in the Britax Laptop how annoying it was to not be able to hand stuff back to them. Technically, they should have been able to reach, but the way the shield prevented their upper bodies from curving they couldn't get a full extension of their arms and shoulders.

My thoughts exactly- that's one reason I really liked the Laptop for grandma. It was so easy to install and use and the energy absorbing shield rode very high on the chest of a 2+ year old child. I felt that it was very possible that it could perform as well or better than a forward facing 5-point harness, especially one that had one or more misuse issues.

Baylor · Aug 15, 2012

I got this response from kiddy

- We agree that children should stay rear facing until 22 lbs. Children are switched forward facing early in harnessed seats as well. Kiddy's intention in having a 22lbs. weight to start is for safety reasons. If you have to switch your child forward facing, we want them to be as safe as possible. With the rolling effect of our shield, it lessens the effects on the neck (whiplash). In a harnessed seat, the neck jerks forward in a frontal crash and then rebounds into the seat causing there to be large loads on the neck. The shield lessens it because it creates a rolling effect and cushions the child. Due to the characteristics and different make-up of children, Kiddy's intention in having the weight at 22lbs to start with was also for those little peanuts out there that are 2years and above that weigh 22 lbs (or close to) also. We tried to cover as much ground as possible if that makes sense.

bnsnyde · Aug 15, 2012

So am I understanding this right, that I DO want this seat for a FF child because the shield has benefits over a 5 pt. harness. OK, good! But then I need a shield to FIT my FF kids! We rear-face to age 4 or 5, so Kiddy World needs to get busy making a seat for larger kids.

Could the market ever lean toward such shields for FF kids? That would be an interesting direction, if it's really better than a 5 pt for neck loads.

SafeDad · Aug 15, 2012

bnsnyde said:
So am I understanding this right, that I DO want this seat for a FF child because the shield has benefits over a 5 pt. harness.

All hypothetical; just observations, no data or proof of any kind. I would venture to guess that used correctly, there may not be all that much difference between a front-facing 5-point harness and the KWP. We may never have the data to say for sure.

SoCalCarSeatMama · Aug 15, 2012

Even if that is all true, the people that I see who are turning their "22lbs" kids forward facing do not have the money to spend on one of these seats, and even if they do, have no idea this seat even exists! For me personally, I'm going to just keep doing what I'm doing....rf until as close to 4yo as I can get (or a little longer) and then ff in a harness until they are ready for a booster. By the time mine have turned ff they are at or past 40lbs so this "technology" is useless to me. It can be praised until the cows come home but it is just not something I'd ever consider for my own personal needs.

Calleiah · Aug 15, 2012

Is it my imagination or did they delete that whole deal on the facebook page? I can't find it anymore.

The KWP looks interesting but I'm not sold. I really want to see #s or video that demonstrates its purported benefits.

KWP and child death?

New member

New member

New member

SoCalCarSeatMama

Guest

SoCalCarSeatMama

Guest

New member

New member

Admin - CPS Technician

New member

New member

Admin - CPS Technician

CPSDarren - Admin

New member

Moderator - CPS Technician

CPSDarren - Admin

New member

New member

CPSDarren - Admin

SoCalCarSeatMama

Guest

Active member

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics