Is there anything that says a HBB is safer

than a no back booster?
The ONLY way my seats will work in my vehicle is to have my 4 year old in a FF Frontier, in the center of the back seat of my car, and to have his 6.5 year old brother in a harmony booster (no back) behind the passenger.
4 year old gets car sick, and needs to be able to see out the front window (it helps), plus, I can hand him the bucket if need be, if he is in the center.

We have a HB turbo booster, it's in hubby's truck at the moment, but the way the harmony fits I'd assume the turbo wouldn't. The harmony's tiny armrests nicely sit right under the Frontier's side, the turbo's armrests sit higher than the turbo, so I don't think it would fit.

I can use the belt adjuster clip on the harmony to ensure proper shoulder belt fit for my 6 year old.

Is there anything showing that a HB booster is safer than a no back booster, providing the belt fits the child properly over both the shoulder and the hips?

I'm torn with this.......I much prefer them both to be harnessed, but it just isn't going to work with the car seats I own.

I could easily try my Radian in the center, but I removed it from the car this morning, it was so so upright in the passenger rear seat yesterday that my 4 year old was literally just hanging in it. It had pretty much ZERO recline to it.

I guess some seats and some cars just do not work well together.

I think in all practicality, they would function quite similarly given the correct adjustment of the shoulderbelt in both instances. In functional terms, however, it's a totally different ballgame. Crash tests do not account for behavioural variables--things like the visible constraints of a highback that serves to act as a spatial barrier to children, or the additional support some highbacks may provide for a sleeping child.

Having identified that issue, I can say that I've had success with one of my kids being in a no back from the age of 6. One of my kids had to be harnessed to 8 when we went on road trips. Another was good in a no back at 7, but went in a built-in booster part-time from age 5. So the child really does factor in, as well. As does driving. So would the dimensions of your seat--your child may sit fine in a no back in one vehicle but not in another, because of the slope of the seat, the width of the seat, or other design factors.

{Noting that I'm purposely not addressing the whiplash and SI protection, not accidentally neglecting it.}

-Nicole.

I understand.

He sits very very well in the booster when he's in it. He just has not yet been in this booster, in this car. Yet.

I am beyond frustrated and very disappointed that the two harnessed seats I own, simply will not fit properly where I'd like them to, how I'd like them to.

And I wish car sickness/reflux didn't exist

Then there would be way less of a seating location issue, and my problems would be solved.

Just a quick anecdote as opposed to official info:
My recent experience traveling with a backless supports the urgent issue of sleeping in one - positioning was horrendous when DS1 fell asleep and we needed to sit an adult in the back to fix it till we arrived at destination (we held him up for over an hour, not fun but they needed the rest). This was with both kids outboard, and DS1 was in the harmony backless while DS2 travelled in the classic MA. For the return trip I put the MA in the center and gave DS1 a small pillow to help him rest his head on the MA shell. He was comfy and maintained good position in the seatbelt. Moral of the story to me is that the backless works a heck of a lot better with another seat installed next to it so you gave that going for you!
I also totally non-scientifically feel that having the backless next to an installed seat improves function by helping the child sit better in general and by providing more containment against lateral motion in the seat during a potential crash. But whether this really helps and by how much is obviously totally unproven by my say-so. Lol.

If it is the only workable solution for you right now and DS stays in position on the belt I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

Just some other thoughts... I would probably try out the radian again just to see. See if you can tweak it in he center to have some recline without obviously installing incorrectly. There is usually a bit of wiggle room for a correct install.

And, what is your vehicle? I would feel even better about the backless if you have rear side curtain airbags and good side crash ratings in the rear seat, but that would depend on the vehicle.

The short answer is no but there are some exceptions. In general a low back booster provide the same safety as a hbb or a harnessed FF seat. Most believe the head support of the hbb/harnessed seat provide good or even great side impact protection but this is incorrect.

All forward facing seats provide horrendous, almost worthless, side impact protection thanks to forward momentum and pre-impact breaking. Doesn't matter what seat or how large the head support is, side impact protection is a huge problem in real life. When seats are tested or shown it's done in labs with cars standing still. This is not how real life collisions take place.

A good recommendation is to keep younger kids, say 4-6 years in a hbb, if possible. These kids move around a bit more and tend to sit better in a hbb. The exception regarding safety is when kids sleep in the car. Hbb then provide better safety since belt position is not out of place. Looking at a sleeping kid in a low back booster is often not pretty

There is some US research done on the subject which show the two providing similar safety. Long rear facing time is very important. When it comes to older kids low back boosters have a bad reputation. They provide good protection as long as kids are awake and are also cheap and easy to use.

Adventuredad said:

The short answer is no but there are some exceptions. In general a low back booster provide the same safety as a hbb or a harnessed FF seat. Most believe the head support of the hbb/harnessed seat provide good or even great side impact protection but this is incorrect.

All forward facing seats provide horrendous, almost worthless, side impact protection thanks to forward momentum and pre-impact breaking. Doesn't matter what seat or how large the head support is, side impact protection is a huge problem in real life. When seats are tested or shown it's done in labs with cars standing still. This is not how real life collisions take place.

A good recommendation is to keep younger kids, say 4-6 years in a hbb, if possible. These kids move around a bit more and tend to sit better in a hbb. The exception regarding safety is when kids sleep in the car. Hbb then provide better safety since belt position is not out of place. Looking at a sleeping kid in a low back booster is often not pretty

There is some US research done on the subject which show the two providing similar safety. Long rear facing time is very important. When it comes to older kids low back boosters have a bad reputation. They provide good protection as long as kids are awake and are also cheap and easy to use.

Click to expand...

Oh good grief, AD. That's a very strong statement about a very subjective topic. When used correctly, CR's provide enhanced protection in collisions, period.

Perhaps what AD means is that in most crashes, physics results in head excursion and most seats cannot provide the SI protection we like to think they do.

I personally do not rely on any restraint to provide SI protection. That is the role of the vehicle frame and side airbags (to a lesser extent).

bubbaray said:

Perhaps what AD means is that in most crashes, physics results in head excursion and most seats cannot provide the SI protection we like to think they do.

I personally do not rely on any restraint to provide SI protection. That is the role of the vehicle frame and side airbags (to a lesser extent).

Click to expand...

I think it's possible that "breaking" should also be "braking" which does change the degree of the comment.

I also believe that SIP is a real buzz word. Occupants are more likely to be severely injured in a side impact collision - but this is mainly because of vehicle compartment intrusion. As mentioned, the vehicle frame and side airbags are going to make the biggest difference to passengers overall in a side impact. I suspect in the case of ff'ing restraints, there is benefit provided by the 5pt harness because there isn't the risk of being thrown outside the shoulder belt, and there is some extra side space created just by the shell of the seat itself which is going to be beneficial.

But very few hbb have the same degree of side torso support as what most ff'ing harness restraints have, so how much of a difference a hbb actually makes, is really difficult to say.

I wouldn't go so far as to say there is no benefit to a HBB in a side impact collision - but whether it is actually measurable, or whether it decreases the actual injury criterion, I cannot say.

So the short answer to the original question, is no - provided there is proper seatbelt fit and the child stays properly positioned in the booster. There are things we can speculate on, but so far as I know, there is no hard data indicating a hbb is safer.

Kids in boosters are truly relying on the features of the vehicle to keep them safe - the job of the booster is solely to allow the adult seatbelt to fit their body correctly so that the seatbelt can provide optimal protection in a collision. That being said, my daughter still sleeps in the car and still rides in a hbb at age 8.

OP, sorry about adding this, I do not want to freak you out. Keep in mind that this is European info, as well as being from 2010 and one would imagine if it was truly revolutionary in terms of safety one would think (hope) that we would have had some further testing and word of it in US/Canada by now.

Just to round out the discussion (being a devils advocate I guess because I still think the backless is likely a perfectly viable option and do use one), here is a 2010 article off a Polish carseat website that says backless boosters are less safe despite being considered equal until recently. They are now recommending against taking the back off a booster that has a back option, and say that most (European) highback boosters are now designed to fit a child until they are 150 cm (59" or 4'14") tall or approx. 12 years old.

One paragraph, translated using google translate and massaged a tiny bit, says:

They then proceed to list information from various (leading) manufacturers (with seats that score highly in testing) or instruction manual info from their booster models (so insert grain of salt to info from companies who are trying to make a profit) which provide information about why the high back portion of the seat is important to safety, which include:

Roemer: proper positioning of the body, ergonomics in sleep, and belt guides to position the shoulder belt better. The manuals no longer offer the option of removing the high backs even though it is possible.

BeSafe: the manufacturer states that BeSafe is abandoning the production of backless booster cushions, and that they are "decidedly against" backless boosters ecause they do not protect the head and their use leads to "catastrophic conseqences" in a side impact.

Maxi-Cosi: they say they are not altering the design for the Rodi XR because the movable back is a design feature that allows the belt guide to move forward with the child, thus maintaining positioning, but that they no longer allow the back to be removed and the seat to be used backless. Their newest booster (in 2010), the Rodi AirProtect, had express warnings in the manual against using it backless.

Sunshine Kids: note that says the original article posted videos of the backless Monterey in AL (Finnish ADAC partner) crash testing where it was getting negative ratings, but offer the correction that the importer had since informed them that the manufacturer had changed their intentions and no longer allowed the Monterey to be used backless. They mention that the HB Monterey scored a "4" in 2009 ADAC testing.

The last bit talks about what ADAC has to say about backless boosters. It mentions that ADAC did some testing of backless boosters and side curtain airbags, and found that because the child's head is located so close to the bottom of the window, their head may move into the area of airbag deployment before the airbag manages to fully deploy, potentially increasing risk of injury. Similar results were apparently found by crash testing in the US. I think it says that ADAC now penalizes the ratings of backless boosters even if the crash test dummy measurements do not show loads above the limits set out by regulations?

One of the last sentences says "Recommendations to refrain from further manufacture and sale of booster seats without backrest stems not only from the analysis of crash tests, but also from the analysis of car crashes involving children."

Oops, forgot the link: http://fotelik.info/pl/news/siedziska_bez_oparcia_nie_gwarantuja_ochrony,76.html

Oh good grief, AD. That's a very strong statement about a very subjective topic. When used correctly, CR's provide enhanced protection in collisions, period.

Click to expand...

CRS do provide excellent protection. Especially rear facing ones. I was referring to SIP in forward facing seats. It's no secret SIP in FF seats is horrendous and basically worthless. Actually, it probably is a secret since most do believe SIP is good in forward facing seats.

The reason for the terrible SIP in FF seats is very simple. It's due to forward momentum and pre-impact braking. Simplified that means that head of child is forward of head support and unprotected at impact.

This is also why research show that low back boosters and high back boosters provide the same protection. As mentioned earlier I prefer a hbb since one never know when a child will fall asleep. Hbb is also preferred for younger children. I think it's a good idea to use hbb when possible since it's never worse. But one should not be afraid to use a lbb for transporting extra kids in the car. Protection is the same.

SIP is a powerful buzzword which manufacturers rely heavily upon for FF seats. Most have their own patented solution. This works very well when car is standing still but is basically worthless in real life.

I think it's possible that "breaking" should also be "braking" which does change the degree of the comment.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. Sorry about the poor spelling.....

Perhaps what AD means is that in most crashes, physics results in head excursion and most seats cannot provide the SI protection we like to think they do.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I wish I could express myself that clearly The poor SIP we are discussing is only applicable for FF seats. RF seats have excellent SIP protection since children are pushed into car seat just before impact due to forward momentum and pre-impact breaking.

Do you have videos or studies you can share with us? The only ones I'm familiar with are the ones posted by ikea55 on YouTube. I have no idea what the standards are that are used for this test or how they compare to European SIP testing, but the MyRide FF doesn't look all that bad to me.

There is a discussion of this topic and links to a small number of studies on the blog (from 2010).

http://carseatblog.com/8243/to-backless-or-not-to-backless-that-is-the-question/