If you could fix ONE child passenger safety issue, what would it be?

carseatcoach

Carseat Crankypants

• Aug 20, 2012

• #1

(Misuse doesn't count here. That's a given that we'd all want to fix that. I'm talking about "issues", like extended rear-facing, extended harnessing, etc..)

Me: Kids riding in seatbelt alone when they need boosters.

 

Kecia

Admin - CPST Instructor

• Aug 20, 2012

• #2

carseatcoach said:

Me: Kids riding in seatbelt alone when they need boosters.

Click to expand...

:yeahthatsad:

 

T4K

Well-known member

• Aug 20, 2012

• #3

Kids not even in a seatbelt. Let alone a child seat.

 

ketchupqueen

CPST and ketchup snob

Staff member

• Aug 20, 2012

• #4

Those two would be hard to decide between! Unrestrained children and children who need boosters and are not using them are definitely the two biggest risk categories. Can we lump them into one? "Unrestrained children and children not in proper restraints for their ages/sizes" maybe?

 

ketchupqueen

CPST and ketchup snob

Staff member

• Aug 20, 2012

• #5

(Yes, that's a cheat, but I'm including in that children not in proper restraints for their ages/sizes only ones who don't even meet the barest of bare minimums. Forward-facing 2 month olds. 1 year olds in boosters. 4 year olds in belt only.)

 

carseatcoach

Carseat Crankypants

• Aug 20, 2012

• #6

I guess I think of a forward-facing 2mo as clearly misuse, as would be completely unrestrained kids (so maybe I'm the one "cheating" by my definition). Kids in many states are "legal" to be boosterless long before they fit.

A 22# 12mo forward-facing is legal. A 52" 8yo in seatbelt alone is legal in many states. I'd rather see the FF (but otherwise properly restrained) kid than the seatbelt-only kid, although obviously the 12mo would be better off RF.

 

LISmama810

Admin - CPS Technician

• Aug 20, 2012

• #7

I'd wave a magic wand and make weight-limitless LATCH.

(That's not actually as important as unrestrained kids, but we need some variety.)

 

Kecia

Admin - CPST Instructor

• Aug 20, 2012

• #8

If you focus on what ONE thing would reduce the most deaths and severe injuries then you have to go with eliminating completely unrestrained kids first and then getting kids under age 10 back into boosters second.

 

cookie123

New member

• Aug 20, 2012

• #9

Car seat police squad!

 

T4K

Well-known member

• Aug 20, 2012

• #10

cookie123 said:

Car seat police squad!

Click to expand...

Oh dear. A failed reality show waiting to happen.

 

B

bnsnyde

New member

• Aug 20, 2012

• #11

No NBB for little kids, like 3 and 4 and even 5.

Husband says he'd get rid of the chest clip or make it safer as he thinks it'd choke and puncture a kid's neck in a crash. I am not sure how many chest clip injuries are out there? I know there are some from Googling. Anyway, he hates those things.

 

VoodooChile

New member

• Aug 20, 2012

• #12

Little kids (think young elementary-age) in the front seat. I see a lot of that.

 

Carrie_R

Ambassador - CPS Technician

• Aug 20, 2012

• #13

Conveying to parents/caregivers WHY this is important. I know that when I'm able to drill "Crash physics 101" through someone's head, they take everything I have to say much more seriously and the rest follows in course. Getting parents to give a hoot would fit a LOT of the other issues we see. It's just not important to people, because they don't know why it it's important, kwim?

 

hrice

New member

• Aug 20, 2012

• #14

Non use. Kids have a much better chance if they are at least in something.

 

lovemy2kidstw

New member

• Aug 20, 2012

• #15

hrice said:

Non use. Kids have a much better chance if they are at least in something.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I went to get DD from pre-k today & this tiny little boy comes out & gets in the front seat leaning all the way forward on the air bag with no seatbelt on . At least put a dang seatbelt on the poor kid, since the dad had his on!!

 

RiahS

New member

• Aug 20, 2012

• #16

Laws following the recommendations. Not everyone will follow the law, but a lot will extended rear face if they are told they have to. I get a lot of this from friends who just won't listen. The law doesn't say they have to, so they don't. And a lot of people take recommendations as just that.

 

J

Jessica61624

New member

• Aug 20, 2012

• #17

My biggest issue is latch. I'd eliminate it or make it with no limits.

 

Y

YinzerMama

New member

• Aug 20, 2012

• #18

I think it would be - Make every back seat seating spot have top tether by law.

ANd people to be less scared of seat belt installs. LATCH made me seat belt phobic and I felt foolish when I finally got over it.

 

Last edited: Aug 20, 2012

H

henrietta

Well-known member

• Aug 20, 2012

• #19

The parents....

 

H

henrietta

Well-known member

• Aug 20, 2012

• #20

No really....around here and for me, it would be seeing 2 and 3 yr olds in booster seats....and second it would be kids not riding in booster seats when they should be. Heck, it's even been the law here for years!

I'm still bothered by forward facing 1 year olds, BUT it doesn't kill me to see it when their seat is installed and used correctly. For the kids that it isn't, it doesn't make much difference if they're rear or forward facing--they're not buckled in it anyways!