who sits where calculus -- including adults??

Just something that occurred to me, and I wondered what others thought...

We always read, here, that the most-protected child goes in the least protected spot, if possible. In view of the recent thread on the main board:
http://www.car-seat.org/showthread.php?t=27576
it appears that being in a harnessed seat may have clear advantages over being restrained by the vehicle seatbelt.

So, now to my question. When everyone in my family is in the car, all seating positions are full. I'll assume that I am driving, so my position is fixed there. I'll also assume that DH is at least as valuable as the kids (perhaps a heretical assumption on this board ). Oldest child (age 6) sits in a HBB in the back seat (remember, it's 3 across, so a huge harnessed seat won't fit back there), but could fit in a harnessed seat (e.g. a Regent, which we don't currently own) if he sat in the front seat.

So, shouldn't DH (as a less protected person, restrained only by a vehicle seatbelt) move to the safer spot in the back seat, while oldest child (more protected in a 5-point harness, with some SIP) moves to the less protected spot in the front of the car?

Probably a hypothetical for us, since I wouldn't want to move a Regent in and out of the car frequently, but I thought it might be an interesting question (at least in this self-selected community of carseat fanatics, LOL). Also, the comparative safety of adult passengers usually seems to get left out of the equation....

On a less hypothetical note, do those of you with extra seating positions actually leave the front passenger seat empty, and put other adults in the family into the back seat(s), for safety reasons?

Katrin

I would only put a child in the fron seat if I really had no other choice.

If seat does not fit in back with other seats, you don'y have much of an option. However, You MUST move the seat as far back as possible and turn the airbags off if that is an otion. HAving seen the damage a airbag can do to an adult, if I could not turn off the airbag I would not put a child up there.

If I could fit the REgent or larger seat in the back, then that is where it would go. DH stays in the front. It would be safer for all.

We only have one child, and DH and I both ride in the front. Riding in a car will never be 100% safe - we have to pick and choose which safety improvements we make. I also see (perhaps erroneously) my child as being more fragile and vulnerable in a crash due to her small size and lack of development. Also, cars and their standard safety features are designed to protect adults, not children - carseats are by nature an after-market product (i.e. every seat is not crash tested in every car). So the adult passenger is able to ride in the front seat in a way that has been tested for safety, whereas children pretty much always ride in an untested way. So I think it makes sense to put children in the back where they are least likely to be injured in a crash even if the combination of car/carseat somehow doesn't perform like we expect it to.

singingpond said:

I'll also assume that DH is at least as valuable as the kids (perhaps a heretical assumption on this board ). Oldest child (age 6) sits in a HBB in the back seat (remember, it's 3 across, so a huge harnessed seat won't fit back there), but could fit in a harnessed seat (e.g. a Regent, which we don't currently own) if he sat in the front seat.

So, shouldn't DH (as a less protected person, restrained only by a vehicle seatbelt) move to the safer spot in the back seat, while oldest child (more protected in a 5-point harness, with some SIP) moves to the less protected spot in the front of the car?

Click to expand...

I'm assuming by 3 across you are doing this in a car...

Something to consider... yes, the backseat is the safest place to be in an accident, HOWEVER, do the seats in the back have adjustable headrests that go high enough to provide your dh with head/neck support? Is he exceptionally short and his head is below the back of the seat? I'm exceptionally short and even my head goes above the seats in the back of my car.

If this is the case with him as well, he would have NO head and neck support in the backseat and therefore it could be more dangerous for him to be back there than to be in the front seat where the tall seat and headrest will provide him with head and neck support.

Just one more thing to factor in...

I think the least-protected rule only applies to children. :twocents:

kangato2roos said:

I'm assuming by 3 across you are doing this in a car...

Something to consider... yes, the backseat is the safest place to be in an accident, HOWEVER, do the seats in the back have adjustable headrests that go high enough to provide your dh with head/neck support? Is he exceptionally short and his head is below the back of the seat? I'm exceptionally short and even my head goes above the seats in the back of my car.

Just one more thing to factor in...

Click to expand...

You all are making my head hurt!

Another factor for consideration, can the man in question sit in the rear seat without his head jammed against the roof? Mine sure as heck can't and it's a large Camry. The headrest will kind of support him though. :shrug-shoulders:

azgirl71 said:

If I could fit the REgent or larger seat in the back, then that is where it would go. DH stays in the front. It would be safer for all.

Click to expand...

In the example, the harnessed seat cannot fit in the back. I'm willing to accept that HBB in the back is probably safer than Regent in the front for the child, but 'safer for all'? Why is DH safer in the front than in the back, when we always hear that children are something like 40% less safe in the front (not sure if I remember the exact number correctly)?

mimieliza said:

Riding in a car will never be 100% safe - we have to pick and choose which safety improvements we make.... Also, cars and their standard safety features are designed to protect adults, not children - carseats are by nature an after-market product (i.e. every seat is not crash tested in every car). So the adult passenger is able to ride in the front seat in a way that has been tested for safety, whereas children pretty much always ride in an untested way.

Click to expand...

Good points. Others have pointed out some of the hazards of adults riding in the back seat -- I wonder how adults fare in the back in real-life crashes....

kangato2roos said:

I'm assuming by 3 across you are doing this in a car...

HOWEVER, do the seats in the back have adjustable headrests that go high enough to provide your dh with head/neck support?

Click to expand...

Yes, it's a car... You're right, in a lot of cars (including ours) the rear seats do not provide good head support to an adult in the event of a rear impact. I didn't think of this. However, I still wonder if, on average, the back seat is statistically safer for adult passengers (as it apparently is for children).

Defrost said:

I think the least-protected rule only applies to children.

Click to expand...

Well, yes it's stated that way, but why shouldn't we extend it to adult family members when considering a 'balance' of safety for everyone? That was sort of the point of my original question... that adult safety often seems to come up short (or doesn't really get considered at all) when we decide who sits where in our vehicles.

Morganthe said:

Another factor for consideration, can the man in question sit in the rear seat without his head jammed against the roof?

Click to expand...

With this particular car and this particular man, yes he does fit without hitting his head on the ceiling -- he used to sit back there a lot when we only had one child, and said child often cried when left alone in his carseat back there. However, I'm pretty sure we didn't consider the relative lack of adult head support in the back seat...

singingpond said:

In the example, the harnessed seat cannot fit in the back. I'm willing to accept that HBB in the back is probably safer than Regent in the front for the child, but 'safer for all'? Why is DH safer in the front than in the back, when we always hear that children are something like 40% less safe in the front (not sure if I remember the exact number correctly)

Click to expand...

Front seats and airbags are tested with adults, not children. Becasue of testing they say no child under the age of 13 should be in the front seat. I am sure adult can handle the forces in the front seat in a collision better than a harnessed child with an airbag to the face. Sorry I have seen some pretty bad airbag injuries. The worst being a 11 yo girl who required more than 1plastic surgery because of airbag burns and over a year to completely heal. I have seen some adult pretty bad too, but not to the extent of the 11 yo.

singingpond said:

Well, yes it's stated that way, but why shouldn't we extend it to adult family members when considering a 'balance' of safety for everyone? That was sort of the point of my original question... that adult safety often seems to come up short (or doesn't really get considered at all) when we decide who sits where in our vehicles.

Click to expand...

Every single safety feature in the front passenger seat of a car is designed to protect an adult. Unlike child passengers, I don't have to add a specially made seat to protect my adult passengers. The car's just made for adults in the first place. An adult riding in the passenger seat isn't getting "the crappy seat." They're getting the seat that is specifically designed and tested by the vehicle manufacturer to provide the best protection for them (unlike the children riding in the back who get delegated to other companies.)

Also, my dh would happily trade his life for that of his child's any day. If I tried to convince him to trade seating positions with his daughter because her Husky gives her more protection and I wanted the statistical risks evened out among all the seating positions, he'd take my keys and tell me I wasn't in a fit state to drive!

Well, personally if I am driving I prefer DH in the front unless there is a specific need in the back seat. So, that's where he gets to sit. LOL. I like him to hand me my cup, change the song on my MP3 and sometimes if DD falls asleep we actually get to talk to eachother in the car. That is priceless!

Interesting thread though...If I could just get my DH to consistantly buckle up I'd be happy...let alone worrying if he is at a safety risk. I know he is, and he's a risk to the rest of us too---he is one heck of a projectile!! My van doesn't move till all of us are buckled up (sad that he's the only one needing reminders) but I know he forgets in his truck....

Just came back to read some of the other replies... it certainly seems that everyone agrees the back seat is safer for children, and that a child shouldn't ride in the front unless there is no other choice.

However, is it truly the consensus that adults are safer in the front than in the back?? That would be very surprising to me, i.e. to find that in real-life crashes children are safer in the back, but adults are safer in the front. Why should that be, especially in frontal crashes, which are the most severe on average? I realize that vehicle front seating positions are crash tested and developed with adults in mind, and, as far as I know, vehicle manufacturers don't crash-test rear seating positions at all. Do front airbags increase safety enough for adult passengers to make up for the decrease in safety that comes from sitting closer to the point of impact? I guess I find that hard to believe.

Are there statistics/studies anyone can refer to?

Katrin

I don't think adults are safer in the back then the front (assuming headrests and lap/shoulder belts) but I think it's equal.

If it was just the driver and the adult passenger and no other people to worry about I'd still put the adult in the front since the seat/airbag is designed for an adult.

I was always told that the back seat is safer than the front, even for adults. However, if we're using the "most protected passenger in the least protected seating position as long as everyone is properly restrained" rubric, that would be the adult in the front, not a child or a child in a booster.

Yes, what Ulrike said. I think adults are safer in the back, but children are never safer in the front than adults.