U
Unregistered
Guest
Did anyone see the article in this Sunday's New York Times magazine called 'The Seat-Belt Solution How much good do car seats do?' ?
The article written by Stephen J.Dubner and Steven D.Levitt authors of 'Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything.", quotes FARS (Fatality Analysis Reporting System) data as showing that 'there is no evidence that car seats do a better job than seatbelts in saving the lives of children older than 2.' They say that in rear-end crashes car seats perform worse than seat belts. The authors do two crash tests of their own, on a 3yr old sized dummy (one in seat other in belt) and 6yr old sized dummy (one in booster and other in belt). They claim the results of the 6 yr old sized dummy produced 'virtually identical numbers' and that although the seat belt rode up too high on the 3yr old sized dummy, 'impact data were only nominally higher than that for the 3yr old in the car seat' and that most likely none of the dummies would have been injured.
Their conclusion is that car seat and booster benefits may only be that they keep the kids sitting still.
I wasn't real happy to read the article!! I still believe that a child MUST be safer in a 5 point harness than a 3 point seat belt, but I imagine a lot of people will question why they are buying car seats and boosters if their child is equally likely to survive a crash in a belt only.
Any comments????
C.
P.S. Obviously we want our kids to do more than just 'survive' a crash!!
The article written by Stephen J.Dubner and Steven D.Levitt authors of 'Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything.", quotes FARS (Fatality Analysis Reporting System) data as showing that 'there is no evidence that car seats do a better job than seatbelts in saving the lives of children older than 2.' They say that in rear-end crashes car seats perform worse than seat belts. The authors do two crash tests of their own, on a 3yr old sized dummy (one in seat other in belt) and 6yr old sized dummy (one in booster and other in belt). They claim the results of the 6 yr old sized dummy produced 'virtually identical numbers' and that although the seat belt rode up too high on the 3yr old sized dummy, 'impact data were only nominally higher than that for the 3yr old in the car seat' and that most likely none of the dummies would have been injured.
Their conclusion is that car seat and booster benefits may only be that they keep the kids sitting still.
I wasn't real happy to read the article!! I still believe that a child MUST be safer in a 5 point harness than a 3 point seat belt, but I imagine a lot of people will question why they are buying car seats and boosters if their child is equally likely to survive a crash in a belt only.
Any comments????
C.
P.S. Obviously we want our kids to do more than just 'survive' a crash!!