KDM clarification

I really hesitate to ask this for fear of offending someone or bringing back bad memories, but I'm a little confused. I came back to this board about 2 months ago while trying to choose a seat and read enough to learn that, a good while back, Regent sales soared due to the KDM video / incident. I have dial up so didn't watch the videos, and assumed that the issue revolved around the fact that the child was in a booster instead of a harness. Then on some other site, read a transcript of the video and found that the seat belt buckle failed. This really changes the picture as many of us secure out seats with belts not LATCH. So once again I'm assuming. Is a harnessed seat is safer because, even if it is unbelted, it provides a great deal of protection whereas a booster, unbelted, provides none? Are there other issues involved as well that I have not thought of? If someone could take me from to I would greatly appreciate it!

TIA,
Chris

One of the big things that they show with his video is that even if his seat belt did come undone (if he was in the regent) it would have been top tethered providing a second line of defense from him going out the window. He was probably right around the latch limits though and would have probably had the seat installed with a seat belt anyway.

A harness is safer because there are more points to restrain a child. I guess I think about like this. If you were to have something catch you when you fell, which would cause less damage to your body- A few ropes, or a net? A net is going to spread out the area of impact causing less damage and harm to your body. Yes the rope would stop you, but it could hurt you in the process. Just ignore me if that didn't make any sense!!!

Chris920 said:

Is a harnessed seat is safer because, even if it is unbelted, it provides a great deal of protection whereas a booster, unbelted, provides none?

Click to expand...

That is part of it yes.

But LATCH and a seatbelt are equally safe.

While I'm sure that seatbelt failure can and does happen (particularly with the seatbelts found on older Chrysler vehicles) the chance of the child unbuckling the belt is much much higher. This is why younger children should not be in a booster until they are mature enough to sit properly.

I know there is no way to be sure, but if the seat belt had not failed, is it likely that he still would have been ejected from the vehicle? This is what I assumed at first...that a small body just cannot be securely restrained with 3 ptns.

You are right, we will never know. However, 'submarining' under the lap belt can happen in small children who are in boosters.

Chris920 said:

I know there is no way to be sure, but if the seat belt had not failed, is it likely that he still would have been ejected from the vehicle? This is what I assumed at first...that a small body just cannot be securely restrained with 3 ptns.

Click to expand...

What is more likely, is the story of Isabelle. http://isabelle-broadhead.memory-of.com/legacy.aspx

Sorry to have let this sit so long. I think I get it now.
The point of KDM is not that he was too small for a booster (however true that may be).
The point is ANYTHING could happen (like belt failure) so our best bet is to have our children in the safest seat possible for the longest time possible.

I felt it was misleading/ irresposible for companies selling carseats to use the KDM issue to cast negative light on boosters when seatbelt failure was responsible for his death. That said, in the event of a belt failure, I would want my child in a harnessed seat rather than a booster, so I see their point.

I know folks try to stay away from the concept that LATCH is safer than the seatbelt, but there might be some advantage because most LATCH systems are hook and eye (not Britax), with no moving parts. In any system, the more moving parts you have, the more opportunity for failure you have. :twocents: It's really too bad we can't latch to higher weights and that latch is not in more seating positions.

Maybe I'm off base here, but I think another reason is that if a harnessed seat is installed with a belt & the belt fails, the chances of a big, bulky seat being ejected out a window would be less. Could it still happen? Probably. But not as easily as a skinny child.

Not off base at all! I think that is a major benefit and is partly what I had in mind with {{Is a harnessed seat is safer because, even if it is unbelted, it provides a great deal of protection}} in the OP. Even if it DID go out the window, I have heard stories of emergency personel finding an unharmed child in a carseat 20 feet from the vehicle it was in.

Chris920 said:

{{Is a harnessed seat is safer because, even if it is unbelted, it provides a great deal of protection}} in the OP. Even if it DID go out the window, I have heard stories of emergency personel finding an unharmed child in a carseat 20 feet from the vehicle it was in.

Click to expand...

wow, that makes me feel a whole lot better about seatbelt failure as long as my kids are in car seats....

Me too, but I'm sure it's the exception rather than the rule.

There is also the fact that if a seatbelt fails in a booster, it just unbuckles and the child flies out.

If a seatbelt fails in a Regent for example... the seatbelt has to come out from behind the seat and detach totally from the seat (essentially uninstalling itself) in order for the seat to be ejected. Plus the tether would have to not be used or come undone as well. The odds are just not very good that it would happen.

The idea is that a harness is safer because it more evenly distributes the crash forces. I also tend to think it's more secure since the child is restrained by the harness, then the car seat restrained as well. When you add the tether that is 3 forms of restraint vs the 1 of the booster. That's how I look at it anyways.

Safety Belt Safe USA (aka carseat.org) issued an insightful response to the KDM Youtube video at http://www.carseat.org/Resources/650_YouTube.pdf in which seatbelts, LATCH, and best practices for child passenger safety are addressed. :thumbsup:

Hi there - let me speak on behalf of the Kyle David Miller Foundation on this topic.....seeing as I am on the Board of Directors.

There are many points covered by the foundation today - encouraging children to remain in a 5 point harness car seat for a myriad of reasons and encouraging children to remain rear-facing to the limits of their convertible seats are the two which pertain to child restraints.

Yes - Kyle's seatbelt failed in a rollover accident. He was in a booster seat and thus was ejected from the vehicle. When ejection occurs, the results are almost always fatal for the ejectee. At the time, Kyle had outgrown his 5-point convertible seat and his family were unaware about higher weight harnessing seats that were available (mainly only online rather than in stores). They thus made it their mission at the time to ensure that parents were more aware of these higher capacity weight seats so that other parents would potentially avoid their heartache. That grew into the foundation that exists today which spreads both awareness of the benefits of keeping a child in a 5-point harness for as long as possible and donates these high weight harnessing seats to families in need. In 2007, the foundation donated over 300 seats, and raised awareness about extended harnessing which resulted in these seats being available at your local baby stores rather than just online.

In specific answer to your question about LATCH vs. seatbelt and would he have been saved even if the seatbelt had failed......there is no data today to suggest that LATCH is safer than seatbelt - both are mechanisms that can fail. A correctly installed and used 5-point harness seat which is also top tethered has:

a) potentially less chance of ejection from the vehicle
b) spreads crash forces over 5 points of the child's body, holding the child in position rather than the potential of being out of position in the booster/seatbelt combination.
c) prevents the submarining effect that can happen in booster/seatbelt combination.

There is a very nice write up about why a 5 point harness is safer on the foundation website. (http://www.kyledavidmiller.org/pages/4211/Car_Seat_Safety:_5-point_Harness_is_Safest.htm) I recommend that you take the time to look over the foundation's website and am sure that all your questions regarding the foundation and our message will be cleared up.

If you have any outstanding questions regarding the foundation, our mission and message, please contact us through the website and I will be happy to personally address them.

Thank you, Bombedier, for posting!
The Kyle David Miller Foundation has accomplished great things!:thumbsup:

As for the rest of it...I think I'm going to give up. I am having a hard time expressing myself clearly and the KDMF is doing a great job with their mission. I'm just splitting hairs.

I do want to clarify one point. There is no doubt in my mind that a harness is safer than 3 points and never has been. It is just that the seatbelt failure in this case clouds the issue.

Thanks to all, esp. Brooklynsmommy for the link to Isabelle.

I agree. I don't know that there is a way to prove that the seatbelt failed vs a small child unbuckling it or it not being buckled in all the way to begin with. Also, based on other pictures they had posted of the kids in their boosters, there were misuse issues so who knows what effect that had. I also hate the notion that the tether would have saved the day. They did crash tests in Australia on seats held in by only a tether and they slammed into the roof of the car. Plus, in a roll-over (like he was in) that seat held in by only a tether would have slammed all around and likely killed the little girl sitting next to him too.

Now, with that said, the end result of the YouTube video was that people put their kids back in harnessed seats, so it is a good thing. The rationale behind it may not hold water (i.e. the magical tether saving the day) but if more kids are harnesses, as a CPST I'm certainly not going to complain. I also love that they have worked to get people high weight seats who otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford them. So, I think they are doing great work and saving lives and instead of letting Kyle die in vain they have used their tragedy to educate others. That is a pretty noble thing.

Yes - there is a way to prove whether the seatbelt failed in the crash or not and that is by examination of the buckle system - which was performed on Kyle's seatbelt/buckle and the determination was made by them that it was a failure.

bombedier said:

Yes - there is a way to prove whether the seatbelt failed in the crash or not and that is by examination of the buckle system - which was performed on Kyle's seatbelt/buckle and the determination was made by them that it was a failure.

Click to expand...

Made by whom? Everything I have ever read has said that it is nearly impossible to identify when a seatbelt fails and is typically, as in this case, based upon surviving occupants accounts.

The family had the buckles examined by professionals in this field who made the determination that the system had failed.

bombedier said:

The family had the buckles examined by professionals in this field who made the determination that the system had failed.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I think what the family is doing is fabulous, but I don't buy this. I have even combed through their site and they even have a whole section discussing buckles coming undone in other crashes (which are all based on other occupants accounts), but nowhere is there informaiton on exactly how it was determined that Kyle's belt came undone. If they had this evidence and it was solid evidence, they would have that all over the site and the site would be dedicated to seatbelt safety, not extended harnessing. Also, if they did come undone, what part did the big pieces of foam they had the kids sitting on play into it? How do they know it came undone vs. wasn't fully engaged to begin with? As I said before, I hate that they lost their son. I really, truly do. No parent should ever have to endure that pain and them turning their pain into the KDM Foundation is amazing. They have likely saved many lives and, in that, Kyle lives on. But, the rationale behind why kids should be in a five point restraint is wrong. It isn't due to seatbelt failure. It is due to children not being properly positioned in booster when they are young, seatbelt still not fitting young kids using boosters, having more points of contact to distribute crash forces, etc. Being in a five point restraint doesn't eliminate seatbelt failure and a tether isn't designed to hold in a seat on its own.

So, in a nutshell:

End result of keeping kids in a harnessed seat - Wonderful
Rationale behind why kids should stay in a harnessed seat - Wrong