Re: 5-point harness booster seats - anyone have one?
All very good points and opinions.:thumbsup:
But you said, "It's been discussed here before (at length) but a harnessed seat is not any safer than a booster seat UNLESS the child is very young. Say 2 or 3 years old." My thinking is that the tremendous force on the neck in harnessed kids would be a far greater risk for younger kids with less developed bodies.
I would consider a ff facing 2 year old much safer than said child in a booster. Neck injuries are an issue but a two year old in a booster just doesn't work. A child that age is simply too small and would also having trouble siting still. I have little experience with young kids in boosters, it's very unusual here. (Thank God)
So which times is which one better? Are older kids or younger kids more at risk? How much higher are the neck forces? High enough to cause statistically significant risk of injury for an older child in a 5-point harness rather than a booster? High enough to offset the risk of increased head excursion if a seatbelt is improperly used?
Older kid in harness are at less risk becasue their neck and muscles are more developed. It's difficult, actually impossible, to quantify the forces since there are no test of boosters vs. harnessing. It would be totally meaningless, except for car seat freaks like us
Both have passed testing and are safe. Experts here base their recommendations on 45 years of testing seats and data from real life accidents. When I speak to them about this they always mention the same recommendation but point out that
harnessing is also safe . There will be no tests, at least not fully accurate, of boosters vs. harnessing since too many subjective things need to be decided. It also a waste of time, both are certified and it would be smarter to devote more time to making parents using an actual seat (or seat belt) for their child since many are still unrestrained.
Does the increased neck forces show up in stats? I find this almost impossible to say. US safety record is horrible but keep in mind that amny kids are unrestrained or improperly restrained. To me, that makes the data look worse. It's tough to analyze things in fine detail since there are so many accidents and also so many with improper use.
The issue you mention with rf is far from the same since forces are on a totally different level and not comparable unless I'm misunderstanding you. rf offer great protection either way.
I would say that the older the child, the more likely they are able to endure injuries from being less closely coupled to the vehicle. Going from rear facing to front facing in a harness, or a harness to a booster, or a booster to a seatbelt all are inherently less safe, because they less closely couple the occupant to the vehicle. At what age the maturity and body development makes these increased risks statistically insignificant isn't always clear cut, of course. The longer the better is the general rule. Finding the exact age where a transition causes no increase in risk is the tough part, but it's quite likely that even a small increase in safety due to better restraint is gained by adults. Thus, the comment about race car and stunt drivers.
I thought this was very well written. Older kids are at less risk because of better body development, of course as long as they are restrained. As you say, it's sometimes difficult to come up with statistical data that show a specific point. The recommendation on boosters by the Swedes are based on some factors which are difficult to quantify or show through stats. But the extensive use and minimal deaths/injuries show that it works very well.
The Swedes nagged about rear facing for tens of years and researchers from other countries didn't care (many still don't care). Today, it's a different story. It's possible that the Swedish researchers will at some point come out with a recommendation saying that harnessing is better. If they do, I'll be happy to change my opinions and also put my kids in harnessed seats. But again, I think the overall safety difference is small and not really worth talking much about. I just don't like when people talk down on bosters without knowing much about them and basing many opinions on incorrect use (like a 2-year old in a booster).
Enough of this, time for some wine:thumbsup: I enjoyed your, as usually, interesting views on the subject.