Split: Sweden Harness vs. Booster Issues

SafeDad

CPSDarren - Admin
Staff member
Re: Distraught 8 yr old in Regent

Joy,

that was an interesting read. Can I ask you on your opinion about this?


In an accident, there are two sources of impact...the impact of the body against whatever is holding it in, and the impact of the organs inside the body until they hit the skeletal structure holding them in. The brain in particular will slosh forward until it hits the skull, resulting in brain injury.

Wouldn't a three point belt with a longer ride down time reduce the transfer of energy to the brain?

There's another source of potential impact; the body might not only strike the restraint system holding it in, but could also strike another object if the restraint system doesn't work as intended.

So, there are a couple issues to consider-

First, a three-point belt doesn't necessarily have longer ride down time than a 5-point belt. It all depends on the design of the restraint system, it's fit and whether or not it is used correctly.

Second, there's a tradeoff between increasing the ride down and the serious risk of the occupant's head or torso striking something. Many seatbelt systems do have force limiting features for this reason, but they are engineered not to have so much "give" that the occupant has a greater risk to strike an interior feature like a dash, pillar or door.

Keep in mind that a child in a 5-point harness restraint is still gaining some benefit from the seatbelt's force limiting features (if the seatbelt is used for installation). Usually, that's a good thing. It's could be a bad thing if the child restraint wasn't installed correctly or the harness was loose. It would also be bad if an older child had the shoulder belt off their arm or behind their back. Combined with a load-limiting retractor or stitching designed to release some seatbelt in a crash and you have too much "give" and the occupant's head excursion is greatly increased. It's always a tradeoff...
 
ADS

joyride

Member
Re: Distraught 8 yr old in Regent

Wouldn't a three point belt with a longer ride down time reduce the transfer of energy to the brain?
Not sure what you mean with ride down time (not native english ;) ), but I give a try:
If the backholding force of an three point were constant during the crash - maybe - but it isn´t constant. Until it locks - it´s zero, when it lock - it´s comparable to an always locked car-seat harness. It may be a longer "ride down" time, but the time the belt is really holding and absorbing energy is similar to smaller (because of coefficient of elasticity mentioned above) versus the 5-point. Energy should be the same, but same energy in less time means more force.
Joy
 

Maedze

New member
Re: Distraught 8 yr old in Regent

Joy, you guessed correctly at the meaning of 'ride down time', and can I just say your English is excellent! I never would have guessed you weren't a native speaker.


Your explanation does make sense.

Keep in mind that a child in a 5-point harness restraint is still gaining some benefit from the seatbelt's force limiting features (if the seatbelt is used for installation). Usually, that's a good thing. It's could be a bad thing if the child restraint wasn't installed correctly or the harness was loose. It would also be bad if an older child had the shoulder belt off their arm or behind their back. Combined with a load-limiting retractor or stitching designed to release some seatbelt in a crash and you have too much "give" and the occupant's head excursion is greatly increased. It's always a tradeoff...


Darren, I did not even think of the some of the things you mentioned here and now my gears are really turning :whistle:

Could it be possible that a seatbelt installation might possibly be *safer* for an older child than a LATCH installation? Is that why LATCH usually caps out at 48 lbs?

What about in Europe where they use rigid LATCH? No webbing on the seatbelt to ride down and no webbing in rigid LATCH either means really no ride down time at all except in the harness.

Are there any studies showing increased risk of head injury?

I'm really curious now.
 

joolsplus3

Admin - CPS Technician
Re: Distraught 8 yr old in Regent

Joy, you guessed correctly at the meaning of 'ride down time', and can I just say your English is excellent! I never would have guessed you weren't a native speaker.


Your explanation does make sense.




Darren, I did not even think of the some of the things you mentioned here and now my gears are really turning :whistle:

Could it be possible that a seatbelt installation might possibly be *safer* for an older child than a LATCH installation? Is that why LATCH usually caps out at 48 lbs?

What about in Europe where they use rigid LATCH? No webbing on the seatbelt to ride down and no webbing in rigid LATCH either means really no ride down time at all except in the harness.

Are there any studies showing increased risk of head injury?

I'm really curious now.

Even a rigid LATCH seat will have harness belt stretching (and Britax used to have a big marketing campaign for a pivoting LATCH system to reduce energy transfer to the child...they also don't typically top tether, and even if they did THAT stretches, too)...it would be similar to a locked seatbelt or seatbelt with a pretensioner that locks up before a crash. LATCH weight limits have only to do with the supposed strength of the system/anchors...allowing more ride down time for a heavier child isn't A Good Thing, hence why the Radian SafeStop, for example, must stop being used at 40 pounds, because there is too much head excursion with heavier children (which is more injury risk than too little ridedown time).
 

Victorious4

Senior Community Member
Re: Distraught 8 yr old in Regent

I enjoy the debate
As do I, but I think Admin might prefer we discuss it in our thread rather than repeatedly taking over visitors' threads :whistle:

I was looking for a word that would kind of group the country together. Authorities is not the right word for that I realize.
I had a feeling that's what you were going for, but "picked it apart" mainly for the sake of visitors who prob'ly aren't as aware of the intricacies :)

AdventureDad said:
papooses said:
haven't had reason to do a HWH vs. booster comparison because the kids at highest risk of incorrect booster use are still RF & the U.S. has higher rates of special needs which necessitate continued harnessing....
That seems to imply we're talking about booster use forn younger kids, say 2 or three.
But I've always mentioned the booster recommendation is for 4-ish and up.
I didn't specify enough, but while my main issue is simply that because of the booster pushing (not you -- just in general, in ads, etc.) we are seeing toddlers in boosters . . . my other issue is that even many 4-5 year olds here are incapable of using boosters correctly :twocents: In fact, I've only met 1 or 2 who could reliable use a booster correctly for the entire length of every ride.... This depends not only on the particular child, but also on the booster design (deep head wings help) as well as the vehicle: Switchable/Automatic Locking Retractors can also help. That said, even my child who was capable of leading her own lesson on correct booster use to her PreK classroom was able to squirm enough to lean out of safe positioning in a Parkway with the S/ALR engaged. She was still capable of this at 6 years old & yet not capable of remembering to stay properly positioned when friends are sitting next to her :eek: So, yes, I realize you're talking about 4+ year olds, but so am I :)

Another thing, I'm interested where you are going with this "special needs" thing. Are you saying there are far more special needs kids over there? You mean physical problem or more behavioral (parenting) issues? I'm very curious about learning more about this. Special needs kids should probably not be in a booster(depends on problem) but I still think that's a very small percentage who are special needs. What's your opinion on this?
My opinion is that I don't want to get into a nature vs. nurture (or vaccinating, or nutritional, or other) debate, but yes, there does seem to be a lot of American kids with special needs.
:yeahthat: I'm sure there are numerous theories as to why we have a greater percentage of kids diagnosed with various special needs (physical, cognitive, etc.) & I can't find the details in my textbooks at the moment, but I have read repeatedly that the US has some of the (if not THE?) highest rates of diagnosed special needs (again, including physical as well as cognitive). The diagnoses are on a broad spectrum from minor to severe. My daughter has ADHD. That is an endless list of discussions in itself, though, re: all kinds of related theories :p The point is that I brought her to the national Lifesavers & regional NHTSA 2007 conferences when she was barely 5. She had been using a booster for about a year at that point, but only when there was a 2nd adult in the vehicle to help her focus on sitting correctly while the other adult could focus on the driving....

Again, I think the differences we see between our countries has more to do with the fact the toddlers/preschoolers are still RF there while booster pushing here has resulted in parents prematurely graduating their kids into boosters *long* before they're ready . . . that we do have more older vehicles on the road in which boosters aren't safe enough (due to lap-only belts and/or less than 32" between the front & rear vehicle seatbacks) . . . & that we have a larger obese and/or special needs population to consider.... All of which makes it rather irresponsible for us here to encourage boosters over HWH even for the 4-7 yr. old range (7 years old is the average marker of when children gain greater cognitive abilities related to the necessary attention span for correct booster use although some kids will develop these abilities sooner and/or can be taught how to develop these abilities -- sadly, by this age many states allow kids to ride in just a seatbelt even though it is an extremely rare 7 year old who fits safely :thumbsdown:)

your English is excellent! I never would have guessed you weren't a native speaker.
Ditto :thumbsup:

Are there any studies showing increased risk of head injury?
Actually, yes & I've even seen something showing that slightly misused harnesses are safer than booster (for kids under 4, but not because any neck loads issues, which would logically be more severe at this age than for older kids). I just have about a gajillion documents to skim through to find it :dizzy:
 

SafeDad

CPSDarren - Admin
Staff member
Re: Distraught 8 yr old in Regent

Could it be possible that a seatbelt installation might possibly be *safer* for an older child than a LATCH installation? Is that why LATCH usually caps out at 48 lbs?

Sure, it's possible. It's also possible Adventuredad is right and that 5-point harnesses are less safe than boosters for some small age range of children. The danger is suggesting that something is unsafe (or even less safe) on a whim and contrary to prevailing wisdom, with no real supporting evidence at all.

As for why LATCH caps out at 48 pounds, that's easier to answer. The numbers were originally based on testing of the forces involved with a 65 pound combined weight of child plus restraint system, done by NHTSA and Transport Canada. Given the weight of the restraint systems used today, no one seems willing to specify beyond 40 or 48 pounds.


What about in Europe where they use rigid LATCH? No webbing on the seatbelt to ride down and no webbing in rigid LATCH either means really no ride down time at all except in the harness.

Are there any studies showing increased risk of head injury?

I'm really curious now.

None that I know, but I'd think there should be enough data by now for a such a study to be made. I also know of no studies showing increased neck/spinal injury to properly restrained older babies in Australia, where it has been common to turn them front facing even as young as 9 months. I think this goes to show that properly using any appropriate restraint system is by far the most important thing.

There has been at least one comparative study from Europe that show rigid LATCH to be superior, particularly in side impacts where reduced excursion of the head and torso is critical. Older kids and adults are much better able to withstand crash forces, so the major risk to them is an impact to interior features due to head or torso excursion. That's where better coupling is likely to have an even greater benefit.

Remember, the bulk of a passenger's ride down is gained by being very tightly coupled to the vehicle while the frame is crushing and absorbing energy. That's where rigid LATCH can be a benefit.

Additional benefit can be obtained by force limiting systems in seatbelts, but this is minor in comparison and has to be weighed against the risk of increased head excursion.

Incidentally, we're already seeing force limiting features in child restraints. In the USA, Britax has a force limiting feature on their top tethers in their newer convertibles.

Again, we're debating small stuff that isn't likely to make a significant change to an occupant's risk. That's why there aren't a lot of studies or crash testing available. Properly installed and used, that booster and 5-point harness both should provide good protection in frontal crashes for older kids. What really benefits a passenger is to be properly restrained in any appropriate restraint system, to be in the back seat and to be with a driver who is unimpaired and undistracted.
 

joyride

Member
Re: Distraught 8 yr old in Regent

Could it be possible that a seatbelt installation might possibly be *safer* for an older child than a LATCH installation?
Oh, now we come to the definition of safer ;)
Britax Europe, at beginning of the ISOFIX (Europe rigid LA(no T)CH) era, stated:
a probably, with the seat-belt, installed seat, leads to less forces on the occupant body than an ISOFIX-seat. But it´s "safer" to use ISOFIX, because the probability for operating and installing errors is far smaller. Maybe I find this statement again in original to reference it here.

But this was about the first german ISOfix seat at all and no top tethers. Because of the seat cushion, they result in a noticeable larger head excursion leading to more force on the cervical spine.

On newer seats, all these "elastic" parts are calculated to get an optimum operation point for a averaged child, installed with seat-belts or LATCH.
(And the vehicle seat belt is designed for the optimal operation point of an average adult.) And with LATCH, you get a better coupling to the vehicular frame and less probability of installation errors, so I would recommended this (and think it is better from a physical point of view).

Joy
 

Adventuredad

New member
Split: Sweden Harness vs. Booster

Sure, some people still believe the earth is flat. There are serious websites devoted to it and lots of unspecified research, too.

Flat earth has nothing to do with it, you know exactly what I mean.

A 5-point harness is great for babies and toddlers.

And I have not said anything else. I've repeatedly said that harnessing is safe and so are boosters. Both are certified and safe. My problem is with people who incorrectly believe difference between booster and harness is HUGE. That leads to bad decisions regarding safety.

It's not a matter of like or dislike. Some people even go a step farther and believe it's safest to be unrestrained. They maintain it's better to be able to quickly escape the vehicle or be thrown from it in a crash.

Nice to hear you're comparing booster use to flat earth and other nut case theories.

There's really no mystery. We would all be safest rear-facing in a 5-point harness, just as infants are. We're all the least safe with no restraint system at all. We're a little safer with a lap belt. Safer yet with a lap/shoulder belt. Even safer front-facing in a 5-point harness

Again, you can believe whatever you want. All I can offer you is something very boring. The researchers who have been doing this the longest, experienced the most, tested seats for 40+ years (with and without harness) and have implemented the best approach to car seat safety disagree with you. They recommend boosters ahead of harnessing mostly large strain on the neck at impact and several other factors as well.

Maybe in Sweden you have a safer fleet of automobiles. Maybe you have better roads and signage. Maybe you have a better educated demographic of drivers. Maybe you have higher seatbelt use rates and lower incidence of impaired distracted driving. Maybe you have a higher rate of correct use for child restraints. Maybe you have a dozen other factors that lead to lower traffic fatality rates

There are many factors which have a large impact on car seat safety except for crash testing which no one seem to care about. We drive roughly the same cars and US roads are probably better than ours. But I agree, there are many other factors. Booster have the benefit of being far cheaper, easier to install, easier to use, easier to move in between cars, kids facing less teasing from peers, and also less confusion. Those may all seem like fluffy factors but in the long run they make a difference.

When you can define the mysterious age range where a 3-point restraint is superior to a 5-point restraint in Sweden and provide at least some concrete research and statistics, then you have some basis to keep bringing it up over and over. Maybe there is a mitigating factor, once you isolate a dozen other variables that you constantly ignore.

It's a subjective debate. There are no tests between harnessing and boosters. Which means there is nothing saying harnessing is better. I know race car drivers use harness together with tons of other safety equipment for their neck, it's not applicable to a 5-year old.

A 5-point harness is great for babies and toddlers. It's also good for adults, as demonstrated by any professional driver. There isn't a magic "in-between" age where a 3-point seatbelt is mysteriously providing better restraint. The tradeoff is for comfort, convenience and having a system that isn't so complex that people will actually use it.

It's completely irrelevant to compare race car drivers and their seats. Those seats are not fastened the same way and forces are completely different. If you spoke to someone with more experience in this area you would understand that a large weakness is something never talked about here (at least I have not seen it). It's what researchers calls "springs". A harnessed seat does dot stop a child as you believe because of the way it's constructed and fastened. There are several "stages" before a child is stopped which leads to dramatically higher forces on a child's body and neck. Researchers often talk about 60 ms. as being the time when a child is stopped during impact. In a harnessed seat, because the way it's fastened and constructed, about half of that time passes without the child even starting to be restrained. That means that crash forces, which were already high from beginning, now are twice as high for a child in a harnessed seat.

A booster does not have as many stages and forces then become much lower. this is just one aspect of the whole discussion, but I never hear anyone mention this important fact. My information comes straight for a friend who has worked basically his whole life in the car seat industry. He has worked for Britax, Graco, etc and been heavily involved in developing and constructing seats. He's American and knows what he's talking about. He also says exactly researchers here (and myself) are saying, harnessing older children is not any safer than boosters but people incorrectly believe so.

Otherwise, it really is no different than Freakonomics. Yeah, it's an opinion to which you are entitled, but it may also be endangering other people's children. As such, it's not going to be tolerated on this forum indefinitely, outside of threads specific to this type of discussion on Swedish practice in the International Forum.

I respectfully disagree. This is not MY opinion. I'm merely communicating what researchers and organizations are are saying. I believe knowledge and learning about how other are keeping kids safest in the world being a good thing. That may be the same to you as saying earth is falt but I respectfully disagree with you.

About endangering children, I don't think you honestly think that's true. I think researchers, organizations, manufacturers, etc over here have proven over the years that they make car seat safety far more of a priority than anyone else.

About this being tolerated on this board, I guess you could censor me but I think you would be doing the wrong thing. Most people have little idea about car seat safety in other places and what's really successful. I (subjectively) think it's a good idea they find out more about how other countries with similar circumstances keep their children safe. If you think that's a bad idea then you could censor me. Anyway, that's entirely up to you.

Now, if you want to say that a booster or lap/shoulder belt can be just as effective as a 5-point harness in some cases, that's great

I've repeatedly said that harnessing is very safe and so is booster use. I've said that researchers here who have the most experience recommend boosters ahead of harnessing.

I don't rationalize that they are just as safe as a child in a 5-point harness or one in a rear-facing seat, though.

Again, it's a subjective opinion. You may believe whatever you want. Bringing rear facing into the discussion is not a good idea since the difference there is so much larger than the harness/booster discussion. An older harnessed child is in my opinion about as safe as one in a booster. I think the difference is small and in the big picture not important.

The problem is that people get all these issues confused and make bad decisions. They turn their child forward facing at 12 months thinking it's a great idea. Then spend two months and countless hours on deciding on booster or harness and another month on the best harnessed seat. That's really bad risk/reward but of course parents don't realize this.

I would be very happy not to ever again have this discussion but I keep seeing so many irrational and incorrect things about harnessing vs. boosters I think it's a good to say something.

danger is suggesting that something is unsafe (or even less safe) on a whim and contrary to prevailing wisdom, with no real supporting evidence at all.

I don't see how you could be saying this is on a "whim'. The views are from researchers who have the most experience and started doing this research far before anyone else. They also have a track record to rely on which is something I don't see anywhere else. Just because US recommendation is for harnessing doesn't make it a great idea. The recommendation has also been to turn kids forward facing at 12/20 for many years. It's fairly recently been changed to suggest rear facing longer although it's a very "soft" suggestion.

I'm out of this discussion. Whatever people choose to believe is fine. Either way, the difference between booster and harness is small. It's far better to focus more on rear facing where the difference in safety is dramatic:twocents:

Have a great week
 
Last edited:

Adventuredad

New member
Re: Distraught 8 yr old in Regent

And that´s the thing not going into my brain. I am university graduate Engineer so a little basic knowledge available :D

Because inertia, occupants need to be decelerated during a crash, while the car stops abrupt. At the point of the accident, the occupants have a kinetic energy depending on speed and weight, after it is zero. Where does it go?

1) into the car - via the belt anchors, the energy is transported into the car frame and their absorbed by the deformable zone
2) into the person - the muscles and tissue are elastic, it absorbs energy by converting to heat
3) into the belt - the belt is elastic with a defined coefficient of elasticity, after the crash it is several parts of an inch longer

So to conclude: better bonding to the frame, higher contact surface on the body and longer or more extensible belt should minimize the concentrated single load on parts of the body. While point 1 is the same for hbb and harness, point 2 is self-explanatory. And point 3: you have both - the elasticity of the adult belt (where the seat is attached to) + the one of the integrated harness.

Come to this question, I would say NO because point number 3 and 2: the adult belt is "tougher", so has a smaller coefficient of elasticity unlike a car-seat harness, because it is designed for an average adult (or bigger to 200kg) and not a maximum 36kg child. So at the same weight, the adult belt absorbs the same energy but in shorter distance (less extension), so shorter time. This leads to a higher peak load (force) on the body and the car frame, because the same kinetic energy must be absorbed in shorter time (from muscles, bones, ...). The more the weight is away the optimum, the forces are measurable higher.

So, this are only thoughts from the physical point of view that are contrary to a statement like above. I am looking forward to comments or corrections of this assumption.

Greetings
Joy

I studied engineering in my younger days and can appreciate your analysis. You're obviously very intelligent:thumbsup: I think we're getting into quite technical, but very interesting things, which I don't know enough about to answer.

The idea of boosters being as good or better than harnessing is of course not my idea or opinion. It's the view of researchers who have been doing this longer than anyone and experienced more than others. They recommend boosters ahead of harnessing and it's been used over here with great results. I personally believe the difference is small but maybe that's irrelevant.

You have many other factors affecting car seat safety except from pure crash testing. Some things which affect booster safety except for pure crash testing is price, install issues, moving seats, ease of use, teasing by peers, etc. It's not all what goes on in the lab which affects end results of safety.

Brio summarizes the boring conclusions and approach of the Swedes shortly like this:

To meet the stringent T-standards only very low forces are allowed on neck, head and spine. The Swedish National Research Institute have, on several occasions, conducted crash tests with heavier children restrained with a 5-point harness and compared with a correctly positioned lap/diagonal belt in a good booster seat. Tests have shown that the forces on head/neck/spine are greater when a heavy child is restrained forward facing in a 5-point harness, especially in a frontal impact. The 5-point harness basically restrains the body too abruptly, resulting in excessively high forces on the neck/head region. A correctly positioned lap/diagonal belt with a little more give has been shown to distribute the forces over the torso, lessening the injuries to head/neck.

Again, this debate is subjective:twocents:
 
Last edited:

Victorious4

Senior Community Member
HWH vs. booster

The debate belongs here since we're discussing non-U.S. recommendations (plus, it just isn't fair to hijack someone else's thread) . . . however, I cannot move the relevant posts to an area in which I don't have editing privilages :eek:
 

Adventuredad

New member
Re: HWH vs. booster

I find the discussion very interesting but think it takes too much time, is far too subjective (regardless of what people believe), and seems to make some people upset. There is no hard data supporting either method so it's mostly speculation. It comes down largely to what researchers etc. people trust more.

Hijacking the other thread is probably my fault as usual.:eek: Sorry
 

safeinthecar

Moderator - CPS Technician
Re: Distraught 8 yr old in Regent

Translation of all this for the OP.


Everybody wants to debate about unquantifiable semantics regarding measuring amount of safety between different restraint systems, but all agree that a properly used booster is a reasonable safe choice for a child of 8. Do what works for your family.


I now return you to the drama in progress. THANKYOUVERYMUCH
 

Victorious4

Senior Community Member
Re: HWH vs. booster

I find the discussion very interesting
As do I :)

Hijacking the other thread is probably my fault

Aw, it's nice of you to take the blame :eek: but I remembered later that I've split off such discussions before & failed to do so this time....

Another mod with more privilages will probably move the bulk of the subjective discussion over here when they get a chance . . . then we can keep arguing without worrying about scaring any newbies :p
 

SafeDad

CPSDarren - Admin
Staff member
Re: Split: Sweden Harness vs. Booster

About this being tolerated on this board, I guess you could censor me but I think you would be doing the wrong thing. Most people have little idea about car seat safety in other places and what's really successful. I (subjectively) think it's a good idea they find out more about how other countries with similar circumstances keep their children safe. If you think that's a bad idea then you could censor me. Anyway, that's entirely up to you.

Censorship is unlikely, but these unsuppoted opinions and commentary on Swedish practice will be moved to the Canada/International forum. It would be preferable if you would keep these discussions here, as has been requested previously. Splitting off posts from long threads tends to jumble the order sometimes, as is the case here.
 

Victorious4

Senior Community Member
Re: Distraught 8 yr old in Regent

AdventureDad said:
Brio summarizes the boring conclusions and approach of the Swedes shortly like this:

A correctly positioned lap/diagonal belt with a little more give has been shown to distribute the forces over the torso, lessening the injuries to head/neck.

What I don't understand (believe) about this is that there is greater surface area on the body with a 5 point harness, thus reducing crash forces on the body . . . as for the neck/head -- with the inherent greater amount of head excursion of boosters, there is less risk of the child impacting the vehicle interior with a harness.... Movement itself is not the biggest risk: the biggest risk is impacting the vehicle interior. So, since a harness reduces head excursion it stands to reason that there is less risk of spine/brain injury compared to booster. Plus, all the research on RF vs. FF shows that the biggest risk of spinal injury is for kids under 3 yrs. Considering all that it's extremely difficult to believe that a correctly used booster is safer than a correctly used FF harness :eek:
 

lenats31

New member
Googled the net and found this:

http://www.cpsboard.org/pdf/techreport/techupdatewinter05.pdf

I have not read it myself. YET!

I live in Denmark. Still, I have both types of restraint systems for dd.

dd. is 4½ years old and app 44" tall. There is still a little room left for her in her baby brother´s car seat - a large RF car seat. But it is just a little room left.

DD has just been diagnosed with Infantile Autism.But the examinations have been going on for 1½-2 years prior to being diagnosed.

For a booster seat we have an Isofix booster seat. So it is anchored to the car structure at all times. She is fine in the booster seat on road trips for up to about 1 hour. She tends to become over excited about going somewhere and sometimes restless. Often she wants to play with her brother. So she leans far forward and to the right out of the confines of the booster seat. Sometimes she leans far forward and slams her upperbody back into the seat repeatedly. We keep telling her not to do those things, but she keeps forgetting and sometimes she does not respond well to our car rules.

There is one seat that harnesses to 80 lbs in Europe called Britax Traveller Plus. But this seat costs a fortune. So we imported a Regent (not legally), which we use on long road trips.

She outgrew her toddler seat two months shy of 3½ years old by height, and we did not know that there were large Swedish seats outthere to 55 lbs, that could have kept her harnessed AND RFing until she was 4-5 years old.

Maybe we can get the local government to fork out for a Traveller Plus, but I think that it is going to be real hard. I am not sure that we´ll even try.

SO, both restraint systems my family. We are happy with both. And those are our reasons.:)

Lena
 

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Forum statistics

Threads
219,656
Messages
2,196,896
Members
13,530
Latest member
onehitko860

You must read your carseat and vehicle owner’s manual and understand any relevant state laws. These are the rules you must follow to restrain your children safely. All opinions at Car-Seat.Org are those of the individual author for informational purposes only, and do not necessarily reflect any policy or position of Carseat Media LLC. Car-Seat.Org makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. If you are unsure about information provided to you, please visit a local certified technician. Before posting or using our website you must read and agree to our TERMS.

Graco is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Britax is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Nuna Baby is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org!

Please  Support Car-Seat.Org  with your purchases of infant, convertible, combination and boosters seats from our premier sponsors above.
Shop travel systems, strollers and baby gear from Britax, Chicco, Clek, Combi, Evenflo, First Years, Graco, Maxi-Cosi, Nuna, Safety 1st, Diono & more! ©2001-2022 Carseat Media LLC

Top