Which is worse?

Ok, this is a hypothetical question that I thought of while watching a debate on another board.

Which do you think is worse...a baby strapped into a carseat that has been junked (straps cut, cover removed, do not use written on it), after a moderately bad accident (good amount of vehicle damage, passengers with mild injury), and assuming that they are strapped in with something other than car seat straps, rope maybe.....or not in a car seat at all (but strapped into the seatbelt)?

I've heard of people using really, really bad car seats. And someone on another board suggested that using a seat in that condition would be better than not using a seat at all. I'm not sure I agree with this.

I just want to see what you all think. Obviously, this is hypothetical, so we don't know what age of baby/child we're talking about, which would greatly affect your answers so feel free to specify if your answer would be different for a very young baby or an older toddler.

I do believe that, in most cases, using an old, recalled, unsafe carseat is safer than not using one at all. Obviously this would be a case-by-case basis because we have no way of knowing HOW the carseat is unsafe.

In your scenario, with ropes instead of a harness (LOL), I'd go with a seatbelt instead, I think. Ropes would cut right into the kid in a crash. There needs to be something WIDE to distribute crash forces, or those forces go right into the child.

Gosh, I have no idea, but IMHO they both sound like they would lead to death for the hypothetical child if there was an accident. I sure hope this stuff isn't really happening because I thought everyone has access to a free seat if they go to a seat check or get social services,etc. ?

Every year we give to a local charity that gives out free baby gear to pregnant women who cannot afford stuff. Maybe this year I will purchase a Scenera to donate. It makes a big difference- and at such little inconvenience to my wallet.

They are both awful circumstances. The problem with using the old/damaged seat is that when someone has a seat(old or broken) they are less likely to replace it with a new one, or hurry to replace it as soon as possible.
I would beg to think that ideally a properly used expired/damaged seat would be safer than none at all, but it is rare that this would be needed. After an accident would be a common one I could think of though. Using the seat that was just involved in the crash to drive home, but not using it again after that.

I had thought about giving needy moms DS's expired infant seats(2 of them) but then that is when it crossed my mind that if I gave them an expired seat they more than likely would use it until it wasnt usable instead of using it until they could replace it with an appropriate seat.

I would go with the seatbelt. Reason being that in an accident, the seatbelt is not going to snap. With a wrecked seat, you have no idea what those straps or the shell is going to do. I'm thinking worst case that the whole seat could crack or snap loose from the seatbelt it was installed with.

See, what I was thinking was

1) people using such a seat are not likely to install it properly anyways, which makes it even LESS safe than it already is (which is not safe at all)

2) rope or whatever is either going to cut into a child and/or not hold up in an accident, ejecting the child.

I was thinking MAYBE a smaller baby rf'ing might be better off in that seat, because the shell will take most of the impact, not the "straps", however, the shell may or may not be seriously comprimised from the wreck it was already in.

But I definitely, without a doubt, think an older baby/child would be safer in just a seat belt.

I don't know. The whole thing was because someone asked about throwing out a car seat that had been in a wreck and someone else explained that you actually have to destroy the seat, not just cut the straps and remove the cover because some people WILL use a seat they piccked up in the trash, even if they have to rig it up with straps (which is true, I think someone here has seen it happen before). And someone else took offense because "some people just can't afford seats", so a damaged seat is better than none.

I just feel, in this country, there is almost no excuse to not use a car seat. If you are low-income enough to qualify for wic (which isn't even that low-income), you are likely going to be able to score a free seat or one at a discount. Some people just want to argue.

Shaunam said:

I just feel, in this country, there is almost no excuse to not use a car seat. If you are low-income enough to qualify for wic (which isn't even that low-income), you are likely going to be able to score a free seat or one at a discount. Some people just want to argue.

Click to expand...

I totally agree.

Is this a spin off of the MD thread? (I'm starleigh, btw.)

Or the MDC thread?

Yeah. I figured someone would know what I was talking about.

Ok, I was wondering the same thing today. Here is the AWFUL reason why: I saw in a car today, and installed over head shield seat definately old enough to be expired. The worst part is that the shield was broken off, leaving only these jagged edged arms on either side of the seat. Now, it was parked and there was stuff piled in it, so I couldn't see the straps, if there were any. How on earth could they be using this? Obviously it is in use, because it was installed. They can't be using the seat belt to buckle around the child and the seat because it was used to install it. I just don't get it. I wouldn't know what to think is safer. All I know is that is scares me for that child.

menfusse said:

Ok, I was wondering the same thing today. Here is the AWFUL reason why: I saw in a car today, and installed over head shield seat definately old enough to be expired. The worst part is that the shield was broken off, leaving only these jagged edged arms on either side of the seat. Now, it was parked and there was stuff piled in it, so I couldn't see the straps, if there were any. How on earth could they be using this? Obviously it is in use, because it was installed. They can't be using the seat belt to buckle around the child and the seat because it was used to install it. I just don't get it. I wouldn't know what to think is safer. All I know is that is scares me for that child.

Click to expand...

Thinking positive thoughts here...it's possible that they weren't using it and only buckled it in because they were afraid of it going flying. Of course, if there were other big, unsecured things in the car then that doesn't make much sense.

I know I had a scenera in my car for a while that was buckled, but not "installed". And it was sitting on a folded up baby blanket. I think if a cpst walked past my car, they'd have a heart attack, but I wasn't using the seat, I was just keeping it from sliding around. I eventually just installed it because I realized I was setting a bad example for anyone who might see it and thik that type of installation was ok.

Shaunam said:

The whole thing was because someone asked about throwing out a car seat that had been in a wreck and someone else explained that you actually have to destroy the seat, not just cut the straps and remove the cover because some people WILL use a seat they piccked up in the trash, even if they have to rig it up with straps (which is true, I think someone here has seen it happen before).

Click to expand...

We are planning on removing the covers (and reusing/selling), cutting the straps, writing do not use - damaged/deadly and then taking the seats to the Highway Patrol station. I had a stroller that had a broken latch and could have possibly folded up with a kid inside and I wouldn't even put that out for the garbage for fear of someone taking it and using it - I am certainly not going to take any risks with someone using our accident-damaged seats for their children!