RF tethering - reasons, risks, benefits? (Split from "Has Anyone Bought a TruFit yet")

[joolsplus3]

The Rip Stitch tether and the Safestop have the same basic effect: they slow down the speed at which the child stops by allowing a touch more head excursion...they increase 'ride-down' time so that the forces on the body are minimized.

Your post is excellent, Snowbird!

 

[snowbird25ca]

this is a very interesting thread & nto sure what to think

DH alone in his work truck so no children present. on a highway going 70mph blows a tire & teh truck flips several times but does land on all four tires eventually & thank goodness misses the trees. he WALKS OUT of the TRUCK uninjured. the EMS couldn't believe their eyes taht he was able to just WALK AWAY. he did go to hospital since it was work related to be check out. he was fine minus one small cut on his forhead from soemthing flying in truck that struck his head. if that isn't freakin amazing i don't know what is.
i'm sure bytime all this occured he wasn't going 70mph. the seatbelt SAVED his life regardless.
even tho there was no "true impact" otehr than the truck hittin the street a few times. i believe that even speedy accidents can be survivable. i wonder what a carseat would've done? scary thought however....

I'm glad your hubby was ok.

The sequence of crash events you describe illustrate how even at a high speed of travel, vehicles don't go from 70 to 0 mph instantly.

All of the rolling and continued movement - while giving your dh one heck of a bumpy ride and almost having guaranteed a non-restrained passenger was ejected, meant that the speed of the truck slowed gradually.

Sometimes when thinking about collisions that initial speed is all that's taken into consideration. But it's important to keep in mind that it's not the speed that the crash occurs at that is necessarily the amount of force being transmitted... crumple zones, continued movement, all of that allowed for your dh's body to not come to an instantaneous stop the same way as if he'd hit a brick wall. I have to agree that it's amazing he had nothing more than a scratch (and probably a darn good case of shock even if he got out and walked around,) for all the rough and tumble ride that his truck went through.

 

[tcottawa]

This is incorrect. If a carseat manufacturer selling seats in Canada is telling parents it's ok to use their seat that way, then it has been tested in Canada that way. Canada's system of certifying carseats for sale is much different than in the US - in the US it's a self certification system. In Canada the manufacturer has to ship the seat to TC and TC performs the tests as per the manual and then gives the manufacturer a letter authorizing them to affix the CMVSS 213 sticker to the seat and sell the seat in Canada.

The East is taught very strongly not to rf tether, but my understanding from class is that this is NOT TC's official position. (My instructor has close contact with TC.) If it was, then we wouldn't be allowed to rf tether Britax seats. Manufacturers have to make changes to their seats for the CDN market sometimes - not allowing rf tethering in Canada is definitely one that could be made if it meant a seat didn't meet CDN standards. Simply put, if the seat didn't meet CDN standards when tethered rf'ing, then it wouldn't be allowed with CDN seats.

My instructor (actually the instructor's instructor) works at Transport Canada, and is the defect investigator for child restraints (I took the course in the child restraint building here at TC in ottawa) and wrote the CRST manual. I asked her specifically about this since I have a MA. She said it had not been tested RF tether, and we were not to RF tether at clinics. She also said that she might consider, at a parent's request, RF tether to the anchors (Australian) but not to any other location in the car, since it had not been tested by the car manufacturer.

I understand the debate about it, but since she knows way more about car seats than I will ever know, I'm going to trust her...

 

[joolsplus3]

Not been tested by whom? Transport Canada? Britax and at least one other agency have extensively tested RF tethering to different parts of the vehicle, it's definitely been tested. But if TC hasn't tested it...well...why not???

 

[tcottawa]

Not been tested by whom? Transport Canada? Britax and at least one other agency have extensively tested RF tethering to different parts of the vehicle, it's definitely been tested. But if TC hasn't tested it...well...why not???

By Transport Canada...I will email her to confirm that this is indeed true, and to ask why...I know that she means independently tested, rather than the testing Britax has done.

 

[Synchro246]

See, this is what I don't get. I know the studies are there, but there sure seem to be a lot of accidents on the freeway and there are usually injuries, but people walk away from them all the time. I know a lot happen during rush-hour, so people are going below the speed limit, but what about those that aren't during rush-hour? When people are going freeway speeds? I've seen a number of accidents on the news where people are slightly injured (there are plenty where they die, too), but it just seems that 35 mph is really a low speed for 97% of the crashes. (I'm not saying I don't believe it, it's just hard to swallow.)

-Ann

I opened this to answer what feels like hours ago & kids needed me. Hopefully I won't be redundant.

Just recently there was an article in Psychology Today mag about our perceptions of safety & danger. I'm pretty sure this is the article:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20071228-000005.xml&page=1
(this probably deserves a thread of it's own)
Basicly, we *perceive* things we see on the news as being common. Also, the *more* the thing is on the news the more common it seems. The problem with this is the news isn't covering your run of the mill every day accident. The news likes interesting stuff that stands out in some way.

 

[snowbird25ca]

My instructor (actually the instructor's instructor) works at Transport Canada, and is the defect investigator for child restraints (I took the course in the child restraint building here at TC in ottawa) and wrote the CRST manual. I asked her specifically about this since I have a MA. She said it had not been tested RF tether, and we were not to RF tether at clinics. She also said that she might consider, at a parent's request, RF tether to the anchors (Australian) but not to any other location in the car, since it had not been tested by the car manufacturer.

I understand the debate about it, but since she knows way more about car seats than I will ever know, I'm going to trust her...

I'm not doubting what you were told, but I am confused by it...

If it hasn't been tested by TC that way, then why do they allow Britax to instruct parents to do it.

If an instruction is in the manual, then that means it means TC standards. Pretty much end of story. An instructor can't tell a parent to install their seat in a way that would cause it to not meet standards - and if TC doesn't KNOW that it meets standards with it rf tethered - given their cautious history about so many things, I have problems believing they'd continue allowing Britax to allow rf tethering in their manuals.

The debate as I understand it, is that car manufacturers don't have dedicated rf tether anchor points, and so rf tethering a seat hasn't been testing in each individual car and there's no way to know if it's going against car manual instructions. That's the impression I've gotten of the debate from the posts of a CDN CRST-I on the yahoo CPSP list serve...

As for the vehicle issue, the forces placed on the anchorage on rebound are once again very different from the forces placed on a tether anchor by a ff'ing seat during a crash. It's just really not comparable. :twocents:

(We do rf tether seats at our clinics here, and I don't give it a second thought. I will say it puzzles me how there is such a division on this given that the actual curriculum does not address it... you'd think if it was such a big issue then it would've been addressed in the curriculum. And if TC feels it's a safety issue, then they wouldn't allow manufacturers to recommend it in their manuals. Of that I am 100% certain. :twocents: )

 

[southpawboston]

Just recently there was an article in Psychology Today mag about our perceptions of safety & danger. I'm pretty sure this is the article:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20071228-000005.xml&page=1
(this probably deserves a thread of it's own)
Basicly, we *perceive* things we see on the news as being common. Also, the *more* the thing is on the news the more common it seems. The problem with this is the news isn't covering your run of the mill every day accident. The news likes interesting stuff that stands out in some way.

that's interesting. there's also something that people in psychology circles call risk compensation. it states that we're more likely to take higher risks if we feel we are better protected from the risks. i.e., if we feel a new car with all the safety gadgets is going to keep us safer than our older car, we're more likely to drive a little less safely. :twocents:

 

[hipmaman]

My instructor (actually the instructor's instructor) works at Transport Canada, and is the defect investigator for child restraints (I took the course in the child restraint building here at TC in ottawa) and wrote the CRST manual. I asked her specifically about this since I have a MA. She said it had not been tested RF tether, and we were not to RF tether at clinics. She also said that she might consider, at a parent's request, RF tether to the anchors (Australian) but not to any other location in the car, since it had not been tested by the car manufacturer.

I understand the debate about it, but since she knows way more about car seats than I will ever know, I'm going to trust her...

I'm not doubting what you were told, but I am confused by it...

If it hasn't been tested by TC that way, then why do they allow Britax to instruct parents to do it.

If an instruction is in the manual, then that means it means TC standards. Pretty much end of story. An instructor can't tell a parent to install their seat in a way that would cause it to not meet standards - and if TC doesn't KNOW that it meets standards with it rf tethered - given their cautious history about so many things, I have problems believing they'd continue allowing Britax to allow rf tethering in their manuals.

The debate as I understand it, is that car manufacturers don't have dedicated rf tether anchor points, and so rf tethering a seat hasn't been testing in each individual car and there's no way to know if it's going against car manual instructions. That's the impression I've gotten of the debate from the posts of a CDN CRST-I on the yahoo CPSP list serve...

As for the vehicle issue, the forces placed on the anchorage on rebound are once again very different from the forces placed on a tether anchor by a ff'ing seat during a crash. It's just really not comparable. :twocents:

(We do rf tether seats at our clinics here, and I don't give it a second thought. I will say it puzzles me how there is such a division on this given that the actual curriculum does not address it... you'd think if it was such a big issue then it would've been addressed in the curriculum. And if TC feels it's a safety issue, then they wouldn't allow manufacturers to recommend it in their manuals. Of that I am 100% certain. :twocents: )

I winch every time I see the 'debate' about the merit of rf tethering and how some members of TC feel about it...

As far as I know... TC does routine/spot testing of seats (seats that already been certified for use and sold in Canada) and perhaps that's what BB at TC means by rf tether was not tested. But rf tethering is certainly tested by the manufactures that allow rf tethering of their own seats (Britax and Sunshine Kids for Canada)

I know the official position is that SJA and TC would not allow techs to rf tether a Britax or SK rf seat at a clinic. The main reason given is that there has not been training of instructors, trainers and techs in rf tethering and the philosophy behind rf tethering. It is something new in Canada and it is something that not in the training manual. Therefore for liability issue, it's not encouraged by techs, trainers or instructors.

However, it is totally certified, allowed and legal if a parent so choose to rf tether, as per manufacture instructions. TC nor any tech CANNOT say otherwise.

BUT I know my instructors and I (a sr. tech) who have real life experience with our own seats that can be rf tethered have done so ourselves and totally comfortable to talk and help parents to rf tether if they want to. We would educate them about the benefits, walk them through the instruction manual, add irl experience, pointers, tricks, etc. What we cannot, for liability reason, do rf tethering for the parents at the clinic.

And I'm with Trudy... If TC knows that's it's not safe or there is any doubts about rf tethering, it would be so quick in putting the cabosh (sp? ) on rf tethering, let alone allowing it to be in the manual. TC is unsure yet cannot or has not been able to disallow it.

 

[tcottawa]

I know BB has said that they (TC) are looking into totally re-writing the CMVSS 213 standards to address some loopholes - I wonder whether they will address this? She really seemed to discourage the RF tether, not just say it was a liability issue...I will definitely ask her again about this at the next clinic, or an email if I get around to it.

 

[tcottawa]

As far as I know... TC does routine/spot testing of seats (seats that already been certified for use and sold in Canada) and perhaps that's what BB at TC means by rf tether was not tested. But rf tethering is certainly tested by the manufactures that allow rf tethering of their own seats (Britax and Sunshine Kids for Canada)

I don't think that she (or TC) count the manufacturer having tested it as being enough...she did mention that there are certain seats that have passed their own testing, passed NHTSA testing, but haven't yet been able to pass TC testing (I guess to say that the testing standards are fairly different).

 

[snowbird25ca]

I don't think that she (or TC) count the manufacturer having tested it as being enough...she did mention that there are certain seats that have passed their own testing, passed NHTSA testing, but haven't yet been able to pass TC testing (I guess to say that the testing standards are fairly different).

I'd ask for clarification on this. Simply put, if a seat doesn't pass CMVSS standards testing, it doesn't matter if the seat can fly to the moon, it's not going to be approved for use in Canada. NHTSA and FMVSS standards when it comes to CMVSS approved seats - with the exception of the 65lb limit seats, have absolutely no bearing on a seat passing CMVSS standards.

The approval process for seats in Canada is that they have to pass TC testing before TC will issue a letter of authorization to the carseat manufacturer to affix the CMVSS sticker and market it in Canada. TC does not just take the manufacturers word for it, they do dynamic, static, and inversion testing on every seat before they authorize seat manufacturers to affix a CMVSS 213 sticker.

So my question to them, if the intent of what you were told is the way it sounds, is why on earth they've authorized manufacturers to affix CMVSS stickers and market seats in Canada that don't meet CMVSS standards. That just doesn't make sense. :twocents:

I'd be curious to know what kind of loop holes they're looking at closing up - further limiting rf'ing weight and height limits? Things that are going to actually reduce the safety of kids? That sounds snarky, I know, but we've been stuck with manufacturers applying a universal 30lbs and 32" to seats for years now. If the loop hole stuff is going to make it so that they're free to label their seats to higher rf'ing weight & height limits, than fabulous. But what if the loop hole is to enforce the max 30lb rf'ing limit and not leave it up to manufacturer testing? What if it's to prevent manufacturers like evenflo from giving a height guideline of one inch hard shell.

I really hope that TC is keeping in mind erf'ing and eh'ing in the reviews they have under way. If you have regular contact with BB, perhaps it is worth mentioning to her about the limitations in height/weight limit on rf'ing seats in Canada. Maybe you can get a further explanation that nobody has been able to get from carseat manufacturers, or through contacting TC via email about the topic so far...

eta: The last contact I had with TC did indicate that they were looking at aligning testing process for CMVSS seats with testing processes for FMVSS seats, to make it easier for seats to become available in Canada at close to the same time as the US and with less expense to the manufacturers. Perhaps this is what she's referring to?

There has already been some changes showing up in the standards online. Last time I read them there is now a requirement that any area of the seat that may be struck by a child's head must have some sort of energy absorbing material with a certain degree of deflection. I'm guessing this revision is why the newest AO plain jane model has shown up with EPP in the headrest area, and evenflo combo seats have also been redesigned so the new ones at BRU/TRU have EPP foam now too. I'm curious to see what will happen in regards to the scenera, the cosco infant seats and some of the evenflo seats. (All the new Graco infant seats already have EPS or EPP foam. All Britax do, all new evenflo's do (except maybe the infant carriers...) So maybe this is part of what's changing.

 

[Synchro246]

that's interesting. there's also something that people in psychology circles call risk compensation. it states that we're more likely to take higher risks if we feel we are better protected from the risks.

I think the article mentions that too. It says something about people driving faster when they wear seatbelts. I hadn't heard of that example before, but I do rememeber (actually you, I think) mentioning people taking more driving risk with ABS breaks. . .or was it 4wd? Anyway, yeah, it is very interesting :thumbsup:

 

[hipmaman]

I'd ask for clarification on this. Simply put, if a seat doesn't pass CMVSS standards testing, it doesn't matter if the seat can fly to the moon, it's not going to be approved for use in Canada. NHTSA and FMVSS standards when it comes to CMVSS approved seats - with the exception of the 65lb limit seats, have absolutely no bearing on a seat passing CMVSS standards.

The approval process for seats in Canada is that they have to pass TC testing before TC will issue a letter of authorization to the carseat manufacturer to affix the CMVSS sticker and market it in Canada. TC does not just take the manufacturers word for it, they do dynamic, static, and inversion testing on every seat before they authorize seat manufacturers to affix a CMVSS 213 sticker.

So my question to them, if the intent of what you were told is the way it sounds, is why on earth they've authorized manufacturers to affix CMVSS stickers and market seats in Canada that don't meet CMVSS standards. That just doesn't make sense. :twocents:

It sounds like BB and TC might mean that eventhough rf tethering is tested by the manufactures but being the 'doubting Thomas' we would always need to test it ourselves or get an independent body to test it, rather than taking the manufactures' words for it. TC probably has no means to rf tether testing nor able to contract a 3rd party to provide rf tether testing results other than what the manufactures have provided. But since CMVSS does not have rf tethering requirements it cannot NOT certify a seat that meets CMVSS in every other way, including its own rf tethering tests

I rather not pick another 'battle' to converse with BB since I'm still talking with her for several topics already But since you are talking to her, you should send BB this link http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/BraceTether.aspx It is unproven that rf tethering or free-moving rf carseat is safer or worse off. See what she thinks.

 

[Chex]

I opened this to answer what feels like hours ago & kids needed me. Hopefully I won't be redundant.

Just recently there was an article in Psychology Today mag about our perceptions of safety & danger. I'm pretty sure this is the article:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20071228-000005.xml&page=1
(this probably deserves a thread of it's own)
Basicly, we *perceive* things we see on the news as being common. Also, the *more* the thing is on the news the more common it seems. The problem with this is the news isn't covering your run of the mill every day accident. The news likes interesting stuff that stands out in some way.

That is intetersting. I can see how that can happen easily. And after thinking about it, I guess it seems fairly reasonable, if you consider how many fender-benders there are every day where no injuries are invovled and half the time, not even police are involved, I can see the statistics they give being accurate.

-Ann

 

[tcottawa]

So my question to them, if the intent of what you were told is the way it sounds, is why on earth they've authorized manufacturers to affix CMVSS stickers and market seats in Canada that don't meet CMVSS standards. That just doesn't make sense. :twocents:

Sorry, my fault, I was being unclear. There are currently seats sold in the US which do not pass CMVSS...BB brought this up when I brought up the discrepancy between RF tether in the US and Canada. What I think she was implying was that the standards are different enough that there are things that would be acceptable in the US that just aren't in Canada and vice versa.

 

[tcottawa]

It sounds like BB and TC might mean that eventhough rf tethering is tested by the manufactures but being the 'doubting Thomas' we would always need to test it ourselves or get an independent body to test it, rather than taking the manufactures' words for it. TC probably has no means to rf tether testing nor able to contract a 3rd party to provide rf tether testing results other than what the manufactures have provided. But since CMVSS does not have rf tethering requirements it cannot NOT certify a seat that meets CMVSS in every other way, including its own rf tethering tests

I rather not pick another 'battle' to converse with BB since I'm still talking with her for several topics already But since you are talking to her, you should send BB this link http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/BraceTether.aspx It is unproven that rf tethering or free-moving rf carseat is safer or worse off. See what she thinks.

Well, she's at most of the ottawa-area clinics, and did say anyone could email her with questions...

Very briefly, I brought up the fact that there are alot of parents who buy US seats so they can RF their kids longer, and whether the RF limit would change. I think the general consensus was that it was hard enough to get parents to rear-face past 20lbs at all, and that a few years ago (well, more than a few) you couldn't get seats that RF past 22lbs.

 

[snowbird25ca]

Well, she's at most of the ottawa-area clinics, and did say anyone could email her with questions...

Very briefly, I brought up the fact that there are alot of parents who buy US seats so they can RF their kids longer, and whether the RF limit would change. I think the general consensus was that it was hard enough to get parents to rear-face past 20lbs at all, and that a few years ago (well, more than a few) you couldn't get seats that RF past 22lbs.

I'll bite on the rf limit. Just because it's hard to get parents to rf past 20 or 22lbs, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the option. For the option to be taken away because most people aren't going to do it anyways, does a disservice to those parents who want to follow best practice.

I know most health units around here won't mention rf'ing past 20lbs, and most fail to acknowledge that carseat manufacturers for the most part have a 1yr min age to ff and ok 9 and 10mo olds ff'ing. But that doesn't stop me from telling every parent I talk to at a clinic about erf'ing. More and more parents are going to start erf'ing - and in my city there is already a growing # of parents choosing to do that, but they're limited by 30lbs. Some parents feel very upset about they're 14 or 15mo old potentially having to ff in Canada, when they might get another 6 or 8 mos rf'ing with a 33 or 35lb rf'ing weight limit seat. That extra 6 to 8 mos of bone ossification is a huge difference.

Anywho, if it comes up with Barb again, feel like playing devil's advocate? Or if you want to pass her email on to me through PM, I know somebody who I'm sure would love to contact her as she has a young child who is closing in on 30lbs. :thumbsup:

I'm going to get on my soapbox here for a minute, because this bugs the heck out of me - just because most parents don't follow the bare minimums, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be told about best practice, or encouraged to follow best practice. And if a seat already passes at a higher rf'ing weight limit then manufacturers should be allowed to label that seat to higher limits in Canada. (I still haven't seen a CMVSS regulation preventing them from doing so, but keep hearing this "universal weight limit to keep it simple for parents" thing from manufacturers even when they've said their seat was tested at a higher weight limit for the CDN market.)

Parents who WANT to follow best practice, should have the same ability to follow best practice as our friends in the US do. Especially considering that not so long ago we did have that ability, and then it disappeared.... :twocents:

 

[tcottawa]

I'll bite on the rf limit. Just because it's hard to get parents to rf past 20 or 22lbs, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the option. For the option to be taken away because most people aren't going to do it anyways, does a disservice to those parents who want to follow best practice.

I know most health units around here won't mention rf'ing past 20lbs, and most fail to acknowledge that carseat manufacturers for the most part have a 1yr min age to ff and ok 9 and 10mo olds ff'ing. But that doesn't stop me from telling every parent I talk to at a clinic about erf'ing. More and more parents are going to start erf'ing - and in my city there is already a growing # of parents choosing to do that, but they're limited by 30lbs. Some parents feel very upset about they're 14 or 15mo old potentially having to ff in Canada, when they might get another 6 or 8 mos rf'ing with a 33 or 35lb rf'ing weight limit seat. That extra 6 to 8 mos of bone ossification is a huge difference.

Anywho, if it comes up with Barb again, feel like playing devil's advocate? Or if you want to pass her email on to me through PM, I know somebody who I'm sure would love to contact her as she has a young child who is closing in on 30lbs. :thumbsup:

I'm going to get on my soapbox here for a minute, because this bugs the heck out of me - just because most parents don't follow the bare minimums, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be told about best practice, or encouraged to follow best practice. And if a seat already passes at a higher rf'ing weight limit then manufacturers should be allowed to label that seat to higher limits in Canada. (I still haven't seen a CMVSS regulation preventing them from doing so, but keep hearing this "universal weight limit to keep it simple for parents" thing from manufacturers even when they've said their seat was tested at a higher weight limit for the CDN market.)

Parents who WANT to follow best practice, should have the same ability to follow best practice as our friends in the US do. Especially considering that not so long ago we did have that ability, and then it disappeared.... :twocents:

Completely agree with your entire post, and will bring it up again (we didn't really have time to go into it in class, as we were going way off-topic all over the place). We were definitely taught best practices, and to strongly recommend ERF to the parents at the clinic.

I think another problem might be that Transport Canada (the organization as a whole) isn't particularly invested in changing anything with regards to child restraints...if health canada were involved, it might be different, IYKWIM?

 

[Dillipop]

Sorry, my fault, I was being unclear. There are currently seats sold in the US which do not pass CMVSS...BB brought this up when I brought up the discrepancy between RF tether in the US and Canada. What I think she was implying was that the standards are different enough that there are things that would be acceptable in the US that just aren't in Canada and vice versa.

I think the point is that TC shouldn't have ok'd Britax and SK to label the seats sold in Canada as having the ability to tether rfing. If it didn't pass CMVSS standards while the tether was attached, then the manuals should not allow the tethering or the seats shouldn't be allowed to be sold in Canada with the ability to rf tether.