Tethering in Canada

[BW1426]

I've been curious about this and Misty's post got me thinking about it. So, I know Canada requires tethering. Is it a requirement for all vehicles or are vehicles over a certain weight limit exempt from having top tethers? What happens if you have a vehicle that does not have top tethers nor can they be retrofitted (does this ever happen?), what do you do?

In vehicles with a set number of top tethers have any of you found that you've had to put a child in a booster sooner than you would have otherwise done?

 

[unityco]

I know there was a thread in the Canadian forum a while back from someone who's older vehicle could not be retrofitted with tethers. There was no exemption for her case. It would be illegal to transport FF harnessed children in that vehicle.

I think if we have a tether requirement, ALL rear seating positions in current vehicles should have a tether point. :twocents:

 

[BW1426]

Ok, so would I be right in saying this?

In Canada it would be illegal to have a 35 lb 3 year old in an untethered seat, but would be legal to have them in a booster?

So WTH would Jon and Kate plus 8 do if they lived in Canada :scratcheshead:

 

[joolsplus3]

Nope, not legal to put them in a booster till 40 pounds in all of Canada... no boosters are labeled below 40.

I guess you just be illegal and it's no big deal because the cops aren't going to weigh your kids there on the side of the road

 

[BW1426]

I always thought it was a great idea to require tethering, but I'm seeing some serious holes now.

 

[joolsplus3]

Yeah, lawmakers tend to miss the big picture It's ok to require tethering (Canada has since about 1989), but they need to require anchors in EVERY spot. :thumbsdown:

 

[QuassEE]

Sometimes the only legal option is to put a child in the front seat and tether to a rear seatbelt. Fortunately, because we've had tether laws for so long, only REALLY old vehicles have no tethers. I have to admit, I did let my son travel in my dad's '36 Chev PU truck in a carseat w/ lapbelt and no top tether.. Even the seatbelts were retrofitted, though...

-Nicole.

 

[BW1426]

Not to beat this to death, but I'm very intrigued by this entire ideology. For all you Canadian techs, WWYD if you had a family with Quadruplet 3 year olds come in and each weighed 35 lbs? They drive a mini van with 3 tether points. I'd assume as a tech you cannot tell someone to do something illegal, but in this case all options would be illegal. What do you do?

 

[canadiangie]

If I could verify that no additional anchors could be retrofitted, and it was a case like you say (4 children all in harnessed seats, all needing to be ff) I *might* (and mean MIGHT) consider attaching two tether straps to one anchor (my skin crawls even as I type that). Knowing that the anchor would probably do it's job upon the initial impact, and deform towards the end of the crash sequence (ie: I highly doubt it would break entirely), and knowing that the CR using the non-standard angle anchor would probably get pulled terribly to one side (as in uneven forward/side movement)... It would be a very tough situation to be in. I would need to get verification that there isn't some sort of exemption for families like this, and like I said, I'd need to verify that additional anchors could not be added. In my mind's eye I'm picturing (for example) a Chrysler van where the captain's chairs have anchors, and the 3rd row has the centre anchor and that's it. In a case like that I'd do my darndest to get the 2 seats in the 3rd row side by side.. in hopes the seat in the middle *might* assist in keeping the outboard seat from being pulled (ie: tipping over) towards the anchor. Again, this is not a situation I'd want to be in as a tech... and I say again, this is only if all other avenues have been explored. I would probably 'stop the presses' and call Transport Canada prior to making any move at all... having the parents either wait, or return later. I'd consider this a very unique case, and call on any *senior* techs I know. Basically I'd tread very carefully, and use every resource I can think of to make the least worst decision.

Hows that for a very humbled answer.

 

[BW1426]

If I could verify that no additional anchors could be retrofitted, and it was a case like you say (4 children all in harnessed seats, all needing to be ff) I *might* (and mean MIGHT) consider attaching two tether straps to one anchor (my skin crawls even as I type that). Knowing that the anchor would probably do it's job upon the initial impact, and deform towards the end of the crash sequence (ie: I highly doubt it would break entirely), and knowing that the CR using the non-standard angle anchor would probably get pulled terribly to one side (as in uneven forward/side movement)... It would be a very tough situation to be in. I would need to get verification that there isn't some sort of exemption for families like this, and like I said, I'd need to verify that additional anchors could not be added. In my mind's eye I'm picturing (for example) a Chrysler van where the captain's chairs have anchors, and the 3rd row has the centre anchor and that's it. In a case like that I'd do my darndest to get the 2 seats in the 3rd row side by side.. in hopes the seat in the middle *might* assist in keeping the outboard seat from being pulled (ie: tipping over) towards the anchor. Again, this is not a situation I'd want to be in as a tech... and I say again, this is only if all other avenues have been explored. I would probably 'stop the presses' and call Transport Canada prior to making any move at all... having the parents either wait, or return later. I'd consider this a very unique case, and call on any *senior* techs I know. Basically I'd tread very carefully, and use every resource I can think of to make the least worst decision.

Hows that for a very humbled answer.

Hmm. My thinking is that even more often than my aforementioned hypothetical scenario is that it would push 40 lb kids into a booster even if the parents wanted to harness longer simply because a sibling was in need of their tether.

So IRL, what are the chances of getting pulled over and having them actually check whether or not your seats are tethered? And, what's the punishment?

 

[CDNTech]

I would *never* top tether two seats to the same tether anchor.

One child would not get a top tether anchor at the check... the lightest one.

However, the parent would be informed that this particular vehicle is not going to work for them. I would strongly encourage a new vehicle. There are quite a few vehicles out there that *do* have 4 top tether anchors in various price ranges that this should be an option for them. Especially considering that minivans with only 3 TA's and no allowances for adding ones are new vehicles made after 2002 and pretty much only Dodge and Ford. I believe the others all have 4 or more TA's available.

All of this, of course, would be documented, documented, documented.

 

[CDNTech]

Hmm. My thinking is that even more often than my aforementioned hypothetical scenario is that it would push 40 lb kids into a booster even if the parents wanted to harness longer simply because a sibling was in need of their tether.

So IRL, what are the chances of getting pulled over and having them actually check whether or not your seats are tethered? And, what's the punishment?

The chances are becoming greater and greater around here. We have two months out of the year where police concentrate on passenger safety and top tethering is one offense that all officer's know about.

The punishment is a fine of $115 with the choice of taking option #4 (in Alberta), where you go to a class/seat check and learn how to install your seat correctly. Once that is completed, you no longer need to pay the fine on your ticket.

It could *potentially* push a 40lbs child into a booster, but I don't see that happening to be honest. Any parent that is that up on safety to come to a seat check is going to make sure they have a vehicle that works for *all* their children in the safest manner possible.

 

[QuassEE]

Four kids FF, I would put three in TA seating positions and the fourth in a seating position utilizing a rear belt as a TA. Most minivans have 7 or 8 seats and this would work in most cases.

Not tethering your seat is the same ticket as not using a seat at all, here in BC.

-Nicole.

 

[CDNTech]

Four kids FF, I would put three in TA seating positions and the fourth in a seating position utilizing a rear belt as a TA. Most minivans have 7 or 8 seats and this would work in most cases.

Not tethering your seat is the same ticket as not using a seat at all, here in BC.

-Nicole.

I thought of that too Nicole, but I don't think it would be possible.

TA's are always located in the 2nd row, with the 3rd TA in the center/off center of the 3rd row. There would be no way to place a child seat in the third row and have a seatbelt to tether too.

 

[canadiangie]

Hmm. My thinking is that even more often than my aforementioned hypothetical scenario is that it would push 40 lb kids into a booster even if the parents wanted to harness longer simply because a sibling was in need of their tether.

So IRL, what are the chances of getting pulled over and having them actually check whether or not your seats are tethered? And, what's the punishment?

If you're pulled over and the officer notices and untethered seat (most don't crawl in the back of a minivan at a speeding pull over for example ) and the officer is familiar with our top tethering law (some are, lots aren't), you would be ticketed whatever your province says the fine is. In Alberta it's $115, not sure every where else. FWIW, I still see LOTS of untethered seats. Just saw one the other day where the seat was installed o/b untethered, and there was a centre retro-fitted anchor in the middle. Yeah, it's law that we top tether, but that doesn't mean it happens all the time. Sometimes it blatant misuse, other times it's a parent being unaware of the need to top tether. I've even had parents shocked when I explain what the anchor located on their parcel shelf is for... It's far from a perfect science, but it's still a good requirement to have IMO.

 

[canadiangie]

I thought of that too Nicole, but I don't think it would be possible.

TA's are always located in the 2nd row, with the 3rd TA in the center/off center of the 3rd row. There would be no way to place a child seat in the third row and have a seatbelt to tether too.

Right. I tried to envision temporary tethering.. really I did. I even got a pen and paper and drew out the scenario LOL. In the above mentioned case it wouldn't work...

 

[canadiangie]

The chances are becoming greater and greater around here. We have two months out of the year where police concentrate on passenger safety and top tethering is one offense that all officer's know about.


All officers... as in Traffic Enforcement? Sherriff's??

Because it sure isn't the recruit coming out of depot, and it sure isn't the member with two yrs service posted at a detachment that has little to no focus on CPS related matters. RCMP members (can't and won't speak for city forces) are NOT routinely offered any information of CPS related matters. It's not part of the curriculum at depot, that's for sure. And it's not a course that's manditory once posted. It's the odd more affluent detachment with a large budget and a large membership, with a S/Sgt that allows his membership to benefit from CPS related training that is able to focus on top tethering and car seat safety in general. By and large detachments are small, budgets are limited, membership is slim, and the day to day focus is on more pressing matters (drugs, family violence, drunk driving, etc). Trust me I'm ALL FOR enforcement (both voilation tickets and the Option 4 program) but I don't like it when I see blanket statements like the one above (just being honest Jen). I worry that people go off and think that their local detachment stinks because there isn't a lot of focus on CPS related matters. When it reality it's often just not possible, and at the very least not a *choice* police are making. Does that makes sense? If someone is fortunate enough to live in a community that focuses on CPS related issues, then that's awesome. But by and large this just isn't possible for lots and lots of reasons. Just my :twocents:.

 

[snowbird25ca]

Re: What are the chances of it being noticed a seat isn't top tethered?

Safety checks (police pull-overs,) are being done multiple times a month here. If you went through a roadside carseat check, it would be absolutely noticed. Even a good # of the traffic division police are starting to do brief glances at other roadside violation stops & presence or lack thereof of a top tether is probably one the most obvious things to check at a glance.

As for this scenario, I think I would be tethering the 3 younger and the oldest would be untethered in the interim of a vehicle being worked out. I would want to make sure that the untethered child had lots of space in front of him or her - so would likely put passenger outboard 2nd row, and have the front passenger seat slid up a good ways - would even consider recommending that the parents ride in the 3rd row if having the passenger seat forward would mean that the adult would be too close to the airbag...

With quads they're all the same age, so I'm not sure how much difference there'd be weight wise... any special needs would be considered when deciding who to not tether. Taking in to consideration that most quads are preemie... if some had had brain bleeds as a result of prematurity that would factor in...

 

[CDNTech]

The chances are becoming greater and greater around here. We have two months out of the year where police concentrate on passenger safety and top tethering is one offense that all officer's know about.


All officers... as in Traffic Enforcement? Sherriff's??

You bolded it. I meant specifically *around here*, as in my area of Alberta. It was not a blanket statement.

Officer's (RCMP, Sherriff's, Bylaw) here have two months of the year that are *specifically* related to passenger safety. Specific days are set up where they are looking for any vehicle with child restraints in it and they are checking for proper installs. There are certified techs helping them in these checkstops.

We also have at least one officer (RCMP) that attends our Buckle Up Bears clinics to answer any questions from parents/caregivers that show up with a ticket in hand.

Most officers around here DO know that a top tether is required and that the seat must be secured to the vehicle by seatbelt or UAS anchors. Their knowledge is very basic and generally comes from being around techs at checkstops and our Buckle Up Bears clinics that the Co-operator's run.

I don't think this is a matter of a local detachment "stinking", officer's are insanely busy and there is just not enough time to train them in every single detail... especially when it comes to something as trivial (forgive me ) as child restraints. These men are dealing with murder's, severe domestic disputes and other horrific things that really do take priority.

A good friend of ours (several actually) are RCMP here and we had the privledge of living with one of them for a few months while our house was being finished. We really got to see the inside workings and everything they have to deal with and child restraints is just not high on that priority list.

I am excited though, that our town seems to "get it" and most of the officer's here do support us and help us to get the message out.

 

[hipmaman]

I believe there is an exemption when there is absolutely no TA can be retrofitted (and a new vehicle is not possible). I have to go and look this up now (I remember vaguely seeing it somewhere)