Why can't you install car seats on rear-facing seats?

[littleangelfire]

I've been wondering about this lately, too, because i've got a friend considering buying a Volvo station wagon this summer, with a rear facing third row. don't they test that third row for safety with a person (no CR) sitting in it?

 

[LISmama810]

I've been wondering about this lately, too, because i've got a friend considering buying a Volvo station wagon this summer, with a rear facing third row. don't they test that third row for safety with a person (no CR) sitting in it?

I don't believe there are any requirements to do so. Other than needing to meet belt strength requirements and whatnot, I don't believe any crash testing is required for backseat occupants.

ETA: And belt strength requirements aren't a tested through crash tests. I worded that poorly. Just trying to say I'm not aware of regulations for the rear seats other than materials and certain equipment that needs to be present.

 

[littleangelfire]

I don't believe there are any requirements to do so. Other than needing to meet belt strength requirements and whatnot, I don't believe any crash testing is required for backseat occupants.

ETA: And belt strength requirements aren't a tested through crash tests. I worded that poorly. Just trying to say I'm not aware of regulations for the rear seats other than materials and certain equipment that needs to be present.

So are any backseats tested? Or it's just third rows that aren't tested? Or non-standard third rows including jump seats and rear facing seats that aren't tested?

 

[LISmama810]

As far as I know, back seats are not tested.

Crash test ratings that include back rows are done to determine how well headrests work, not to measure other injury criteria or intrusion. And even those tests are, I think, not actually federally mandated, just something that other organizations do.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[ketchupqueen]

I thought I read something about third row testing from IIHS once, but I can't find it now. Maybe it was someone else?

 

[littleangelfire]

As far as I know, back seats are not tested.

Crash test ratings that include back rows are done to determine how well headrests work, not to measure other injury criteria or intrusion. And even those tests are, I think, not actually federally mandated, just something that other organizations do.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I never knew that. Then how do we get away with saying back is safest all the time if we don't have hard proof? I'm not aruging it's safeness, just where's the proof, then?

 

[LISmama810]

I never knew that. Then how do we get away with saying back is safest all the time if we don't have hard proof? I'm not aruging it's safeness, just where's the proof, then?

Well, the exact safety of anything is going to vary from car to car and seating positions within the same car, etc., and on the type of crash, and whatnot.

In general, the back seat is safer because it's farther from the point of impact in a frontal collision.

 

[mom2ari]

As I was reading this and the talk of ramping up brought up the thought of the position of the harness in my mind. For rear-facing it needs to be at or below the shoulders, and ffing at or above. Maybe it has something to do with that. Not that it is the manufacturers job to make sure you install your CR properly, but how many people might just flip the seat around without bothering to change the harness height, especially if installed with latch?

Just a thought

 

[Pixels]

I think the brand-new side pole test includes back seat testing, as does the side impact test. I'm not sure if there are standards for the back seat, or if they just put a dummy in and report the results. In other words, there may not be any way to "fail" the test. Or maybe there is, I'm not sure. Either way, those are both side impact tests, not frontal.

We can confidently say that the back seat is safer because real-world accident data tells us that.

 

[littleangelfire]

Ok, so real world info makes sense, but i feel my sails are a little windless as to telling my friend that putting people (kids)in that 3rd row rear facing is dangerous "because it's not tested" if back seats aren't normally tested either. bummer. but i will share with her the ambulance story shared, and at least the dynamics of why a CR won't work there, or might not work there.

 

[Pixels]

It's not just the rear facing vehicle seats that aren't tested, it's also the child restraints that aren't tested RFing - err, backwards facing.

 

[Pixels]

The ambulance seat in question also had a harness. IIRC, it was a very minor change that took the seat from "major injury" level to acceptable. Given such a small margin of error, I wouldn't assume it's safe without the testing to prove it.

It was the Guardian Safety Seat. I believe we learned about it in a tech update or CEU opportunity. I can't find the videos we were shown about the development and crash testing, but I do remember watching them and the early versions were downright scary.

 

[jeminijad]

I would freakin love to know if any CR manufacturer has ever run this test.

Obviously not in a formal, certifying-type environment, but to know whether it was a horrific fail type result, or if it has truly never been tried, or if there is a benefit, but not enough of a need, or if there is just no way on the test sled to replicate it.

Etc etc etc.