# Make it safe to have a RF child in the front seat!! (And other safety fantasies)



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Please? Cause that'd make life easier for lots of people.

'kay, thanks.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Well, you could just buy a really old car


----------



## Sk8ermaiden (Feb 13, 2008)

Totally dig our old truck for this reason. Love it.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

We do have an old car w/o and airbag, but it's still illegal for me to have a child in the front unless the back seat is occupied with children.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Dahlia, the law in Washington is backseat "when it is practical to do so." It's technically not illegal to have a kid in the front seat.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
Dahlia, the law in Washington is backseat "when it is practical to do so." It's technically not illegal to have a kid in the front seat.

But, if you have a kid in the front and an empty back seat they can ticket you because it is "practical".


----------



## beru (Nov 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Please? Cause that'd make life easier for lots of people.

'kay, thanks.

Oh I so agree with this post. It is SO frustrating. Can't we just have an on/off switch for the airbags?


----------



## Spirit Dancer (Dec 11, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *beru* 
Oh I so agree with this post. It is SO frustrating. Can't we just have an on/off switch for the airbags?

Some new vehicles do have an on / off switch on the dash.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

See, there's also the whole law thing. There should be like a little sign that pops up so concerned by standers and police officers can see that the airbag's been turned off.

But seriously, would it be safe to have her seat up front if I could turn off the airbags on that side?? I thought maybe U.S. carseats weren't designed for that or something?

Oh, wait, I'd have to use the locking clip since the front belt doesn't switch to a ratchet lock and there certainly aren't LATCH connectors up there. Honestly though, when baby #2 is in the "if I can't see Mommy she doesn't exist OMG Mommy is GONE!!!!" phase in the carseat, I would totally go back to dealing with the locking clip install.


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

The back seat is always safer for everyone.

Some state laws do not allow children in the front seat.

If there is absolutely no danger of airbag deployment (I would not trust sensors and don't know about switches) and the seat is properly installed, RFing in the front is not inherently unsafe.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Yeah, it's just a dream.









Honestly, my car dreams pretty much all end with "forget cars, where's my instant transport???"


----------



## treehugginhippie (Nov 29, 2004)

I seen a bucket seat in the front seat of a Corvette today at the park...kind of a strange combo to see!


----------



## leighi123 (Nov 14, 2007)

even with the airbag off, the back seat is safer.

I sometimes have ds in the front in my dad's spyder, but thats only b/c its a 2 seater and has a key to turn off the airbag. It is VERY distracting to have him right next to me.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Really, what'd be great is either for the front seat to be safer, or to be able to sit in the back seat all the time.

Hmm, I need a chauffeur.


----------



## Just1More (Jun 19, 2008)

Yeah, I hate carseats. But, I do it...

I fought and fought to install our radians in a friend's van today. FINALLY got it. I wish it didn't matter what my kids rode in, or how I attached them. I wish I could have a cavelier approach to the whole thing. You know, through the seat belt, buckle it and then buckle in the child. Done. But, I can't.

So, it's yank, twist, pull, mash fingers, wiggle, locking clip, mash fingers, push, wiggle, arg, mash fingers, lengthen seat belt, mash fingers, push, wiggle, CLIP, ahhh....wiggle, wiggle...arg...too loose...repeat. Mash fingers, scrape back of hand on carseat in next seating position.

And the clingy baby stage. It would be GREAT to have them where they could see me. But then I'd be wishing it was safe to nurse and drive...


----------



## texmati (Oct 19, 2004)

We have a new car and it has a way to disable the air bag, as well as a weight sensor on the passenger side to trigger the airbag. It still mentions in the manual that it shold be used as a last resort only.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Ooo good point. Forget safety in carseats in front seats, someone make a nursing crash test dummy and strap a crash test baby on in a variety of baby carriers! Would've made the whole first year go better.


----------



## Jane (May 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *leighi123* 
I sometimes have ds in the front in my dad's spyder, but thats only b/c its a 2 seater and has a key to turn off the airbag. It is VERY distracting to have him right next to me.

That's what I have, a spyder. It's only got a front seat, but it does have an airbag off switch. It's challenging to get my midwifery bags and a carseat in there, but the car's all paid for, so I'll be doing it, whenever the universe blesses me with a babe to do it with.
My friend did is for a long time with a Miata, so I know it's possible.


----------



## hillymum (May 15, 2003)

I don't know about now but 9 years ago my 2 sons were in their RF in the front seat. It was the normal place for them to be in a car in england. Made driving so much easier! I never had a near miss back then. I had so many near misses when my third was in a rf in the back (born in America) as his crying was so distracting to me.


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

Someone mentioned "backseat is always safer for everyone". This is not true at all although it's a common misconception. Airbags in US/Canada can't be turned off with key/switch, except some trucks, but this doesn't change the fast that front seat is as safe as the rear seat for children as long as airbag is deactivated. This has been proven by research and real life experience ages ago.

Back seat is of course safer for kids in vehicles with airbag which can't be deactivated

When we look closer at all the factors affecting safety for children the facts are that front seat is likely safer than the rear seat. There are several reasons for this, very briefly:

- Vehicles are safety optimized for front seat use since there is always someone in front seat.

- Panel in front of seat is the strongest point in the car

- Rear facing in front seat provide far better leg space for children. Many parents turn children way to early due to concern regarding leg space.

- Distractions with children in front seat have been proven to be less than back seat

- Using front seat leads to more flexible seating solutions for families. Children are basically more likely to sit properly secured in the car.

Research is one thing, how does the front seat work in real life? Unbelievably well! The Seedes, considered 30 years ahead in car seat safety, has been using front seat extensively since 1965 for children. A large percentage of Sweden use the front seat. This apply to families of all kinds of sizes.

Results are stunning, Sweden has basically eliminated fatalities for children in ages 0-6 years in traffic accidents. This is largely due to keeping kids rear facing until age 4 or longer but I just wanted to point out that despite a high percentage of use in front seat safety is amazing.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Do Swedish cars come with LATCH in the front passenger seat?


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

The front passenger belt does lock, if the car is newer than 1996.

And, the back seat is still safest.









Quote:

The front seat is a more dangerous environment than the rear seat for two reasons. First, recent crash data show that children 15 years and under have a 40% lower risk of serious injury in the back seat compared to the front seat (Durbin et al., 2005). This increased risk occurs because the front passenger compartment is more likely to have intrusion than the back seat area in frontal crashes, which are the most common type. Consequently, FMVSS 213 requires manufacturers to say in their instructions "that, according to crash statistics, children are safer when properly restrained in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions."

More information found here.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

The only problem I have with that study is that they didn't compare back and front seat results for kids in RF carseats and in reading the full text, they're also including injuries from air bags.

So really not a convincing argument against using a carseat in the front seat with a turned-off airbag.


----------



## smpayne (Oct 21, 2009)

The only reason we have airbags in the first place, is because people refused to use thier seat belts. I too would like to see a study done with NO airbags and proper seat belt usage. I'll bet there are a lot fewer serious injuries especially to the face (those air bags are violent).

I have been in a couple serious collissions without any airbags and was able to walk away with only a few brusies because I had my seat belt on. The first one, the front end of the car was smashed to 1/2 it's original size. Had my brother and I had shoulder harneses in the back seat, it would have been better. I got a bloody nose from hitting the front seat and my brother got a bump on his forhead. Front seat passangers had NO injuries, so back seat is not always safer.

I loved having my ds#1 in the front seat on our 45 min drive every morning. It would have been murder to have to put him in the back seat. Of course that was 15 years ago before passanger side air bags.


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

Wasn't there a controversial study that showed that car seat use was actually less of a factor for fatalities than simply placing children in the back seat? Not to say that car seats aren't important of course, though that was inferred by a lot of people (hence the controversial part). Does anyone know what I am talking about? Or maybe I am remembering it wrong, it has been a long day.


----------



## fruitfulmomma (Jun 8, 2002)

Quote:

Does anyone know what I am talking about? Or maybe I am remembering it wrong, it has been a long day.








I don't know the actual study but I am pretty sure the author of Freakanomics talked about it in one chapter.


----------



## Honey693 (May 5, 2008)

I get that RF is 5 times safer. But how much safer is it to drive with a nonscreaming child? I have no idea what the stats are, but I feel like you'd be at least 3 or 4 times less likely to get in an accident if there wasn't hysterical screaming coming from the backseat for 5 hours.


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Honey693* 
I get that RF is 5 times safer. But how much safer is it to drive with a nonscreaming child? I have no idea what the stats are, but I feel like you'd be at least 3 or 4 times less likely to get in an accident if there wasn't hysterical screaming coming from the backseat for 5 hours.

Driving with a child who screams constantly is horrible! We resorted to all sorts of unsafe things to keep ours from hyperventilating or shrieking while driving. Mostly me contorting myself in weird ways to nurse him while dh drove. Funny enough he now finds being in the car relaxing







Why couldn't he have thought that 9 years ago!

Like most things safety wise there is ideal, then reality. The best we can do (in the real world where some kids scream every time you strap them in) is keep as close to ideal as possible given our particular reality.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Honey693* 
I get that RF is 5 times safer. But how much safer is it to drive with a nonscreaming child? I have no idea what the stats are, but I feel like you'd be at least 3 or 4 times less likely to get in an accident if there wasn't hysterical screaming coming from the backseat for 5 hours.

You might be less likely to cause an accident, but that doesn't reduce the likelihood of someone else hitting you, kwim? You do the best you can, but I would try all the tricks in the book I could first to keep a rfing child happy before turning them, that would be last resort.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
You might be less likely to cause an accident, but that doesn't reduce the likelihood of someone else hitting you, kwim? You do the best you can, but I would try all the tricks in the book I could first to keep a rfing child happy before turning them, that would be last resort.

And this brings us back to the first question, would it be better to have an off switch for the front airbags so one of the tricks to try could be putting the child in the front seat?


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Do Swedish cars come with LATCH in the front passenger seat?

European cars have the Isofix system. Some newer cars have Isofix in front seat. I would say at least 95% of Swedes use seats installed with seat belt so Isofix in front seat is not crucial. Rar facing limit with Isofix is also only 40 lbs, most of our regular seats RF to 55 lbs.

Quote:

The front passenger belt does lock, if the car is newer than 1996.

And, the back seat is still safest.
Not a relevant study. Front seat is in reality safer than rear seat. It's not surprising that data in US show rear seat to be safer since airbags can't be turned off in front seat. That means children shouldn't sit there. *This doesn't change the fact that front seat is an excellent place for a child as long as airbag is deactivated. Everyone who works seriously with car seats know this. We say it's as safe as the rear seat but reality is it's likely safer up front.*

US doesn't have any data on children sitting up front with deactivated airbags since it's not possible (except trucks). The Swedes have been keeping kids rear facing and also up front since 1965. Since we are very boring people (before two bottles of wine) we also like to keep good and detailed data Research show front seat is excellent and so does our real life data which also include many years with airbags.

Quote:

And this brings us back to the first question, would it be better to have an off switch for the front airbags so one of the tricks to try could be putting the child in the front seat?
This works very well in Europe. Children, especially smaller babies, feel very comfortable in front seat since they can see mom/dad. Parents can also keep an eye on baby at the same time as keeping eyes on the road.

Front seat seating is also very useful for those with 3 or more kids. It means more kids are likely to sit properly restrained.

The US situation is complicated due to the (ridiculous legal system. Service centers refuse to deactivate airbags even if one has permission from NHTSA since they might get sued. Anyone can get sued for anything regardless of circumstances. It's likely that parents would sue a manufacturer if they somehow forgot to deactivate airbag and had a baby up front.


----------



## Eclipsepearl (May 20, 2007)

I'm confused.

So we don't have any studies to compare rear-facing children in the front vs. the back, with the passenger side air bag deactivated? Am I understanding that correctly?

We all know that the air bag is dangerous for children but what I'm wondering is, whether the mere fact that a child is up front is more dangerous, factoring out the airbag question. I assume it would but only marginally, especially rear-facing. That would because of something like flying glass because they're closer to the windshield or perhaps there are arguments about passenger side-impact crashes... But if you really have a red-faced screamer in the car, could it be argued that the distraction of the child trumps any marginal safety issue?

Are people in car accidents of any age usually safer in the back? There was a crash involving three girls from my high school and the only survivor was in the back. Is this typical?

I have a Yaris and I can deactivate the airbag with my key. Can that not be done in the U.S.? I have three kids so if I add a child, I put the biggest in the front seat. The last time was when we had a 10 year old northern German exchange student (these aren't small people lol!) and since he was as big as an adult, I turned it on. Usually I keep it off since the "extra" child goes in the back and my son comes up front. He is just under the weight for the air bag. It's legal for him to be up front but I tell people he has to stay back there until he's big enough for the airbag. If he has to go up front, I simply turn it off. There is a symbol on the dash in case the police ever ask.

I really wanted to put my child up front but on my last car (a VW Polo) it wasn't possible. I saw another mom doing just that and asked her how she did it. She explained that her model, only slightly older, didn't have airbags.

For me, deactivating an airbag is a safety issue. If the child in front is too small, I can just quickly turn the switch off.


----------



## NorthernPixie (Dec 14, 2007)

I thought that you could pull the fuse for the airbag even if there wasn't a switch. I've never tried it nor looked for it. Perhaps one fuse is for both airbags and you wouldn't want that. Anyone else heard of that?


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Eclipsepearl* 
I have a Yaris and I can deactivate the airbag with my key. Can that not be done in the U.S.?

Very rarely -- usually only in pickup trucks or two-seater cars with no back seats.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chickabiddy* 
Very rarely -- usually only in pickup trucks or two-seater cars with no back seats.

Actually, a lot of two seater cars no longer have off switches now that they have "smart" airbags.


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

That's true -- I didn't mean to imply that *all* trucks/two-seaters have airbag switches, just that they're pretty much the only ones that *might* have them.


----------



## blessedwithboys (Dec 8, 2004)

interesting convo about rear vs. front seat safety.

my safety fantasy would be that we would wake up one morning and every car on the planet would magically have head rests and shoulder belts in every position. then my son's step sibs wouldnt have to be at risk bc their mother bought yet another vehicle with a thrid row without head rests and two seats with only lap belts.

instead of putting her two carseats in the lap only positions, and letting the bigger kids have shoulder belts, she puts the carseats outboard second row for ease of access and so two of her bigger ones sit with just lap belts.







and she gave up boosters for her 8 and 10yo's and soon there'll be a 6th child so the 4yo will give up her harnessed seat and go to a LBB so #5 can have the harnessed seat so the new one can have the bucket. someone mentioned having a "cavalier" attitude...having headrests and shoulder belts for everyone would maybe mitigate some of the risk to the kids of ppl who just simply dont care enough to do it right.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blessedwithboys* 
interesting convo about rear vs. front seat safety.

my safety fantasy would be that we would wake up one morning and every car on the planet would magically have head rests and shoulder belts in every position. then my son's step sibs wouldnt have to be at risk bc their mother bought yet another vehicle with a thrid row without head rests and two seats with only lap belts.

instead of putting her two carseats in the lap only positions, and letting the bigger kids have shoulder belts, she puts the carseats outboard second row for ease of access and so two of her bigger ones sit with just lap belts.







and she gave up boosters for her 8 and 10yo's and soon there'll be a 6th child so the 4yo will give up her harnessed seat and go to a LBB so #5 can have the harnessed seat so the new one can have the bucket. someone mentioned having a "cavalier" attitude...having headrests and shoulder belts for everyone would maybe mitigate some of the risk to the kids of ppl who just simply dont care enough to do it right.

Please tell me that her 6th kid will be getting an infant seat bought for the 4yo or #5.


----------



## Rico'sAlice (Mar 19, 2006)

OP- Maybe what you are really wishing for is a comprehensive, convenient, inexpensive public transportation system. I love being in NYC where I simply do not need to drive. On the subway babes can wiggle and look around and nurse.
If only I had something like that around here! Well, at least for when DS was a baby. Now he really enjoys the car.


----------



## MissMaegie'sMama (Jul 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Please? Cause that'd make life easier for lots of people.

'kay, thanks.

Totally agree. Or at least go back in time and equip all vehicles with on/off switches for passenger side airbags.









(Guilty of having to let 11 yo DS ride in front seat of my small sedan, as DD1 and DD2's car seats take up all the room in the back...)


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

I don't think it's dangerous to have a RF child up front (if there are no airbags, or the air bags have a keyed switch), but I don't understand how it could possibly be safer. The safest position in the vehicle is the one farthest from the crash, and that would be the center of the back seat.


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Eclipsepearl* 
I'm confused.

So we don't have any studies to compare rear-facing children in the front vs. the back, with the passenger side air bag deactivated? Am I understanding that correctly?

We all know that the air bag is dangerous for children but what I'm wondering is, whether the mere fact that a child is up front is more dangerous, factoring out the airbag question. I assume it would but only marginally, especially rear-facing. That would because of something like flying glass because they're closer to the windshield or perhaps there are arguments about passenger side-impact crashes... But if you really have a red-faced screamer in the car, could it be argued that the distraction of the child trumps any marginal safety issue?

Are people in car accidents of any age usually safer in the back? There was a crash involving three girls from my high school and the only survivor was in the back. Is this typical?

I have a Yaris and I can deactivate the airbag with my key. Can that not be done in the U.S.? I have three kids so if I add a child, I put the biggest in the front seat. The last time was when we had a 10 year old northern German exchange student (these aren't small people lol!) and since he was as big as an adult, I turned it on. Usually I keep it off since the "extra" child goes in the back and my son comes up front. He is just under the weight for the air bag. It's legal for him to be up front but I tell people he has to stay back there until he's big enough for the airbag. If he has to go up front, I simply turn it off. There is a symbol on the dash in case the police ever ask.

I really wanted to put my child up front but on my last car (a VW Polo) it wasn't possible. I saw another mom doing just that and asked her how she did it. She explained that her model, only slightly older, didn't have airbags.

For me, deactivating an airbag is a safety issue. If the child in front is too small, I can just quickly turn the switch off.

We do have studies showing rear facing children are just as safe in front as in the rear when airbag is deactivated. This is why major car manufacturers (Volvo, Audi, VW) say so, why Swedish car seats have clear instructions for installation in front seat, why major safety organizations in Sweden say so, and the Swedish (and some European cars) has special rings in front seat for tether straps.

If you go to Volvos internet site and look for safest possible place for a RF seat it will also show you the front seat and say it's just as safe. Not only does research clearly show front eat is an excellent place but real life experience in sWeden show this as well. A very high percentage or parents, regardless of family size, have a RF child in front seat.

Not all countries understand or care about this but it's still a fact. Just as many don't care about rear facing being 500% safer. US has no experience with keeping kids in front seat so data there is not applicable. Kids in front seat in US shouldn't be there, since airbags can't be deactivated except in some trucks, so it's now wonder why some data show back seat use in safer.


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
I don't think it's dangerous to have a RF child up front (if there are no airbags, or the air bags have a keyed switch), but I don't understand how it could possibly be safer. The safest position in the vehicle is the one farthest from the crash, and that would be the center of the back seat.

You can read facts about rear facing in front seat here and why it's as safe or safer than the rear.

Crash testing between front and rear seat is about the same and we have several other factors which make front seat an excellent place for a child as long as airbag is deactivated.

The place furthest away is not always the safest place.


----------



## TheGirls (Jan 8, 2007)

Adventuredad, could you link to any research on the subject? It is wonderful that the Sweedes feel it is safe, but I'd love to see some data!


----------



## cschick (Aug 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 
You can read facts about rear facing in front seat here and why it's as safe or safer than the rear.

Crash testing between front and rear seat is about the same and we have several other factors which make front seat an excellent place for a child as long as airbag is deactivated.

The place furthest away is not always the safest place.

Also, aren't the most common crashes with severe damage to the "hit" car rear-endings, anyhow? I've seen a lot of badly damaged backseats in my life--bumpers pushed through the trunk up into the car--and a lot of cars don't have as good crumble zones around the back as the front.


----------



## Mommybree (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cschick* 
Also, aren't the most common crashes with severe damage to the "hit" car rear-endings, anyhow? I've seen a lot of badly damaged backseats in my life--bumpers pushed through the trunk up into the car--and a lot of cars don't have as good crumble zones around the back as the front.

Rear-end crashes are among the least common type of crashes and the least severe, generally speaking. I've read Swedish research (Safety for the Growing Child is the title of article; I'm not sure how to link it because it's saved as a PDF on my computer) and while very few rear-facing kids are injured in Sweden, the article includes 3 specific case studies of injury to rear-facers and at least 2 of them were rear-facing in the front seat. So, I'm confused about the research that shows that the front seat might be safer; I'd like to read it. The article said that no children in the data who were rear-facing were severely injured in a rear impact crash, which follows with what is known about rear impact crashes being less common and less severe.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommybree* 
Rear-end crashes are among the least common type of crashes and the least severe, generally speaking. I've read Swedish research (Safety for the Growing Child is the title of article; I'm not sure how to link it because it's saved as a PDF on my computer)

http://www.scribd.com/ should let you upload it for sharing.


----------



## Mommybree (Jul 27, 2007)

Here's the link to the article I mentioned in my previous post: www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv19/05-0330-O.pdf


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cschick* 
Also, aren't the most common crashes with severe damage to the "hit" car rear-endings, anyhow? I've seen a lot of badly damaged backseats in my life--bumpers pushed through the trunk up into the car--and a lot of cars don't have as good crumble zones around the back as the front.

Frontal crashes are by far the most common (since every rear-end, or side-impact car involves the front of the other car) and, having the kid in the front seat puts them closest to the impact.

As far as damage to vehicles goes, you WANT to see crumpling. That indicates that the crumple zone, well, crumpled, as it's designed to do, absorbing the impact of the crash and transferring it away from the occupants. Rear-end crashes are the least dangerous type of crash, since they generally involve much lower speeds. Of course there have been some severe ones, but statistically frontal crashes (especially head-on) collisions, side-impacts, and rollovers are the most deadly.


----------



## blessedwithboys (Dec 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Please tell me that her 6th kid will be getting an infant seat bought for the 4yo or #5.

yeah, the new baby will be put into the bucket which will be about 21 mos old, the 21 month old will go up to the FF harnessed seat, and that will bump the 4.5yo to a booster, probably LB.

i'm impressed that her 4yo is still harnessed, and somewhat impressed that she read the email i sent her about ERFing, but i just cant believe she's got her now-18mo still in the bucket!


----------



## BlackSheepPDX (Aug 28, 2008)

Why is RF with an active airbag so unsafe? (Not that I'm thinking of doing it, just wondering) I can understand that a small person, facing forward, getting biffed by an airbag would be in danger, but rear facing, isn't the airbag going to hit the seat, which is designed to keep the child restrained the event of an impact anyway?


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlackSheepPDX* 
Why is RF with an active airbag so unsafe? (Not that I'm thinking of doing it, just wondering) I can understand that a small person, facing forward, getting biffed by an airbag would be in danger, but rear facing, isn't the airbag going to hit the seat, which is designed to keep the child restrained the event of an impact anyway?

Airbags come out a 200 mph, and smash the baby's head into the vehicle seat. It's very, very deadly. Youtube has some videos that show why--I'm at work and can't link right now.


----------



## mama2soren (Feb 12, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blessedwithboys* 
i'm impressed that her 4yo is still harnessed, and somewhat impressed that she read the email i sent her about ERFing, but i just cant believe she's got her now-18mo still in the bucket!









The 18 month old in the bucket isn't necessarily a concern (depending on the size of the child and the bucket). My 25 month old still fits in some of the bigger buckets like the Snugride 35, Onboard, etc., though we've had him in a convertible for quite some time. Putting a 4 year-old in a backless booster is infinitely more concerning. Scroll to post #66 on this link for great links comparing different style boosters in a crash: http://www.car-seat.org/showthread.php?t=82444&page=3


----------



## Cinder (Feb 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chickabiddy* 
The back seat is always safer for everyone.

Yea...I remember my mom wouldn't let us ride in the front seat cause the back seat is safer until we were as tall as her, and even the sesame street books from the late 70's/early 80's we have here tell you to "always where your seat belt and remember the back seat is safest for children under 12" on the last page of almost every book. I think airbags just made it even less safe, but it wasn't safe before either.


----------

