# This would make me a horrible mother, correct?



## babygrey (Jan 12, 2010)

So, I'm looking for a reality check on something here- as in, the thought crossed my mind and then I thought "no, that's not safe", but since I brought it up with DH, it keeps coming up in conversation...

I'm pregnant with twins. They make kids 3 and 4. DS will be 10 1/2 yo when the twins are born and DD will be ~2. She is small, and will most certainly still be RF.

Here's the dilemma- buying a bigger car is so completely out of the budget that it isn't even funny. We have an older Subaru Outback, worth very little as a trade it bc of some serious body damage bc mommy can't parallel park







, but it is a reliable, safe, working car. I believe we can get three seats across in the back, but that leaves DS. I am a SAHM. I can't imagine what I will do if I can't drive them all together, at least occasionally. We don't live in an area with public transit and we don't live in walking distance of really anything.

Would it be terrible-horrible-no-good to let DS ride in the front seat of the car if we all have to go somewhere together? It has passenger side AB, but I believe it can be turned off. My state has no law about how old for FS.

I know the recommend is at least 12. You can tell me I have super-silly-prego brain if you want, but I just don't know what to do here...


----------



## onyxravnos (Dec 30, 2006)

i think it would be fine. especially since you can turn the airbag off.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Honestly, since you can turn off the airbag, I think it's your best choice. Make sure he's in a belt positioning booster unless he can pass all the "proper fitting seatbelt" criteria. If he's not in one right now, he might not be happy about using one, but if you're going to have him up front, you need to maximize safety in every possible way.

FTR, I think the latest recommendations for the front seat are 14 years and older rather than 12. Even so, I think since buying a new car is out of the question, I would do the same thing.


----------



## Mrs.Music (Jun 15, 2010)

At 10 1/2, since you really don't have any other choice, it's probably ok to let him sit up front. Especially if you turn the air bag off. Gotta do what you gotta do, right? And age doesn't mean much for size at that point... 12 year olds really vary in size and that's kinda the most important factor.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Actually, no you cannot turn the airbag off in a Subaru. I certainly wouldn't want to transport a 10 year old in the front seat, but I suppose it's your only option









And, just to clarify, it's age AND size that contribute to the safety of the front seat. A full size adult is more likely to both fit the seatbelt properly and have the air bag strike them properly, whereas a kid is going to have the airbag hit them in the face, and a kid's bones are not fully ossified, meaning both they are more susceptible to submarining under the lap belt and being injured from intrusion.


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 26, 2007)

I would not be comfortable with that arrangement. We follow the current recommendations that children should not be in the front seat before age 15. If I were in your situation, I would be looking for a cheap minivan. I think you should be able to find a mid-90s Caravan for around 2K, especially if you have auto auctions near you. We have a dealership that does a weekly auto auction that's open to the public and I'm certain I could find a decent minivan for under 2K there.


----------



## Jessnet (Apr 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AnnieA* 
children should not be in the front seat before age 15..

Okay, really? I mean _really_?

How, as parents, do we justify that one year they are not old enough to even _sit_ in the front, but the next year they are old enough to do the _driving_ - presumably from the front seat I might add.

If the children are relegated to the back seat for soooo long how are they even going to learn how to drive? They learn over time by watching us and being able to observe traffic patterns and how cars switch lanes and move and interact. (not to mention other important things, like directions and landmarks)

When I am in the backseat I can't see anything: directions, how the stick shift works, where the keys go, how far ahead you have to start breaking so as not to hit the car in front. These are things our future drivers should know before they start driving with drivers ed.

While I can agree _children_ shouldn't be in the front, these are teenagers and older children we are talking about. There is NO WAY I can justify keeping my DSD, who at 14 is *8 inches taller* than me and who gets her permit in 2 months, out of the front seat.

OP, I think you will be fine. Relax.


----------



## hollytheteacher (Mar 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessnet* 
Okay, really? I mean _really_?

How, as parents, do we justify that one year they are not old enough to even _sit_ in the front, but the next year they are old enough to do the _driving_ - presumably from the front seat I might add.

If the children are relegated to the back seat for soooo long how are they even going to learn how to drive? They learn over time by watching us and being able to observe traffic patterns and how cars switch lanes and move and interact. (not to mention other important things, like directions and landmarks)

When I am in the backseat I can't see anything: directions, how the stick shift works, where the keys go, how far ahead you have to start breaking so as not to hit the car in front. These are things our future drivers should know before they start driving with drivers ed.

While I can agree _children_ shouldn't be in the front, these are teenagers and older children we are talking about. There is NO WAY I can justify keeping my DSD, who at 14 is *8 inches taller* than me and who gets her permit in 2 months, out of the front seat.

OP, I think you will be fine. Relax.

I totally agree. I am pretty sure the recommendation is to wait until age 12, but it also depends on the size of the child. I know some 10 year olds that look like they are the size of a 12 year old or older! I also know some 10 year olds (myself included when I was young) are tiny little things. I would double check with the law in your state (i think most it's 12) and then go from there.


----------



## WindyCityMom (Aug 17, 2009)

If you have an exceptionally large ten year old, then yes. If not, no way.


----------



## lazzybee (May 21, 2010)

10 1/2? I think he'll be fine (unless you're parallel parking LOL).

I don't think I'd ever trade a Subaru for a minivan. Ever.


----------



## happysmileylady (Feb 6, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessnet* 
Okay, really? I mean _really_?

How, as parents, do we justify that one year they are not old enough to even _sit_ in the front, but the next year they are old enough to do the _driving_ - presumably from the front seat I might add.

If the children are relegated to the back seat for soooo long how are they even going to learn how to drive? They learn over time by watching us and being able to observe traffic patterns and how cars switch lanes and move and interact. (not to mention other important things, like directions and landmarks)

When I am in the backseat I can't see anything: directions, how the stick shift works, where the keys go, how far ahead you have to start breaking so as not to hit the car in front. These are things our future drivers should know before they start driving with drivers ed.

While I can agree _children_ shouldn't be in the front, these are teenagers and older children we are talking about. There is NO WAY I can justify keeping my DSD, who at 14 is *8 inches taller* than me and who gets her permit in 2 months, out of the front seat.

OP, I think you will be fine. Relax.

I 100% agree. At the age of 10, there are kids who are starting to reach heights taller than adults. By 14 or 15, most boys are taller than me at least, and approaching heights that put them as tall as most adults. Honestly, if an airbag is not safe enough for teens to sit in the front seat with, who are for the most part at least as tall as smaller adults, how can an airbag even be considered safe for an adult?


----------



## NaturallyKait (Sep 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happysmileylady* 
I 100% agree. At the age of 10, there are kids who are starting to reach heights taller than adults. By 14 or 15, most boys are taller than me at least, and approaching heights that put them as tall as most adults. Honestly, if an airbag is not safe enough for teens to sit in the front seat with, who are for the most part at least as tall as smaller adults, how can an airbag even be considered safe for an adult?

Because it's not just about size, it's about age as well. While yes size is a factor (I'm only 5 feet tall and very uncomfortable with airbags for me in some cars with the way they are positioned.) age is important because teenagers bones aren't as well developed.


----------



## pumpkinhead (Sep 15, 2003)

I would put the seat back as far is possibly could go and see about the cost of having a mechanic deactivate the passenger side airbag if it at all possible. Sometimes we have to do what we have to do even though it may not meet the textbook standards of what is absolute best practise.

If we were talking about a 2 year old or a 4 year old, I would not be at all comfortable with that arrangement.

I'm not sure if it's safer or not, but would it be better to keep the 10 y/o in the back and put your 2 year old rearfacing in the front seat with the seat back as far as it could go? Hopefully a carseat tech will chime in on that.


----------



## happysmileylady (Feb 6, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *crunchycanadian* 
Because it's not just about size, it's about age as well. While yes size is a factor (I'm only 5 feet tall and very uncomfortable with airbags for me in some cars with the way they are positioned.) age is important because teenagers bones aren't as well developed.

I am sorry, but I simply can't believe that airbag is SO much more deadly for a 5'2" 14 year old than it is for a 5'2" adult like myself, or that it's going to be THAT much safer in 2 years when that same 14 year old turns 16 and begins driving herself. Not to mention...at 5'2", as I am sure you know, being of similar height yourself, I have to sit WAY closer to the steering wheel, just to reach the gas and brake, than my teen sits in relation to the dashboard that the airbag there comes out of.

Also, I am not sure that I buy the idea that a teen's bones at 14 are that much less developed than an adults. There are girls that actually stop growing at that age. Females often reach their adult size as a teen. I reached 5'2" at age 15, and that was it. In fact, except for a change in hair style, and perhaps a few wrinkles around the eyes, I look almost exactly the same as I did in high school. And again, even if it IS the case that the bones are THAT much less developed, how much development is going to occur in the year or two that brings on driving.

If my airbag in the steering wheel of my van ever went off, it would kill me. I am sure of it. I am 36 wks pg right now and having a REALLY hard time driving because my belly is touching the bottom of the steering wheel, that's how close I have to sit. Any further back and I cannot properly reach the pedals to hit the brakes or gas safely. However, my 14 year old, who is also 5'2", can and does sit with the seat as far back as it can go. When you combine that with the fact that the dashboard is already farther back that the steering wheel and I believe my dd would be 100% safe. I would not.

Honestly, I think airbags are more dangerous than they are safety devices. They are designed with the average adult in mind, and they don't take into account the fact that adults have a range of sizes that is well over TWO FEET in difference. I know adults who are only 4'8". I know adults who are over 6'8". There is no way that the airbag can be safer for both of them than no airbag at all.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pumpkinhead* 

I'm not sure if it's safer or not, but would it be better to keep the 10 y/o in the back and put your 2 year old rearfacing in the front seat with the seat back as far as it could go? Hopefully a carseat tech will chime in on that.

A rear-facing seat can NOT go in a seat with an airbag, so unless the airbag is deactivated (unlikely anyone would do so, it's illegal) the seat must be used by a ff child.

-Angela


----------



## NaturallyKait (Sep 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pumpkinhead* 

I'm not sure if it's safer or not, but would it be better to keep the 10 y/o in the back and put your 2 year old rearfacing in the front seat with the seat back as far as it could go? Hopefully a carseat tech will chime in on that.

If the airbag was deactivated (Not by a sensor, but by an actual switch that takes a key or your car dealership disabled it) then yes, but with an airbag it is very very dangerous for a rearfacing seat to be in the front seat. 100% a no no.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happysmileylady* 
I am sorry, but I simply can't believe that airbag is SO much more deadly for a 5'2" 14 year old than it is for a 5'2" adult like myself, or that it's going to be THAT much safer in 2 years when that same 14 year old turns 16 and begins driving herself. Not to mention...at 5'2", as I am sure you know, being of similar height yourself, I have to sit WAY closer to the steering wheel, just to reach the gas and brake, than my teen sits in relation to the dashboard that the airbag there comes out of.

Also, I am not sure that I buy the idea that a teen's bones at 14 are that much less developed than an adults. There are girls that actually stop growing at that age. Females often reach their adult size as a teen. I reached 5'2" at age 15, and that was it. In fact, except for a change in hair style, and perhaps a few wrinkles around the eyes, I look almost exactly the same as I did in high school. And again, even if it IS the case that the bones are THAT much less developed, how much development is going to occur in the year or two that brings on driving.

If my airbag in the steering wheel of my van ever went off, it would kill me. I am sure of it. I am 36 wks pg right now and having a REALLY hard time driving because my belly is touching the bottom of the steering wheel, that's how close I have to sit. Any further back and I cannot properly reach the pedals to hit the brakes or gas safely. However, my 14 year old, who is also 5'2", can and does sit with the seat as far back as it can go. When you combine that with the fact that the dashboard is already farther back that the steering wheel and I believe my dd would be 100% safe. I would not.

Honestly, I think airbags are more dangerous than they are safety devices. They are designed with the average adult in mind, and they don't take into account the fact that adults have a range of sizes that is well over TWO FEET in difference. I know adults who are only 4'8". I know adults who are over 6'8". There is no way that the airbag can be safer for both of them than no airbag at all.

Actually, I do not drive. I am not comfortable driving so I don't have my license. I'm not arguing whether airbags are safe for adults or not, I'm telling you that a ten year old is not as safe as a 16 year old in the front seat, and that yes the reccomendation for 15 does have reasons behind it. If you choose to ignore that for your children, go ahead, but as a tech I am going to make sure to point it out.


----------



## blessedwithboys (Dec 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hollytheteacher* 
I totally agree. I am pretty sure the recommendation is to wait until age 12, but it also depends on the size of the child. I know some 10 year olds that look like they are the size of a 12 year old or older! I also know some 10 year olds (myself included when I was young) are tiny little things. I would double check with the law in your state (i think most it's 12) and then go from there.

actually, the laws are generally way more lax than the safety standards. my state has no minimum age for the front seat. a child can ride home from the hospital in the front, so long as they are in a seat. and my state only requires a seat until age 4. TBH, i think a parent could use a booster at 12 mos and get away with satisfiying the bare minimum.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pumpkinhead* 
I'm not sure if it's safer or not, but would it be better to keep the 10 y/o in the back and put your 2 year old rearfacing in the front seat with the seat back as far as it could go? Hopefully a carseat tech will chime in on that.

NO! no RF seat in front of an airbag. that's like newborn carseat rules 101.









OP, you seem to have no choice, other than getting the cheapest 3 row car you can find. not ideal, but not illegal. put your 10yo ds in a booster, push the seat back as far from the dash as possible (if you have 3 rf seats you probably wont get it back all the way...you could FF the 2yo behind the passenger seat, but again, thats a huge compromise) and keep your eyes peeled for a cheap minivan.


----------



## jammomma (Nov 17, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AnnieA* 
I would not be comfortable with that arrangement. We follow the current recommendations that children should not be in the front seat before age 15.

My how things have changed...I had a driver's license and my own car when I was 15.


----------



## MamieCole (Jun 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jammomma* 
My how things have changed...I had a driver's license and my own car when I was 15.









Me too.


----------



## RaeDyCo (Jul 21, 2010)

Wow, you can get your drivers learner permit here at age 14... I thought the age was 12 also, never heard 15 before. Especially when my 4 brothers were all over 5'6 by the time they were 12!


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 26, 2007)

Last I checked, in my state teens learn to drive in driver's ed classes and by many REQUIRED hours of driving with their parents and a driving school. They would NEVER be allowed to start driving simply because they had sat in the front seat of a vehicle for a period of time. Also, the next time you are in your vehicle, flip down your visor. I'm fairly certain it will tell you to keep children 12 and under in the back seat.

Links to current recs to reasoning for keeping 13 and 14 year olds in the back seat.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/06/06/10711.aspx

http://www.carseat.org/ Check out the 5-step test link and read the last sentence of the flyer.

Finally, the reasoning that when we were children it was reasonable that a 15 yr old had their own car and was driving does not hold water. When I was child it was perfectly reasonable for my mother to let me ride in the front seat w/out a car seat when I was a toddler. That doesn't make it o.k. for me to do that now.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

I'm a horribe mother b/c I also have a subaru outback and 4 children. For the rare occasion that I have to transport all four together (like, they missed the bus), I let DD, age 9.5 weighing 90 lbs - similar to a 12 yo - sit in the front seat. We haven't driven further than the 2 miles (on dirt roads going 20-25 mph) to their school. It's not ideal, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. Highway driving or frequent outings? I wouldn't be comfortable with it... but I dunno about you, but with four young children, I don't like to go anywhere by myself with all of them anyhow - I can't imagine if 2 were twin newborns. Our family vehicle seats 7, so that's what we use for evenings and weekends. We have only done the front seat thing a handful of times.

FWIW, I can't imagine not letting a 14 yr old sit in the front seat - and I certainly wouldn't want a 15 or 16 yr old getting a permit and then license after having been a back seat 'driver' for their whole life. I do understand it is safer - just as it's safer for an adult, too.


----------



## mum4vr (Jan 31, 2007)

I agree w PPs on a few things:

NEVER put a RF child w an airbag-- never-- it is a suspended death sentence.

Putting your ds in front is really your only logisticly possible option in which he is still buckled rather than on the floor of the back seat! So do not guilt yourself over it, and don't let anyone else do so.

Sheesh, I thought we could support each other on here, and help find the best possible choices. The OP has no other choices, so let's not shame and guilt her-- she's trying to do the best thing for all her kiddos.









BTW-- within the last year, I began letting my 11 yo ride in the front seat when he pointed out that he was already physically bigger, ie both taller and heavier, than I was when I got my DL! He was right!

blessings, mama, and congrats on the babies!


----------



## MamieCole (Jun 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AnnieA* 
Finally, the reasoning that when we were children it was reasonable that a 15 yr old had their own car and was driving does not hold water. When I was child it was perfectly reasonable for my mother to let me ride in the front seat w/out a car seat when I was a toddler. That doesn't make it o.k. for me to do that now.

I don't think that is an accurate comparison at all. I was the same height/weight at 15 as 16, 17, 18...and today as a 37 year old, I am the exact same height and only 5 lbs heavier than I was when I got my license at the age of 15. (5'1", 110lbs) So if it wasn't reasonable for me to drive (or even ride in the front seat) back then, I suppose I should inform my hubby that he is our family chauffeur now, since it isn't reasonable for me to be in the front.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

I weighed 100 lbs (5'5") when I got my license. Just 10 more pounds than my DD weighs currently. I hadn't thought of that until now.


----------



## PoppyMama (Jul 1, 2004)

Sounds like a good solution to me. I would check with the dealership about getting the airbag turned off and I would put the 2 year old (rf but upright) behind the passenger seat so that he can sit farther back.


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamieCole* 
I don't think that is an accurate comparison at all. I was the same height/weight at 15 as 16, 17, 18...and today as a 37 year old, I am the exact same height and only 5 lbs heavier than I was when I got my license at the age of 15. (5'1", 110lbs) So if it wasn't reasonable for me to drive (or even ride in the front seat) back then, I suppose I should inform my hubby that he is our family chauffeur now, since it isn't reasonable for me to be in the front.

Perhaps you should read the article I linked to.

"In addition, the study showed age may be a better indicator of risk than height or weight. Several body changes during puberty, such as muscle mass, bone density and bone mineral content, may help explain why body size isn't a good measurement of risk in children."


----------



## MamieCole (Jun 1, 2007)

No, I did not read the article.
I completely understand the issues of bone density, etc. in regard to age. But for that to be a valid argument, there is nothing magical that happens between the age of 15 and 16. Or 17. It would seem that the safe driving/riding in front seat age should be 18 or 20, in that case. And along the same line of thinking, older adults should refrain from being in the front of a vehicle as well, due to osteoporosis.

All passengers, regardless of age, would be safer ride rear-facing, in the back seat, in 5-point harnesses and only men, between the ages of 21 and 45 who are at least 6'0" tall should drive. The reality is that, for most of us, that isn't possible.


----------



## lazzybee (May 21, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AnnieA* 
Finally, the reasoning that when we were children it was reasonable that a 15 yr old had their own car and was driving does not hold water. When I was child it was perfectly reasonable for my mother to let me ride in the front seat w/out a car seat when I was a toddler. That doesn't make it o.k. for me to do that now.

Children are currently allowed to drive at age 15. At least here they are...


----------



## Jessnet (Apr 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lazzybee* 

I don't think I'd ever trade a Subaru for a minivan. Ever.

I agree...wait...we own an auto repair shop...

YES, yes! That is a terrific idea, trade that Subaru in and let me give you our number! (we just planned a vacation and could use some extra income)

LOL!









Seriously, though, if finances are a concern, as it sounds like they are, I would recommend sticking with your reliable Subaru over a 20 year old, unknown, only able to sell at auction, minivan in a heartbeat. There is no telling what would be wrong with it (notice I said "would be" not "could be").


----------



## Jessnet (Apr 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AnnieA* 
They would NEVER be allowed to start driving simply because they had sat in the front seat of a vehicle for a period of time.

Uhh...Even though the parents are in the car and they have attended Drivers Ed they are still the ones driving, are they not? There is always going to be a "first time" behind the wheel moment and during that moment we can hope textbooks helped and we can oversee all we want from the passengers side while they are "practicing", but they are the one who has their foot on the gas and brake, right? They need the instincts that only watching and feeling for extended periods of time can do. My little sister was stuck in the back of the van, by virtue of her age, the longest. I just took her out for a driving lesson, she has had ALL the required Driver's Ed education, but she got behind the wheel for the first time and panicked. We were turning onto a road and she started screaming "Which side of the yellow line should I be on!" - this is a question I think that could have been adverted if she had had the benifit of a front seat view and she would automatically know such things without thinking. I am the oldest, and always got the front, and can tell you I never asked that question when I started driving.

Because After all, unless we all retrofit our cars with the extra brake pedal, all we can do is scream and cover our eyes while they are in the drivers seat learning. Let's give them as many advantages as we can, for their sake and _ours_Furthermore, here in the lone star state kids don't have to go to driver's ed, the state accepts "parent instructed" driving time in place of official formal instruction.

ALSO,
"Several body changes during puberty"

Aren't 15 year olds almost done,if not already done, with puberty. I thought puberty was younger and younger these day, like around 9!


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

Teenagers may look like adults with body hair and breasts and other secondary sex characteristics, but their bones are not like those of adults. A 5'1" 105# 30yo is safer in the front seat in front of an airbag (and NHTSA will not grant an airbag waiver for a child in the front seat) than a 5'5" 130# 12yo.

It is not best practice to put a 10yo in the front seat, regardless of size. It just is not. But not being able to follow best practice does not make a mother horrible.

Subarus are very safe cars. I think I'd rather see a 10yo in the front seat of a Subaru than in the back seat of a 1990s minivan.


----------



## crunchy_mommy (Mar 29, 2009)

Random question but, what are you going to do if you want to go somewhere as a whole family (i.e. with DH???)


----------



## katiesk (Nov 6, 2007)

Quote:

I don't think I'd ever trade a Subaru for a minivan. Ever.
for sure. a subaru is a much safer and reliable vehicle than most minivans.

is there a law in some places that says teens can't ride in the front seat until 15? here kids get driving permits at 14 but obviously laws vary from state to state/country to country.


----------



## Jessnet (Apr 11, 2009)

I don't think there is a law anywhere that you have to be 15.

I also think part of issue around this debate we have to remember is the fact that front seat holds a social value in our society - it's a place reserved for adult status and adult conversation - and the physical aspects of teenagers make it a great way to defend the front seat from them.

Because I think it is pretty telling that some posters refer to well-advanced teenagers (15+) as "children". They're not children - they're teenagers. *Maybe* their bones are not like adults, but neither are the bones of the elderly. And would you *ever* have a conversation with grandma saying, "Sorry mums, but your bones are more brittle than mine so off into the back seat you go! Hope you enjoy not being able to converse with me and listen to the squealing of the little ones!"

(And, yes, we do have medical power of attorney over my grandma and are held accountable for her safety- just like a child - and we still would never ask her to sit in the back even if its safer)


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AnnieA* 
http://www.carseat.org/ Check out the 5-step test link and read the last sentence of the flyer.

Ah, but my NINE year old passes this test in our older Subaru wagon. And he's 70 lbs. dripping wet. I can't imagine he'll hit 100 lbs. anytime in the next few years. Yes, he's tall for his age, but he's not a looming giant, just in the 95th percentile. Luckily, we're in a position to not have to put him in the front seat.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrey* 
Would it be terrible-horrible-no-good to let DS ride in the front seat of the car if we all have to go somewhere together? It has passenger side AB, but I believe it can be turned off. My state has no law about how old for FS.

It looks to me like your options are:
1. Spend money that don't have to buy a bigger car (that's probably not as reliable).
2. Don't ever go anywhere with all 4 kids.
3. Take public transportation with infant twins and 2 other kids.
4. Put your son in the front seat.
5. Strap your son to the roof? Put him in the way back where there are no seat belts? (OK, I'm kidding on that one.)

It's not an enviable set of choices. You can't put 4 kids in the backseat of a Subaru. So, you're really asking: Should you blow the budget or put your 10 1/2 year old in the front seat?

I would think about how big your son is in relation to other kids his age. If he's really small, I'd be more nervous. If not, I'd ask the mechanic to turn off your airbag, start saving your pennies for a bigger car.


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

It is illegal for mechanics to disable airbags without a waiver from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It is very very very unlikely that NHTSA would grant a waiver for a 10.5yo in the front seat. Even with a legitimate waiver, many mechanics still won't disable airbags for liability reasons.


----------



## MacKinnon (Jun 15, 2004)

You have no option but to put the 10 yo in the front. That doesn't make you a terrible mother, sure, it's less than ideal, but we do the best we can, and this is your best option. And, in fact, your three across car seat combo is going to be a PITA too! It's really difficult to do three across in Subaru's. If you had a 4 year old in a forward facing harness, the general recommendation would be that that child goes in the front in the harness, as far away from the airbag as possible. I know it's hard to see for people who don't work in injury prevention, but it really is about bone density, etc. not just weight and height, which is why this becomes a debate for a lot of people. Most cars actually have warnings on the passenger seat visor about keeping kids in the back through age 12. The bottom line though, is that we do the best we can, and your best option is the 10 year old in front with the seat as far back as possible. Please do not every put a rear facing seat in front of an active airbag, that is far more risky than the 10 year old in front!


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

Just another vote for 'no kids in the front seat till 15' being absolutely ludicrous. You can arguey all you like about how its not 'as safe' as for adults to ride up front, but there is definetly something to be said for learning to drive and see how cars interact, map reading/navigation/etc. I remember driving long distances w/ my mom and riding up front from ~10 yrs on and being the official navigator when we went somewhere. How can you navigate from the back seat? And if you can't ask your kid to navigate from the back seat, then you have to do it yourself. And sometimes, thats just not safe either.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

I hadn't head the "15" rule, but for sure I wouldn't put a kid up front until 13 or so without absolutely no other option.


----------



## echospiritwarrior (Jun 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lazzybee* 
10 1/2? I think he'll be fine (unless you're parallel parking LOL).

I don't think I'd ever trade a Subaru for a minivan. Ever.











sorry you don't have another option. We too are having to make due in a less than desirable vehicle F-350. It's simply on the list of next important and it will have to come before this baby or we aren't going anywhere in a vehicle


----------



## NaturallyKait (Sep 22, 2006)

OP, I know my posts before come off as judgemental to you, but I promise that's not my intention. I was just trying to explain for others. Sometimes we just have to do what our best option is, and I agree that your 10 year old in the front seat because there is no other option is not the end of the world. Not something I'm comfortable with though, and I would make every effort to see that it wasn't needed at all, but you are not a horrible mama.


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

If it's your only option, do it. I let my 9 year old (4'10" and 90 some odd pounds) ride in the front twice when we had no other option (special circumstances; long story).

And I think making a teenager wait till 15 to sit up front is absurd, but that's just me


----------



## 2boyzmama (Jun 4, 2007)

I would never trade in a Subaru for an older, less-safe, unreliable mini van. Never. We traded in a 2001 Subaru Forester for a 2009 Toyota Sienna, and even that gave me heartache. Subarus are just fantastic cars, any year and any model. I think your son stands a better chance of being safer in the front seat of the Subaru than the back of an older van.

Have you found a carseat arrangement that will work three across? We tried in our Forester and it was extremely difficult. Really only the Radians would fit three across. I think that is your biggest worry, not where you're placing your oldest son.


----------



## Marisgirl (Jun 2, 2008)

Since I am LITERALLY in the exact same situation as you - ages, and genders, and pregnancy wise, I totally do not think that you would be a bad mother for this. And I have read every single post in this thread and thought....hmmmmm, that's a bit extreme, but in reality, it has to be something that you are okay with AND which you couldn't get a ticket, or arrested for in doing it. We can't get another car until the twins are probably about six months old (I'm due in January) and I know that some people would think - well why did you get pregnant then? I usually give a gas face and move on.

If you and the hubby are comfortable with it, AND it is legal in your city and state AND you are making sure that you take all measures of safety - then I say go for it. As adults we use seatbelts and make sure we don't talk on cell phones and stuff still happens - not all the time, but we're not ominiscient so don't be so tough on yourself.


----------



## skai (Apr 21, 2007)

I'm about 4'10" and 100 lbs and I drive.


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

You're also older than ten. Size matters, but age matters much more.


----------



## skai (Apr 21, 2007)

Why would age matter much more? I understand about the bone density, but I still think the direction and the angle of the airbag would matter more, and those depend on the person's size.

(Of course, what IS a good point is that I am an adult and am making the decision myself, whereas a 10-year-old cannot responsibly decide whether it is reasonably safe for him/her to ride in the front seat.)


----------



## kriket (Nov 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lazzybee* 
I don't think I'd ever trade a Subaru for a minivan. Ever.

ITA. I would loooove a Subie! We have a Volvo wagon,







just as excellent!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessnet* 
Okay, really? I mean _really_?

How, as parents, do we justify that one year they are not old enough to even _sit_ in the front, but the next year they are old enough to do the _driving_ - presumably from the front seat I might add.\

OP, I think you will be fine. Relax.

I also TA.

I found this on Healthychildren.org from the AAP site

Quote:

All children younger than 13 years should ride in the back seat. If absolutely necessary, a child in a forward-facing car safety seat with a harness may be the best choice to ride in front. Just be sure the vehicle seat is moved as far back away from the dashboard (and the air bag) as possible.


----------



## midstreammama (Feb 8, 2005)

For general reference, I found this site.

http://www.nsbri.org/HumanPhysSpace/...velopment.html

It says that bone ossification is not complete until age 25. I wonder how many of us shouldn't be driving? For me, and I suppose everyone else, it's all about weighing the risks and benefits. She said she CANNOT afford another vehicle..I don't see any other option.

Best of luck op.

Btw, I didn't read all the posts...


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

Bone density and muscle mass (not gym muscles, but just a basic change in body composition) matter quite a bit.

Post-pubertal hips (and I don't mean right after a girl gets her first period at age 10 or a boy has his first [you know], I mean after the body is finished developing internally as well as externally) hold a lap belt down to keep it from riding up on the belly -- this could be mitigated by a backless booster in the front seat, but it's just another way that a fully adult skeleton protects better.

I'm not slamming the OP. I think that sometimes life throws us curves and sometimes the "best" choice is just not an option. I own a 2001 Legacy wagon and if I had to transport the same kids I'd make the same choice. And honestly, I'd rather see the *whole family* in a safer vehicle than a mid-90s minivan -- child passenger safety considers the whole family. But it's simply not true that a 10yo is just as safe in the front as a 30yo, even if they are exactly the same size.


----------



## pumpkinhead (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blessedwithboys* 

NO! no RF seat in front of an airbag. that's like newborn carseat rules 101.









.

Yeah, we're not speakng of a newborn in a carseat though which was why I said I was unsure and asked someone who did know to chime in







. Thanks for the info


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

Children of any age cannor RF in front of an airbag. The airbag cannot be deactivated. I would prefer to see the 10yo in the front seat and the 2yo RFing in the back than the 2yo FFing in the front.


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

Quote:

I would not be comfortable with that arrangement. We follow the current recommendations that children should not be in the front seat before age 15.
This statement is not supported by any research, data or real life experiences. It's totally incorrect. Front seat placement is a very misunderstood subject, especially in US. Fact is that front seat is an excellent place for a child, rear facing or forward facing, *as long as airbag is deactivated.*. You can read more facts about front seat here.

Most airbags in US can't be deactivated but this doesn't change the fact that it's extremely safe if airbag can be deactivated. Doesn't matter if it's for an infant, toddler, or older child. We know very well that front seat is a great place for a child thanks to research, data and real life experience.

- Research show front seat is just as safe as the rear. Rf in front seat is actually safer when looking at all factors. US data show rear seat is safer which is not surprising since airbags can't be deactivated so they should not be sitting there.

- A child shorter than 140 cm (55 inches) should not sit in front seat with an active airbag. It's not safe.

- Sweden, 30 years ahead of US in car seat safety, have been keeping kids rear facing since 1965 and use the front seat extensively for small to large kids. Both RF and FF. Car seat safety record is the envy of the world

- Car seat manufacturers such as Britax, BeSafe, Graco say publicly front seat is a great place as long as airbag is deactivated. It's on their websites in Europe.

- Car brands such as Volvo, Volkswagen, Audi, etc say publicly front seat is just as safe as the rear seat.

- Europe has Isofix instead of LATCH. Newer cars have Isofix in front passenger seat so kids can sit there from infant age throughout booster age.

- I have the privilege of working closely with the elite in the world in car seat safety. The safety of front seat placement with a deactivated airbags is never debated because everyone with in depth knowledge know it's extremely safe.


----------



## NaturallyKait (Sep 22, 2006)

AdventureDad, no one is saying that the front seat is dangerous without an air bag, the whole point here was that she has an airbag in that seat just like the majority of cars in the North America today. Every new car has an airbag and you can't deactivate them. If she could deactivate it that would be different. What works in Sweden doesn't work here in this case, so your info is a bit misplaced.


----------



## JL83 (Aug 7, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AnnieA* 
Finally, the reasoning that when we were children it was reasonable that a 15 yr old had their own car and was driving does not hold water. When I was child it was perfectly reasonable for my mother to let me ride in the front seat w/out a car seat when I was a toddler. That doesn't make it o.k. for me to do that now.

Where I live it's still legal (and recommended) for 14yos to get their learner's permits.


----------



## Marsupialmom (Sep 28, 2003)

How old is your car? Many cars have a sensor for weight, because many adults do not meet weight standards. My car has a light that shows if the passenger air bag is on or not.

My 5'4" 12 year old nor my 5'3" 86 year old mother set it off. If we go some place with her, grandma now sits in the back because she has osteoporosis. We feel the healthier being would fair better in an accident.

Sometimes you have to do the best you can. Put the largest and/or healthiest up front, as far back as you can. Teach them appropriate seat belt usage.

I don't think you are a bad parent. These studies do not take into real life situations.

I laugh at the no riding up front until 15. These people have never try to put 6' - 14 year olds in a small car. Yes, we have put 6' child in front and a 5' adult in rear.


----------



## terrordactyl (Jul 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AnnieA* 
Last I checked, in my state teens learn to drive in driver's ed classes and by many REQUIRED hours of driving with their parents and a driving school. They would NEVER be allowed to start driving simply because they had sat in the front seat of a vehicle for a period of time. Also, the next time you are in your vehicle, flip down your visor. I'm fairly certain it will tell you to keep children 12 and under in the back seat.

Links to current recs to reasoning for keeping 13 and 14 year olds in the back seat.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/06/06/10711.aspx

http://www.carseat.org/ Check out the 5-step test link and read the last sentence of the flyer.

Finally, the reasoning that when we were children it was reasonable that a 15 yr old had their own car and was driving does not hold water. When I was child it was perfectly reasonable for my mother to let me ride in the front seat w/out a car seat when I was a toddler. That doesn't make it o.k. for me to do that now.

you can still drive and get a license at 15


----------



## Jessnet (Apr 11, 2009)

I agree, getting a waiver to disable the airbag would be difficult, and finding a shop even more difficult.

However, what YOU do to YOUR OWN car ......

It is so easy to kill that circuit. SOOOO easy and it takes no mechanical skill. It takes maybe 2 seconds to kill it, and maybe a second to reinstate it.

Not that I am encouraging it, I'm just putting it out there as an idea...








It's very easy to reseach how to preform such a simple, quick task.

I am certain that (since I am a member of the under 5 foot crowd) cutting off the airbag saved me and my unborn baby's life. Like other short moms I had to drive with my belly touching the wheel very early in my pregnacy. Then one night when I was about 5 months pregnant, I hit a deer that had jumped out from trees out of nowhere and crushed the front end of my truck.

Now, I pull that air bag circuit whenever I am driving in a car for more than a day.


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

I'm 5'6" and I still have to adjust my set almost as far forward as possible in order to reach the pedals. My belly touches the bottom of the steering wheel even with it tilted as up-and-down as it goes, and my chest and face aren't far away. I'm convinced that if that airbag ever goes off, it's going to break my neck. I hate those things so much.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 
This statement is not supported by any research, data or real life experiences. It's totally incorrect. Front seat placement is a very misunderstood subject, especially in US. Fact is that front seat is an excellent place for a child, rear facing or forward facing, *as long as airbag is deactivated.*. You can read more facts about front seat here.

Most airbags in US can't be deactivated but this doesn't change the fact that it's extremely safe if airbag can be deactivated. Doesn't matter if it's for an infant, toddler, or older child. We know very well that front seat is a great place for a child thanks to research, data and real life experience.

- Research show front seat is just as safe as the rear. Rf in front seat is actually safer when looking at all factors. US data show rear seat is safer which is not surprising since airbags can't be deactivated so they should not be sitting there.

- A child shorter than 140 cm (55 inches) should not sit in front seat with an active airbag. It's not safe.

- Sweden, 30 years ahead of US in car seat safety, have been keeping kids rear facing since 1965 and use the front seat extensively for small to large kids. Both RF and FF. Car seat safety record is the envy of the world

- Car seat manufacturers such as Britax, BeSafe, Graco say publicly front seat is a great place as long as airbag is deactivated. It's on their websites in Europe.

- Car brands such as Volvo, Volkswagen, Audi, etc say publicly front seat is just as safe as the rear seat.

- Europe has Isofix instead of LATCH. Newer cars have Isofix in front passenger seat so kids can sit there from infant age throughout booster age.

- I have the privilege of working closely with the elite in the world in car seat safety. The safety of front seat placement with a deactivated airbags is never debated because everyone with in depth knowledge know it's extremely safe.

*Which is completely a moot point since the OP's car, along withe all passenger cars in the US, cannot have the airbags deactivated.
*
And, since you have yet to present any sources for your above statements, I'll stick with the much-supported statement that the back seat is safest for anyone, and children under the age of 13 should never ride in the front seat.









This is a great article about safety of different seating positions

Quote:

The basic laws of physics mean that any vehicle occupant has the greatest risk of injury when the initial point of impact is closest to them. Since frontal collisions are the most common type of crash, representing about 50 percent of all passenger vehicle occupant deaths in 2007 according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), rear-seat passengers in general have less of a risk of injury during a frontal collision simply because they are more likely to be further away from the initial point of impact.

However, this does not hold true for all age groups. A 2005 NHTSA study assessed the risk of serious injury and death to occupants seated in the front seat versus the rear seat, in a frontal impact. This study showed that restrained occupants younger than age 50 had less risk when seated in the rear, while restrained occupants older than 50 were better off in the front seat because the airbag afforded them greater protection.
From NHTSA,

Quote:

NHTSA also recommends that children 12 and under sit in the rear seat away from the force of a deploying air bag.
Children age 12 and under are safest when properly buckled in the back seat of a motor vehicle.
Another report from NHTSA (page 132)

Quote:

The closer the occupant sits to the point of impact, the greater the
risk of fatal injury. That is because fatal crashes often result in severe damage, but rarely to the entire vehicle. They can demolish the portion of the passenger compartment closest to the impact, while the furthest portion remains nearly intact. A frontal impact is twice as dangerous for front-seat occupants as back-seat occupants, whereas a rear impact is twice as dangerous for the back-seat occupants.19 But this is not a trade-off. High-speed frontal impacts are far more common than high-speed rear impacts, resulting in greater overall fatality risk to front-seat occupants...

A second advantage for the unrestrained back-seat occupant in a frontal crash is that he or she will contact the back of the front seat, a more benign surface than the steering assembly, instrument panel, or windshield header contacted by the unrestrained front-seat occupant. This advantage may be lost if both occupants are correctly restrained. Nevertheless, a back-seat occupant, restrained or unrestrained, ought to have lower fatality risk than a front-seat occupant with the same safety equipment.


----------



## treeoflife3 (Nov 14, 2008)

basically, this thread just makes me nervous about airbags at all. yep.

I'd put the 10.5 year old in front. Anyone who has serious issue with that could always foot the bill of a new car if they are so concerned about you doing the best you can with what you have.

I can only assume having twins makes it hard to consider seriously messing up your current finances over a new car to please the masses claiming that a child under the age of 12.. 14... 15... is oh so unsafe. You are not a bad mother. You are a mother who clearly cares and just wants to do the best she can.


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

There's a difference between acknowledging that we often need to work with what we have and there's no shame or guilt in that, and saying that a big kid is just as safe as a similarly-sized adult in the front seat. A kid is not as safe as an adult in the front. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that the OP has four kids in an Outback. Of the four kids, the 10yo is safest in front. I would like to see the child in a backless booster if it doesn't make the belt fit all wonky, because one of the dangers of kids in the front is poor belt fit and immature hips. A backless booster can help mitigate that.


----------



## WifeofAnt (May 2, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RaeDyCo* 
Wow, you can get your drivers learner permit here at age 14... I thought the age was 12 also, never heard 15 before. Especially when my 4 brothers were all over 5'6 by the time they were 12!

I'm not sure about other states but I'm pretty sure in Michigan (where I'm from) you can get a learners permit and drive _with a parent_ at 14 years 9 months. (Wikipedia lists 10 states where you can get it sooner with 2 states allowing teens under 15 to drive alone.)


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chickabiddy* 
There's a difference between acknowledging that we often need to work with what we have and there's no shame or guilt in that, and saying that a big kid is just as safe as a similarly-sized adult in the front seat. A kid is not as safe as an adult in the front. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that the OP has four kids in an Outback. Of the four kids, the 10yo is safest in front. I would like to see the child in a backless booster if it doesn't make the belt fit all wonky, because one of the dangers of kids in the front is poor belt fit and immature hips. A backless booster can help mitigate that.









Nobody is trying to shame the OP. She asked if it's safe, and she got honest answers.


----------



## Jessnet (Apr 11, 2009)

an_aurora said:


> *Which is completely a moot point since the OP's car, along withe all passenger cars in the US, cannot have the airbags deactivated.
> * [/B][/QUOTE=an_aurora;15788537]
> 
> *YES* you can do this! Mine are all deactivated and I did the deactivating myself. You just have to take initiative to figure out how to do this. Because air bags are NOT a one-size fits all solution (as much as the government would like it to be)
> ...


----------



## Eman'smom (Mar 19, 2002)

What would happen if you can't get 3 carseats in the back? In an outback that is a real concern, 3 radians may fit, have you tried that out yet?

There is a difference between at 10 year old and a 12 year old. The OP said her 2 year old was small but never mentioned the size of her 10 year old.


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

It is possible to get three carseats in an older Outback. The older ones are actually wider and less humpy than the newer ones.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

I thought part of the reason for air bags was a second line of defense for people who forgot to wear a seat belt. If the seat's as far back as possible and the 10.5 year old is properly wearing a seat belt (and ime, most front seat belts fit shorter people MUCH better than most back seat belts (grrrrr, fricking HATE most rear seat belts and their stupid neck scratching slipping POS position in relation to the seat /rant)) how much does the presence of an air bag even matter?

As for side impact airbags, my car has them in back too, so they might be a moot point.


----------



## LAWoman (Jul 1, 2005)

Sorry if I missed it and someone has already posted it but you can legally get an on off switch installed to turn it off when a child rides in front. I recently helped a friend get this form submitted for her husband who's necessary medical equipment would make airbag deployment dangerous.

Here is the form you need:

http://www.safercar.gov/staticfiles/...ch_Request.pdf

Good luck!


----------



## greenbeanmama (Jul 14, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessnet* 
Okay, really? I mean _really_?

How, as parents, do we justify that one year they are not old enough to even _sit_ in the front, but the next year they are old enough to do the _driving_ - presumably from the front seat I might add.


Ha! In Iowa, you can get your permit at FOURTEEN! And, if you're in the country, sometimes they'll issue "school permits" where a 14 or 15-year-old can drive ALONE to and from school.

Forgot to mention that, also, we occasionally see ten-year-olds driving tractors on highways. No permit needed.

I agree that children need to ride safely in cars. But we don't need to be extreme about it. I'd let my 10-year old ride in the front seat in your situation.


----------



## southernmommie (Jan 7, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessnet* 
Okay, really? I mean _really_?

How, as parents, do we justify that one year they are not old enough to even _sit_ in the front, but the next year they are old enough to do the _driving_ - presumably from the front seat I might add.

If the children are relegated to the back seat for soooo long how are they even going to learn how to drive? They learn over time by watching us and being able to observe traffic patterns and how cars switch lanes and move and interact. (not to mention other important things, like directions and landmarks)

When I am in the backseat I can't see anything: directions, how the stick shift works, where the keys go, how far ahead you have to start breaking so as not to hit the car in front. These are things our future drivers should know before they start driving with drivers ed.

While I can agree _children_ shouldn't be in the front, these are teenagers and older children we are talking about. There is NO WAY I can justify keeping my DSD, who at 14 is *8 inches taller* than me and who gets her permit in 2 months, out of the front seat.

OP, I think you will be fine. Relax.

I don't post in this thread much, but i saw this post and had to comment. I completely agree with this poster!! That's how I learned. I think you will be fine.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Jessnet said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *an_aurora*
> ...


----------



## newmum35 (Aug 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 
This statement is not supported by any research, data or real life experiences. It's totally incorrect. Front seat placement is a very misunderstood subject, especially in US. Fact is that front seat is an excellent place for a child, rear facing or forward facing, *as long as airbag is deactivated.*. You can read more facts about front seat here.

Most airbags in US can't be deactivated but this doesn't change the fact that it's extremely safe if airbag can be deactivated. Doesn't matter if it's for an infant, toddler, or older child. We know very well that front seat is a great place for a child thanks to research, data and real life experience.

- Research show front seat is just as safe as the rear. Rf in front seat is actually safer when looking at all factors. US data show rear seat is safer which is not surprising since airbags can't be deactivated so they should not be sitting there.

- A child shorter than 140 cm (55 inches) should not sit in front seat with an active airbag. It's not safe.

- Sweden, 30 years ahead of US in car seat safety, have been keeping kids rear facing since 1965 and use the front seat extensively for small to large kids. Both RF and FF. Car seat safety record is the envy of the world

- Car seat manufacturers such as Britax, BeSafe, Graco say publicly front seat is a great place as long as airbag is deactivated. It's on their websites in Europe.

- Car brands such as Volvo, Volkswagen, Audi, etc say publicly front seat is just as safe as the rear seat.

- Europe has Isofix instead of LATCH. Newer cars have Isofix in front passenger seat so kids can sit there from infant age throughout booster age.

- I have the privilege of working closely with the elite in the world in car seat safety. The safety of front seat placement with a deactivated airbags is never debated because everyone with in depth knowledge know it's extremely safe.

Thank you for your post & link. I knew Sweden had good statistics but didn't realize just how good. Whats taking the rest of the world so long to follow?? Thats really sad there are hundreds of children dying needlessly (in other countries)
I noticed the RF seat (to 55 lbs) on that site and wondered is it possible for a U.S buyer to order one too? Would it work in one of our cars? I was thinking 45 lbs is the maximum but would love to get one of those 55 seats if I could. Shipping would probably be outragious but was just wondering whether this was even a possibility or if they werent allowed to ship here or something.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmum35* 
Thank you for your post & link. I knew Sweden had good statistics but didn't realize just how good. Whats taking the rest of the world so long to follow?? Thats really sad there are hundreds of children dying needlessly (in other countries)
I noticed the RF seat (to 55 lbs) on that site and wondered is it possible for a U.S buyer to order one too? Would it work in one of our cars? I was thinking 45 lbs is the maximum but would love to get one of those 55 seats if I could. Shipping would probably be outragious but was just wondering whether this was even a possibility or if they werent allowed to ship here or something.

It is technically illegal to use a non US seat in the US.

-Angela


----------



## Jessnet (Apr 11, 2009)

an_aurora said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Jessnet*
> ...


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LAWoman* 
http://www.safercar.gov/staticfiles/...ch_Request.pdf

Good luck!


Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 

Safely and legally, not you cannot.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessnet* 

Actually, I *finally* looked this up. Something that I needed to do for awhile because I had been afraid I was vaguely breaking the law

*http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/standards/chapt301.html*

this is what is says -
"Sec. 30122. Making safety devices and elements inoperative

1. DEFINITION In this section, "motor vehicle repair business" means a person holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.

2. PROHIBITION A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative."

It is *NOT* illegal for the _owner_ of the car to deactivate the airbags; it's just illegal for 3rd party repair shops, dealers,etc to do it. This is saying that is okay for *YOU* to do it to your own car.

I think the form above does in fact make it okay to get a 3rd party to turn off the airbag.

ETA: Yep. It does in fact authorize dealers and such to install an ON/OFF switch for either the driver or passenger airbag.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Drat. The form is expired.
Air Bag Division at 202-366-0296 may have more information. Apparently they're only going to approve on/off switch installs through 2012 so I don't know what's up with that.


----------



## bcgamermom (Jul 28, 2010)

I have an older ford explorer with no PSAB and my 7 1/2 yr old has to sit in the front because there's no room in the back, it was either he sit in the middle with a non locking lap belt only or in a booster seat in the front so I opt for the front. IMHO I think a child is safer in the front then in the third row of a van, my mom was rear ended in town by a small car and had the entire rear end of her car folded under, if there had been a child in a third row seat they would have been crushed.

We all do what we have to do and I know for me even 2K for a used minivan is out of the question, gas to make more then one trip to the grocery store a week is out of the question so we make due with what we have.


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

An_Aurora:

Original Poster posted this:

Quote:

Would it be terrible-horrible-no-good to let DS ride in the front seat of the car if we all have to go somewhere together? *It has passenger side AB, but I believe it can be turned off.* My state has no law about how old for FS.
- Some airbags in US can be turned off as you know (?)

Quote:

Which is completely a moot point since the OP's car, along withe all passenger cars in the US, cannot have the airbags deactivated.

And, since you have yet to present any sources for your above statements, I'll stick with the much-supported statement that the back seat is safest for anyone, and children under the age of 13 should never ride in the front seat.
Since you are on the internet I assume you can also follow the link I posted for you. I have also provided about ten sources to you on earlier occasions. Britax , BeSafe, Volvo, Audi, Volkswagen all say the same thing, front seat is an excellent place for a child as long as airbag is deactivated. All car brands in Europe actually do, since Isofix now is standard in the front seat. Isofix is our LATCH and meant exclusively for children. Surf in to the Swedish web page of pretty much any brand and you can read the facts about front seat.

You can follow this link for some sources. Britax, BeSafe, Folksam, Volvo (with VW, Audi, etc), Swedish NHTSA, etc. This sources actually have experience with kids in the front seat and are not stuck in the 1980's. Many still believe the earth is flat, believing something which is wrong doesn't automatically make it right.

US is 30 years behind in car seat safety and has no experience in keeping children in the front seat. It's no wonder the advice is bad. The policy of not being able to deactivate airbag in front seat and recommending rear seat is meant to protect kids but it has the opposite effect since parents are anyway keeping kids up front with airbag deactivated.

I have mentioned this many times before: *Anyone working seriously with car seat safety know that the front seat, RF or FF, is an excellent place for a child as long as airbag is deactivated. This is a fact and not debated among knowledgable peers.*


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
I think the form above does in fact make it okay to get a 3rd party to turn off the airbag.

ETA: Yep. It does in fact authorize dealers and such to install an ON/OFF switch for either the driver or passenger airbag.

If the form is approved and the mechanic will do it. NHTSA rarely approves the waivers, and even when they do, many mechanics refuse for liability reasons to install the switch.


----------



## Mommybree (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bcgamermom* 
I have an older ford explorer with no PSAB and my 7 1/2 yr old has to sit in the front because there's no room in the back, it was either he sit in the middle with a non locking lap belt only or in a booster seat in the front so I opt for the front. IMHO I think a child is safer in the front then in the third row of a van, my mom was rear ended in town by a small car and had the entire rear end of her car folded under, if there had been a child in a third row seat they would have been crushed.

We all do what we have to do and I know for me even 2K for a used minivan is out of the question, gas to make more then one trip to the grocery store a week is out of the question so we make due with what we have.

The third row is safer than the front row for children. This blog post might be interesting reading that addresses the issue of the safety of the third row; it includes links to research materials. In fact, some of the data seems to suggest that the third row could possibly be safer than the second row, which would make sense, because serious rear end accidents are among the most rare of accident types.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 
An_Aurora:

Original Poster posted this:

- Some airbags in US can be turned off as you know (?)

Since you are on the internet I assume you can also follow the link I posted for you. I have also provided about ten sources to you on earlier occasions. Britax , BeSafe, Volvo, Audi, Volkswagen all say the same thing, front seat is an excellent place for a child as long as airbag is deactivated. All car brands in Europe actually do, since Isofix now is standard in the front seat. Isofix is our LATCH and meant exclusively for children. Surf in to the Swedish web page of pretty much any brand and you can read the facts about front seat.

You can follow this link for some sources. Britax, BeSafe, Folksam, Volvo (with VW, Audi, etc), Swedish NHTSA, etc. This sources actually have experience with kids in the front seat and are not stuck in the 1980's. Many still believe the earth is flat, believing something which is wrong doesn't automatically make it right.

US is 30 years behind in car seat safety and has no experience in keeping children in the front seat. It's no wonder the advice is bad. The policy of not being able to deactivate airbag in front seat and recommending rear seat is meant to protect kids but it has the opposite effect since parents are anyway keeping kids up front with airbag deactivated.

I have mentioned this many times before: *Anyone working seriously with car seat safety know that the front seat, RF or FF, is an excellent place for a child as long as airbag is deactivated. This is a fact and not debated among knowledgable peers.*

While it's interesting that parents in Sweden rear-face their kids in the front seat with disabled airbags, I don't think that info is particularly relevant to both the OP's situation and for most US situations in general. Volvo might say in Sweden that kids can ride in the front seat, but my US Volvo manual is clear that kids should be in the back seat. In fact, the 2004 Volvo S80 manual states

Quote:

"Why Volvo believes no child should sit in the front seat of a car.

It's quite simple really. A front air bag is a very powerful device designed, by law, to help protect an adult. Because of the size of the airbag and its speed of inflation, a child should never be placed in the front seat, even if he or she is properly belted or strapped into a child safety seat. Volvo has been an innovator in safety for over fifty years, and we'll continue to do our part. But we need your help. Please remember to put your children in the back seat, and buckle them up."
So, different countries = different vehicles, different seats, and different advice. Volvo might say rear-facing in front of a disabled airbag is okay in Sweden, but in the US, they are emphatic about kids being in the backseat.

If the OP has no other options, then she has no other options, and she needs to do what she needs to do to transport her kids. We have the research in the US to support that claim that children under the age of 15 are in danger from the airbag, which does not have anything to do with rear-facing in Swedish vehicles in Swedish seats in front of a disabled airbag. I know that the OP needs to find a workable solution given the limitations of her vehicle and the number of kids she needs to transport. I think it's a really difficult situation to have to be in, but I do believe that she has been given enough relevant information in this thread that even if she has to make what might be a "less than ideal" decision, it will be a well-informed one. Good luck, babygrey, and congrats on your twin pregnancy!


----------



## newmum35 (Aug 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
It is technically illegal to use a non US seat in the US.

-Angela

Why would that be? Assuming the seat was installed correctly, why would it be ok to use the same seat/vehicle driving in Sweden but illegal here. I'm assuming this is just a matter of poorly written laws, and not an actual danger to the child. This is assuming the seat installs the same way inside one of our cars too (using a lap belt for example) and that vehicles in sweden aren't radically designed to be that much different than our own. (I have no clue, which is why I asked, still learning) - my own take on it is if your kid is over 45 lbs and there is no other RF choice here (which there is not currently) then it would be safer to use one of the swedish seats which go to 55 lbs even though technically you'd be 'breaking the law' - which makes me wonder exactly are they going to do to you if they find out you are using a seat from out of country? havent read about anyone who got thrown in prison for that recently, wouldnt that make the news lol anyone here from sweden or familiar with vehicles and seat belts over there, and also in the U.S. can let me know if we have the same type of restraint system (for buckling in car seats) and whether the seat is compatible also with U.S. vehicles?


----------



## NaturallyKait (Sep 22, 2006)

Swedish seats haven't been tested to US standards. They can not be installed with a lap belt only, must have a lap/shoulder belt, and many require foot props. Any seat in the US and in Canada must be able to be installed with a lap belt only or it can't pass, and the test bench has no "floor" to put the foot prop for testing. Some people do choose to use Swedish seats in the US and Canada, knowing it is against the law and if the police figure it out (unlikely) they will be ticketed, and if they are in an accident insurance can refuse to cover the illegal seat.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bcgamermom* 
I have an older ford explorer with no PSAB and my 7 1/2 yr old has to sit in the front because there's no room in the back, it was either he sit in the middle with a non locking lap belt only or in a booster seat in the front so I opt for the front. IMHO I think a child is safer in the front then in the third row of a van, my mom was rear ended in town by a small car and had the entire rear end of her car folded under, if there had been a child in a third row seat they would have been crushed.

We all do what we have to do and I know for me even 2K for a used minivan is out of the question, gas to make more then one trip to the grocery store a week is out of the question so we make due with what we have.

NHTSA has said in the link I posted earlier that the 3rd row is safer than the passenger seat for children.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 
Some airbags in US can be turned off as you know (?)

Yes, but not PASSENGER cars, which is what we are discussing here. Trucks and small cars without a usable back seat used to have a switch; now they have a sensor which cannot be trusted.

Thank you for the link, but

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 
. Britax, BeSafe, Folksam, Volvo (with VW, Audi, etc), Swedish NHTSA, etc. This sources actually have experience with kids in the front seat and are not stuck in the 1980's. Many still believe the earth is flat, believing something which is wrong doesn't automatically make it right.

....and just because it's true where you are doesn't mean it's true everywhere. ALL of those sources that you posted above, in the US say they can't be in the front seat.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 

I have mentioned this many times before: *Anyone working seriously with car seat safety know that the front seat, RF or FF, is an excellent place for a child as long as airbag is deactivated. This is a fact and not debated among knowledgable peers.*

Yes, and those of us who seriously work with car seat safety in the US are getting frustrated with being constantly belittled by your posts. We know that it's acceptable in Sweden. I get that, seriously. *But it is not ok in the US.* And thus, it's completely not relevant.


----------



## justKate (Jun 10, 2008)

Wow.

OP, if you're still following the thread, I wanted to raise one other thought. What does your Huz drive? Any possibility that you could trade vehicles with him for a little while to give your DS some more growing time? Or trade in his vehicle? Just thinkin'...

ETA: No, it would not make you a horrible mother. We make the best decisions we can with what we have to work with. Do what you have to do.


----------



## Sfcmama (Aug 29, 2010)

I tend to err on the side of super safety but, if I were you, I would probably put the 10yo in front (but children tend to run large in my family). IMO, it's not safe for you to be stranded at home all day ;0)
You know your situation best but I feel like our culture guilts us into buying and consuming new things constantly in the name of safety... just my 2 cents.


----------



## Jessnet (Apr 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 

Yes, but not PASSENGER cars, which is what we are discussing here. Trucks and small cars without a usable back seat used to have a switch; now they have a sensor which cannot be trusted.



In a PASSENGER CAR you could just pull the fuse(s) and disable the whole ding dang airbag system all together. Problem solved.

No power = No workie. Simple physics, really.

It just no fun when taking out the fuse disables your phone charger's outlet, too


----------



## BeckC (Nov 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessnet* 
In a PASSENGER CAR you could just pull the fuse(s) and disable the whole ding dang airbag system all together. Problem solved.

No power = No workie. Simple physics, really.

It just no fun when taking out the fuse disables your phone charger's outlet, too

I know this has been said before, but I will say it again, because it is obviously not getting through.

It is not legal, nor is it safe to disconnect your own airbags. Just DO NOT DO IT.


----------



## Jessnet (Apr 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BeckC* 
I know this has been said before, but I will say it again, because it is obviously not getting through.

It is not legal, nor is it safe to disconnect your own airbags. Just DO NOT DO IT.


And I will counter, because it is obviously not "getting through" either IT IS LEGAL!

How safe it is...now that all has to do with personal circumstance and discretion.

But people should know the actual truth of the law so they can make their own decisions, and it is bothering me that everyone keeps repeating "it's illegal", "it's illegal" when not only is it legal, but every year my car passes the safety inspection with the obviously malfunctioning air bag light a-glowing.

There is another option out there besides making the OP feel guilty, or pressuring the OP into buying a car she can't afford, or making her worry endlessly about her oldest son and the air bag. More information means we can all make better informed decisions that effect the safety of our family - whatever they may be.


----------



## NaturallyKait (Sep 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jessnet* 
And I will counter, because it is obviously not "getting through" either IT IS LEGAL!

How safe it is...now that all has to do with personal circumstance and discretion.

But people should know the actual truth of the law so they can make their own decisions, and it is bothering me that everyone keeps repeating "it's illegal", "it's illegal" when not only is it legal, but every year my car passes the safety inspection with the obviously malfunctioning air bag light a-glowing.

There is another option out there besides making the OP feel guilty, or pressuring the OP into buying a car she can't afford, or making her worry endlessly about her oldest son and the air bag. More information means we can all make better informed decisions that effect the safety of our family - whatever they may be.

It may be legal some places, but not everywhere. I know here cars can't pass safety inspection with it pulled, my ex had to go put the fuse back in before the car could pass, and I know this is the same in some states, but not all. Also, it doesn't guarantee safety. In my ex's car when we were in an accident the airbags went off, even though the fuse was pulled (and yes, we knew what we were doing. It was the right fuse. The mechanic verified as well) so no, not everyone will do that.


----------



## NaturallyKait (Sep 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
NHTSA has said in the link I posted earlier that the 3rd row is safer than the passenger seat for children.

Yes, but not PASSENGER cars, which is what we are discussing here. Trucks and small cars without a usable back seat used to have a switch; now they have a sensor which cannot be trusted.

Thank you for the link, but

....and just because it's true where you are doesn't mean it's true everywhere. ALL of those sources that you posted above, in the US say they can't be in the front seat.

Yes, and those of us who seriously work with car seat safety in the US are getting frustrated with being constantly belittled by your posts. We know that it's acceptable in Sweden. I get that, seriously. *But it is not ok in the US.* And thus, it's completely not relevant.











AdventureDad, you know your stuff, *for Sweden.* Your advice simply *does not work in North America*. As has been pointed out, there is no switch in passenger cars in North America, only in trucks and even then I have seen many trucks without it. Implying that those of us who *know* how it works in North America and say these things don't work seriously with child passenger safety is insulting.

Just last week I had to convince a parent to pull their rearfacing seat out from the front seat because there was an airbag, but she had seen a post you made on another board claiming it was safe and she had been driving for a month with her baby rearfacing in front of an airbag. Claiming that we can do that in North America confuses parents sometimes and makes their kids *less safe.*


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

Front seat is an excellent place for a child _as long as airbag is deactivated._ OP said she could deactivate airbag. It's important to know the facts about safety in the front seat regardless of circumstances. If airbag can't be deactivated the front seat is a terrible place for a child. Very simple.

Saying things like "kids are always safer in the rear seat" is not correct and give parents poor information.

Quote:

Yes, and those of us who seriously work with car seat safety in the US are getting frustrated with being constantly belittled by your posts. We know that it's acceptable in Sweden. I get that, seriously. But it is not ok in the US. And thus, it's completely not relevant.
It has nothing to do with acceptable or not or which country we are talking about. The front seat is an excellent place for a child as long as airbag can be deactivated. Having the discussion about deactivating airbags in front seat is important, especially in US, where the policy of airbags always being active is not making children safer, it's actually the opposite.

I'm not belittling (is that a word...?) anyone. I love people who work with car seats. Just stating a basic fact. For someone who works seriously with children's car seat safety it's a basic and simple fact to know that the front seat is an excellent place for a child as long as airbag is deactivated. It's simply not discussed among peers since the safety facts have been established long ago. Not being aware of this and "working seriously with car seat safety for children" would not be possible.

Enjoy your weekend!


----------



## laughingfox (Dec 13, 2005)

OP, if you're still around, to answer your question, no. This would not make you a horrible mother.
You are not willingly putting your son in danger without concern for his well being, and if you had a better option, you would go for it. You're staying informed, making sure you've exhausted other options before doing something you feel is unsafe, and doing what you can.
Is putting a 10 year old in the front ideal? No. However, it seems to be the only possible option that you have available to you.
You're doing everything you can.
It's very obvious that you care deeply for your children, and you sound like an excellent mother to me. Congrats on the twins!


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Adventuredad* 
Front seat is an excellent place for a child _as long as airbag is deactivated._ OP said she could deactivate airbag. If airbag can't be deactivated the front seat is a terrible place for a child. Very simple.

It has been well established that she cannot safely do this. Again, it's a moot point.


----------



## ecoteat (Mar 3, 2006)

My Vovlos have had the third seat in the way-back facing backwards. Is that an option for an Outback? I just did a quick search and found this: http://www.littlepassengerseats.com/other.htm I have no idea how expensive they are or if they've been crash tested or what the weight/height ranges are on them, but I think they are a lot of fun for kids and pretty safe when used correctly.

Otherwise, I'd have no qualms about your oldest being in the front.


----------



## katiesk (Nov 6, 2007)

i think another relevant point in making this decision op, (that has already been touched on somewhat) is that you have a very safe vehicle.

i mean, ideally one would drive the safest vehicle with the safest carseat on the safest roads, etc... but you are going to have a hard time arriving at the ideal safety scenario very frequently. i think that having a safe vehicle is hugely important. (although many don't seem to prioritize this aspect of safety)

i drive a very safe vehicle as well and often put carseats in the front seat - and i can turn off the airbag which makes my life very convenient.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katiesk* 
i think another relevant point in making this decision op, (that has already been touched on somewhat) is that you have a very safe vehicle.

i mean, ideally one would drive the safest vehicle with the safest carseat on the safest roads, etc... but you are going to have a hard time arriving at the ideal safety scenario very frequently. i think that having a safe vehicle is hugely important. (although many don't seem to prioritize this aspect of safety)

i drive a very safe vehicle as well and often put carseats in the front seat - and i can turn off the airbag which makes my life very convenient.

It's true that a safe vehicle is important. No arguments here







But being up front in even the safest car is not ideal until at least 12. I drive a very safe vehicle as well (which btw I totaled 2 weeks ago, and replaced with the same car because I was so impressed with how it held up







) and it has a long list of safety features, but still indicates that children under 13 are safest in the backseat.


----------

