# UPDATE: post #154 I'm at a loss, really, I just cant' believe a parent can have so little regard for a child's safety



## Love_My_Bubba (Jul 4, 2006)

And these are my best friends I'm talking about. My neighbors and good friends have a dd the same age as my DS. To say that they are lax on carseat safety is an understatement but the stunt they pulled today just takes the cake.

I drove them to the airport today for a trip to Disney. I asked if they needed my carseat bag (we use CARES on the plane & check the seat.) They said they weren't taking a car seat so I assumed they were staying on property and just doing the tram thing the whole time. Nope, they're renting a car. I haven't been to Disney so I have no idea about driving times but I have to imagine that it's not a quick trip around the corner from the airport to the hotel.

Wow, just wow. The final and definitive proof that I am right to NEVER let them drive my DS unless I install the car seat and buckle him in. How can any person who cares even remotely for a child think this is ok??????


----------



## ~Katie~ (Mar 18, 2007)

Depending on the car rental company, you can rent carseats to use with the car. Car rental companies also have a policy of not renting cars to people unless they have a proper carseat for their child, but that is more than likely up to the discretion of whoever is working that day I'm sure.


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

I'll bet their just renting a carseat. Maybe not the safest thing to do on the planet, but its what a LOT of people do when they travel... and tbh, probably what we'd do if we were flying across the country. I just can't imagine lugging a carseat around with us.


----------



## snoopy5386 (May 6, 2005)

my friends just visited from Seattle and rented a seat, I offered them our back up seat but they felt it was easier to rent instead. Had to go back and get a different seat because the original one they gave them had no buckle! Seat was an evenflo chase that expired in a year, not good shape but they were ok with it. Also came with no instruction manual and they had it installed wrong (need to flip a part of the bottom depending on FFing or RFing).


----------



## mama_y_sol (May 23, 2007)

I can only imagine as pp have that they are renting a carseat from the car rental company. I sure hope so anyway.


----------



## phrogger (Oct 16, 2006)

I know not long ago when I flew to Texas I had to prove that my kids were old enough to not need a carseat when i told them I had 3 kids with me. So I would assume it would be the same thing and the rental car company would provide a rental seat.


----------



## Love_My_Bubba (Jul 4, 2006)

Nope, I SO wish you all were right. They have no intention of voluntarily renting a seat. They are prepared to do so should the rental company make them but haven't reserved one and were just "waiting to see what happens."







:

What really sucks is that these are good people, really good. Like when my hot water heater flooded our basement and we were broke 3 weeks from the refinance that would lower our mortgage payments by $400/month they let us put it on their Lowe's card and then pay it off.

I would never hesitate to trust them with my son, just not in a car.


----------



## THBVsMommy (Mar 13, 2007)

That's horrible. My son is the same age and the thought of him riding without a carseat makes me want to hyperventilate


----------



## gwen's mom (Aug 1, 2003)

This is my SIL-a special ed teacher, no less. I really had high hopes for her as a parent until she actually became one. Her kids have car seats but they are never buckled in them. She was actually in an accident in white out conditions a year or so ago with her oldest (about 2 at the time) not buckled. I thought maybe that would make a difference but it didn't.


----------



## Kim Allen (Jun 28, 2008)

I know of a CPS worker (which her MIL is also the head of the CPS office) who does not strap her kid in the seat. I see her almost everyday driving through town ( she always is exceeding the speed limit) and does not think twice about it.







thats lets you know how cps is around here also. She also would drop him off at daycare (which my mother worked at) at 10:00am and he had not had a diaper change since the night before and was always filthy!!! but thats another story!


----------



## sunnymw (Feb 28, 2007)

No surprise here. If it's Disney in FL then I doubt anything will be done/said since IIRC FL has really horrible car seat laws.









My kiddo that age is still RFing. I don't understand the "magic bubble" philosophy of "Oh, I have a seat somewhere IN my car! So my kids are safe!"

I hope they get a ticket.


----------



## fruitfulmomma (Jun 8, 2002)

When I was in high school, I babysat for a lady who was doing her residency at the hospital, so yup she is a doctor, and she saw me and another girl walking and pulled over to talk to us. And guess who was standing in the floor of her vehicle? Her baby! And her excuse was that they were only driving a few blocks.


----------



## Ahappymel (Nov 20, 2001)

The car rental places have carseats and as a matter of experience, will not let you off their lot with a car-seat aged child in their car without a carseat.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ahappymel* 
The car rental places have carseats and as a matter of experience, will not let you off their lot with a car-seat aged child in their car without a carseat.

When we've rented, they've just handed us our keys and told us where the car is parked. They'd have no idea if we had seats or not.


----------



## Ahappymel (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
When we've rented, they've just handed us our keys and told us where the car is parked. They'd have no idea if we had seats or not.

Very bad error on their part.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I think people just really think that it will never happen to them. Honestly, that's the ONLY explanation I can come up with. I've seen people who I *know* love their kids and want the best for them in almost every way, who just have no regard for proper car seat use. They just really must think that it could never matter.

I also think that some people, who are using a car seat but not entirely properly, ie, straps aren't tight enough, think that it's just as safe as with the straps tightened. They just don't stop to think enough to realize that it could make a huge difference in a crash. kwim?

Maybe that's it. It's just people that aren't thinking.


----------



## notjustmamie (Mar 7, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
When we've rented, they've just handed us our keys and told us where the car is parked. They'd have no idea if we had seats or not.









:

Even when DD was standing right there with us. Of course we did have a seat, but we didn't have it with us at the counter (we were renting locally for a long drive that I didn't figure our car was up to). Nobody said a thing about a car seat.


----------



## earthgirl (Feb 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DevaMajka* 
I think people just really think that it will never happen to them. Honestly, that's the ONLY explanation I can come up with. I've seen people who I *know* love their kids and want the best for them in almost every way, who just have no regard for proper car seat use. They just really must think that it could never matter.

I also think that some people, who are using a car seat but not entirely properly, ie, straps aren't tight enough, think that it's just as safe as with the straps tightened. They just don't stop to think enough to realize that it could make a huge difference in a crash. kwim?

Maybe that's it. It's just people that aren't thinking.

This was my thought. They just really think nothing will happen to them, it's not so much about not caring for their kids. It would be pretty infuriating to witness, though, that's for sure.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ahappymel* 
Very bad error on their part.


Well, we've rented at least 20 times with at least one child at 4 different locations with just about every major car rental company, all the same. Checking seems to be the exception.


----------



## KristaDJ (May 30, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *earthgirl* 
This was my thought. They just really think nothing will happen to them, it's not so much about not caring for their kids. It would be pretty infuriating to witness, though, that's for sure.

I have never IRL seen a baby/child properly restrained in the car unless I put them in myself. I used to babysit and the mother's didn't install their seats right or put the harness on their kids right. I'm talking like they just set the car seat on the seat and buckle the belt through (no tightening) and then put the straps on the shoulders (loosely and twisted) and buckle them (no chest clip and no tightening). I wouldn't let kids in my car without a proper seat that I installed myself and I would adjust their straps to fit, but the mom's never got the hint. I think they are totally unaware of what would happen to their baby in a crash or they really don't believe they'll have an accident.


----------



## earthgirl (Feb 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristaDJ* 
I have never IRL seen a baby/child properly restrained in the car unless I put them in myself.

Really?







That's so depressing.


----------



## dearmama22 (Oct 20, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamadelbosque* 
I'll bet their just renting a carseat. Maybe not the safest thing to do on the planet, but its what a LOT of people do when they travel... and tbh, probably what we'd do if we were flying across the country. I just can't imagine lugging a carseat around with us.









That's what I was thinking...


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *earthgirl* 
Really?







That's so depressing.

I've checked over a hundred seats and haven't seen one perfect installation/use yet. To be fair, some misuses are more technical than critical (in other words, it's not right, but it probably won't significantly affect outcome), but lots *are* critical.

I know that these parents love their kids and care for their kids. They just don't know how to keep them safe. And as horrified as I might be about carseat misuse, they might be equally horrified at the (very) occasional Happy Meal my daughter gets or the computer time she's allowed.


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

It seems like this may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm cool with that.









I recently watched a video on TED indicating that there is evidence that seat belts are just as safe as car seats for kids 2 & up. In fact, given that most car seats are installed incorrectly, and most seat belts are foolproof, seat belts may be safer. I was so convinced that I would totally switch my DD if it weren't for the legal issues.

What really shocks me is when I see people with their kids in car seats with the straps fastened but so loose they hang down, or with car seats that wobble all around...ugh. _Those_ kids are absolutely NOT safe.


----------



## Sailor (Jun 13, 2006)

Could it be a cultural thing? Are they from a country other than America?

In some countries, the car seat is the minority. Say, in India. I never saw anyone use a car seat there, and the driving there - wow. I was scared to rent a car to get around.

I've even seen, in Italy, parents on mopeds with their 3 year olds standing in between their legs as they weaved in and out of traffic. They did have helmets, though.









In Poland, car seats really got big in the last 10 years. Before that, hardly anyone used them. I was born in 1982, and NEVER sat in a car seat. Not even when I was 5, and moved to America.

I really think it's one of those things that has nothing to do with how much a parent regards their child's safety. I think it's more that the parent's don't consider that anything will ever happen. So, car safety, to them isn't that big of a deal because they don't ever think it will happen to them. And, really, if you look at the statistics on this, they're not being that irrational or blind.


----------



## hookahgirl (May 22, 2005)

I babysat for someone who had her just turned 3 y/o in a backless booster and her 5 y/o in nothing, my almost 3 y/o was still RFing.....gawd that was the longest three minute drive to their preschool ever! I felt like I was going to puke the whole time.
Cute thing though, the 3 y/o asked my 2 y/o why she was "In a baby carseat" and my DD said, "Im not a baby, so this isnt a baby carseat, silly!"
LOL


----------



## Equuskia (Dec 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
It seems like this may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm cool with that.









I recently watched a video on TED indicating that there is evidence that seat belts are just as safe as car seats for kids 2 & up. In fact, given that most car seats are installed incorrectly, and most seat belts are foolproof, seat belts may be safer. I was so convinced that I would totally switch my DD if it weren't for the legal issues.

What really shocks me is when I see people with their kids in car seats with the straps fastened but so lose they hang down, or with car seats that wobble all around...ugh. _Those_ kids are absolutely NOT safe.

This horse has already been beaten to death many times here. His methods are faulty, and there is no way that a 2 year old child can fit properly in a seatbelt that is built for an over 5 ft, 150 pound adult. Until a child can pass the 5 step test, they are not ready to sit in just a seatbelt. If someone wants to use their children as crash test dummies to test out his hypothesis, then ok. But I'm keeping my kids rearfacing as much as possible, then keeping them harnessed until they are mature enough to sit in a seatbelt.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Yep, and he also failed to take into account that in the study, children who were ejected from the vehicle were dismissed from the statistics.


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Equuskia* 
This horse has already been beaten to death many times here. His methods are faulty, and there is no way that a 2 year old child can fit properly in a seatbelt that is built for an over 5 ft, 150 pound adult. Until a child can pass the 5 step test, they are not ready to sit in just a seatbelt. If someone wants to use their children as crash test dummies to test out his hypothesis, then ok. But I'm keeping my kids rearfacing as much as possible, then keeping them harnessed until they are mature enough to sit in a seatbelt.

Okaaay, well I haven't seen any threads about it but I'm not on this board much. I'm sorry to be so behind the times, but I just saw the TED lecture a few weeks ago. Do you want to clarify the way in which you think his methods are faulty, or post a link to a thread that clarifies? I'm not trying to be a PITA. I really am interested. I thought the lecture was pretty convincing.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
Yep, and he also failed to take into account that in the study, children who were ejected from the vehicle were dismissed from the statistics.

What study do you mean? Can you clarify or link to a thread that clarifies?


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

I am pretty uptight about carseat safety, but when we went to NYC we did not use carseats in cabs - we just couldn't figure out a way to do it without lugging a huge carseat around all the time (ds1 was 3yo at the time). If they were literally going to be in the car for 5 minutes the entire trip, I could see not bringing a carseat.

ETA: The droopy straps do drive me crazy though. I mean, if you're using a carseat at least use it as well as you can. I drove for a preschool field trip one time, and after I put this one girl's carseat into my car, I put her into it and put her straps on. The buckle was hanging down to her knees, I mean it was totally pointless. I tightened it up and the girl said that her mom says she doesn't have to wear it tight. I just told her that in my car I feel more comfortable having it tight, and she was fine, but oh my god.


----------



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

I was a waitress for a year and I saw a lot of people bring in babies in carseats with loose/twisted straps, chest buckles pushed down to the bottom, etc. It made me want to scream. A couple of times, I even said something and offered to help them fix them. When I've said something, the people have almost always been completely shocked that there was a problem with the carseat and how tight the straps actually had to be. They think if it's tight enough to keep the kid from getting out of the carseat, it's plenty tight. The vast majority of people do not read the instructions that come with the carseat, they just toss the baby in however they think looks right. There's also the conscious or subconscious idea that they grew up without a carseat, so it can't be that big of a deal.

I see people in my neighborhood all the time with little kids not even buckled in, much less in proper boosters or carseats. I've had to call 911 more than once for 2 and 3 year olds bouncing around without even seatbelts on. I can't think of any kids I know that were even in a booster at DS's age (4.5) and he's still in a 5-point harness. XH got him a booster when they were out of state and he puked all over his carseat and even though he's technically big enough for it (barely), it still made me nervous because the 5-point harness is so much safer. I'm glad the new carseat law comes into effect in our state in October. Legally, DS needs nothing but a seatbelt at this age. In October, boosters or carseats will be mandated beyond the age of 3 (I forget what they're changing it to, but it's to the age of 3 now).


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
What study do you mean? Can you clarify or link to a thread that clarifies?

Steven Levitt based his data on FARS data (fatal accident reports, released by NHTSA). He looked through the statistics and decided car seats aren't necessary. What he failed to take into consideration if that, in the FARS data, NHTSA does not include children who were ejected from their seat belts in the statistics showing how many kids were killed while wearing just seatbelts. Thus, the data is skewed since it looks like just as many kids in car seats died as kids in seatbelts, whereas all those kids who were in seatbelts and were ejected weren't included.


----------



## _betsy_ (Jun 29, 2004)

SIL (a teacher, natch) has her 5-year-old in the front seat. She says it's OK because her daughter is bigger than the average 5 year old.

It's illegal before age 12 here.


----------



## frontierpsych (Jun 11, 2006)

I'd say without a doubt it is "it couldn't happen to ME" syndrome. Seems to be the case with a lot of folks who are lax about car seats. I couldn't happen to THEM... until it does.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love_My_Bubba* 
And these are my best friends I'm talking about. My neighbors and good friends have a dd the same age as my DS. To say that they are lax on carseat safety is an understatement but the stunt they pulled today just takes the cake.

I drove them to the airport today for a trip to Disney. I asked if they needed my carseat bag (we use CARES on the plane & check the seat.) They said they weren't taking a car seat so I assumed they were staying on property and just doing the tram thing the whole time. Nope, they're renting a car. I haven't been to Disney so I have no idea about driving times but I have to imagine that it's not a quick trip around the corner from the airport to the hotel.

Wow, just wow. The final and definitive proof that I am right to NEVER let them drive my DS unless I install the car seat and buckle him in. *How can any person who cares even remotely for a child think this is ok*??????

I;'m sure they think their kids are safe. I doubt they are deliberately putting their children at risk - and who knows? Maybe they are not. But I'm sure they love thier children and are concerned for their safety as much as you are


----------



## Eclipsepearl (May 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love_My_Bubba* 
And these are my best friends I'm talking about. My neighbors and good friends have a dd the same age as my DS. To say that they are lax on carseat safety is an understatement but the stunt they pulled today just takes the cake.

I drove them to the airport today for a trip to Disney. I asked if they needed my carseat bag (we use CARES on the plane & check the seat.)

I was just going to point out, I hope when you "check" the car seat, you are taking the car seat to the gate and checking it there.

NEVER check a car seat in as luggage. It could too easily be lost and/or broken in the hold. You will hear parents say "I checked my seat and it was fine..." but the truth is that you don't know what kind of damage it could have sustained.

The only way you'd find out is if you are in an accident and your seat doesn't protect you child as it should. I hope that never happens but remember that car seats are only designed to withstand ONE accident. I worked for the airlines for 13 years and I've _seen_ how they treat baggage!

What would you do if you arrived at your destination and found out that your car seat had been sent to another city? Then you might have to leave the airport without any protection for your child.

While a CARES harness is not as safe as a seat, it's better than the adult seatbelt alone. Also, gate-checking is not guarenteed but it's better than checking a car seat in as luggage. Then again, you have to ask, if you bring the car seat to the door of the aircraft, you might as well use it on board!

Something to think about next time you travel...








http://flyingwithchildren1.blogspot.com


----------



## Equuskia (Dec 16, 2006)

I think it was last year, there was a woman that lost her infant and her niece I believe in a car accident. She was on her way to the airport. Her infant was in a carseat, a Scenera....with the plastic travel bag still on! What do you think happened? She swears her child was strapped in properly, even though the cop said that there was no way if the plastic bag was still on the seat!


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
Steven Levitt based his data on FARS data (fatal accident reports, released by NHTSA). He looked through the statistics and decided car seats aren't necessary. What he failed to take into consideration if that, in the FARS data, NHTSA does not include children who were ejected from their seat belts in the statistics showing how many kids were killed while wearing just seatbelts. Thus, the data is skewed since it looks like just as many kids in car seats died as kids in seatbelts, whereas all those kids who were in seatbelts and were ejected weren't included.

Hm. I imagine there were a lot of child fatalities that were not included, such as children ejected from the car while still in their car seats or ejected from their car seats. Probably a lot of children were not wearing seat belts at all, but the driver lied and said they had been.

I was actually far more convinced by the independent testing he had done than by the statistics related to car seats. Statistics are always tricky because something has to be included and excluded, and you have to trust the researcher to do it in as fair and unbiased a way as possible. Crash tests, on the other hand...well, I don't see how they could lie.

Regardless, the bottom line for me is that if the government wants to force us to buy and use a product, there should be solid evidence that it helps. That it saves lives. It's just shocking to me that people would condemn others and assume that they do not care about their children's safety when there is no evidence showing that car seats improve outcomes in children 2 & up. The burden of proof should be on the car seat manufacturers.


----------



## TheGirls (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
Hm. I imagine there were a lot of child fatalities that were not included, such as children ejected from the car while still in their car seats or ejected from their car seats. Probably a lot of children were not wearing seat belts at all, but the driver lied and said they had been.

I was actually far more convinced by the independent testing he had done than by the statistics related to car seats. Statistics are always tricky because something has to be included and excluded, and you have to trust the researcher to do it in as fair and unbiased a way as possible. Crash tests, on the other hand...well, I don't see how they could lie.

Regardless, the bottom line for me is that if the government wants to force us to buy and use a product, there should be solid evidence that it helps. That it saves lives. It's just shocking to me that people would condemn others and assume that they do not care about their children's safety when there is no evidence showing that car seats improve outcomes in children 2 & up. The burden of proof should be on the car seat manufacturers.

The problem is we don't know anything about the independent testing that he did - and he also did this to sell a book, which falls rather short of unbiased. Here:



 is a video of a crash test showing a boostered child vs a harnessed child. And that dummy actually fits appropriately in the booster and is sitting still (most 3 year olds do neither).


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TheGirls* 
The problem is we don't know anything about the independent testing that he did - and he also did this to sell a book, which falls rather short of unbiased. Here:



 is a video of a crash test showing a boostered child vs a harnessed child. And that dummy actually fits appropriately in the booster and is sitting still (most 3 year olds do neither).

What we know is that he has taken steps to prove his point and attempted to disseminate his information to the public. Given that it is the only information out there, because car seat companies have failed to do testing or even make an argument based on facts, I am not willing to just disregard it because he is publishing a book.

I mean, what do we know about the testing in _your_ video? There is a lot less information there than in the lecture I linked to. In fact, the only visible difference between the booster & the car seat (as far as I can see) is that the booster seems to flip the dummy sideways. I'm not at all sure that you can extrapolate that to a regular seat belt and say that because a booster seat looks less safe in a video we know nothing about regular seat belts must also be less safe.


----------



## KristaDJ (May 30, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
I recently watched a video on TED indicating that there is evidence that seat belts are just as safe as car seats for kids 2 & up. In fact, given that most car seats are installed incorrectly, and most seat belts are foolproof, seat belts may be safer. I was so convinced that I would totally switch my DD if it weren't for the legal issues.


So b/c 2yo's would (allegedly) be safer in a regular car seat belt than an _improperly_ installed/used carseat you would choose to forgo a carseat altogether if the law would allow you to?


----------



## fruitfulmomma (Jun 8, 2002)

My question is, for those who don't think it matters... Why is it such a big deal to you? What investment do you have in not buying a car seat and using it properly? It costs around $50 and only takes a couple of minutes each time you get into the car.

We don't vax because we believe they are risky for *our* children, not because they are inconvenient. Do you believe properly fitting car seats are a danger to your child? Or What?

I can think of far better ways to snub the government and greedy corporations, than this one.


----------



## KSLaura (Jan 22, 2007)

We have used many different car rental companies in CA. They are all requried to post signs about car seat laws in CA. They will tack on a carseat rental fee if they see you have children in tow and no carseat. They have asked to see our carseat in the past and would not rent us a car without seeing the carseat. LA airport is quite a distance from Disneyland. I'm sure they will be getting a carseat whether they want it or not!


----------



## medicmama (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Equuskia* 
I think it was last year, there was a woman that lost her infant and her niece I believe in a car accident. She was on her way to the airport. Her infant was in a carseat, a Scenera....with the plastic travel bag still on! What do you think happened? She swears her child was strapped in properly, even though the cop said that there was no way if the plastic bag was still on the seat!









Really? That blows my mind,still in the bag?


----------



## Love_My_Bubba (Jul 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Eclipsepearl* 
I was just going to point out, I hope when you "check" the car seat, you are taking the car seat to the gate and checking it there.

NEVER check a car seat in as luggage. It could too easily be lost and/or broken in the hold. You will hear parents say "I checked my seat and it was fine..." but the truth is that you don't know what kind of damage it could have sustained.

The only way you'd find out is if you are in an accident and your seat doesn't protect you child as it should. I hope that never happens but remember that car seats are only designed to withstand ONE accident. I worked for the airlines for 13 years and I've _seen_ how they treat baggage!

What would you do if you arrived at your destination and found out that your car seat had been sent to another city? Then you might have to leave the airport without any protection for your child.

While a CARES harness is not as safe as a seat, it's better than the adult seatbelt alone. Also, gate-checking is not guarenteed but it's better than checking a car seat in as luggage. Then again, you have to ask, if you bring the car seat to the door of the aircraft, you might as well use it on board!

Something to think about next time you travel...








http://flyingwithchildren1.blogspot.com

I usually even try not to check it at the gate. When I fly, more often than not, I know the flight crew and I can work it out that I can securely stow the car seat in its bag in the cabin, sneaky sneaky, huh


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristaDJ* 
So b/c 2yo's would (allegedly) be safer in a regular car seat belt than an _improperly_ installed/used carseat you would choose to forgo a carseat altogether if the law would allow you to?

No, the lecture claims that seat belts are _at least_ as safe as a properly-installed car seat. Given the fact that the evidence shows that very very few people install and use their car seats correctly, I would be pretty naive and arrogant to assume that mine is always installed correctly, despite my best efforts. The problem is compounded by the fact that my husband and I both drive old cars, without LATCH. And I have read & re-read the instruction manual, and made adjustments when I figured out I had done something wrong. I _think_ it is installed correctly at present, but I have been wrong before.

I know that DD rode in an improperly-installed car seat on more than one occasion. I did not know until after the fact--in fact, I did not even know that DD would be riding in a car at all or I would have not allowed it.

Actually, I probably should say that I don't know that he checked the safety of rear-facing car seats against seat belts, and since we all know rear-facing seats are safer than forward-facing seats, I would probably stick with rear-facing until my 3-year-old DD grew too big (as she already has) and then switch to a regular belt.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitfulmomma* 
My question is, for those who don't think it matters... Why is it such a big deal to you? What investment do you have in not buying a car seat and using it properly? It costs around $50 and only takes a couple of minutes each time you get into the car.

We don't vax because we believe they are risky for *our* children, not because they are inconvenient. Do you believe properly fitting car seats are a danger to your child? Or What?

I can think of far better ways to snub the government and greedy corporations, than this one.









The safety of my daughter is important to me. I was rear-ended twice in very minor accidents and both times I replaced DD's seat, despite everyone telling me it was still fine. The safety of other children is also important. Given the fact that so few car seats are installed correctly, a safe and foolproof alternative _would save lives_. And lots of money. But most importantly, lives.

But, look: the reason I started posting here is not because I am on a crusade to convince everyone to switch from car seats to seat belts. The reason is because of the attitude of superiority that was appearing in the posts. You choose not to vax, because you think it's safer, and that's fine with me. I wouldn't roll my eyes at you, even though I disagree. I chose to vax, because I think it's safer, and I presume you wouldn't attack me for it. So why are we all attacking someone who chose to forgo a "safety" device given that _there is no evidence_ that it increases safety???


----------



## Equuskia (Dec 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
So why are we all attacking someone who chose to forgo a "safety" device given that _there is no evidence_ that it increases safety???

Hmm...let's ask the Swedish if there is no evidence that a car seat is safer than a seatbelt.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *frontierpsych* 
I'd say without a doubt it is "it couldn't happen to ME" syndrome. Seems to be the case with a lot of folks who are lax about car seats. I couldn't happen to THEM... until it does.









I don't think it's "it couldn't happen to ME" syndrome. I think, just like for any parenting decision, people weight the risks vs. the benefits. I have taken my babies out of their carseats in the past (trying to calm hysterical crying). I have had my 5 year old in a regular seatbelt at times (carpooling). Of course I KNOw that my children could be injured in an automobile collision. It's just UNLIKELY that they would even BE in a collision. We all have to weigh the risks vs. the benefits for our own situation. There is no such thing as a perfect parent - keeping your kids in a 5 point harness until a certain age does not mean you are smarter or love your kids/care about their safety more than any other parents. It means you made ONE decision differently.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Steven Levitt's "independent testing" is a joke. He tested three seats. Three. And he's claiming that test overrules all of NHTSA and the carseat manufacturers' testing. That's ludicris. Plus, he's suggesting putting a two year old in a seatbelt. Sorry, two year olds do not fit in seatbelts. They will be ejected from the seat, or experience submarining or "seatbelt syndrome."

Yes, there is rampant misuse of carseats. Yes, that's a problem. Fact is, most misuse is relatively minor. Several studies have suggested that combined misuse (ie. loose install, belly clip, loose straps) can reduce the safety of a car seat by 50%. Still, that's MUCH safer than having the same child ride in nothing but an ill-fitting seatbelt.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 

But, look: the reason I started posting here is not because I am on a crusade to convince everyone to switch from car seats to seat belts. The reason is because of the attitude of superiority that was appearing in the posts. You choose not to vax, because you think it's safer, and that's fine with me. I wouldn't roll my eyes at you, even though I disagree. I chose to vax, because I think it's safer, and I presume you wouldn't attack me for it. So why are we all attacking someone who chose to forgo a "safety" device given that _there is no evidence_ that it increases safety???

I am sorry but I don't understand the comparason.

Under what circumstances would a child have life threatening side effects from a carseat?


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
I don't think it's "it couldn't happen to ME" syndrome. I think, just like for any parenting decision, people weight the risks vs. the benefits. I have taken my babies out of their carseats in the past (trying to calm hysterical crying). I have had my 5 year old in a regular seatbelt at times (carpooling). Of course I KNOw that my children could be injured in an automobile collision. It's just UNLIKELY that they would even BE in a collision. We all have to weigh the risks vs. the benefits for our own situation. There is no such thing as a perfect parent - keeping your kids in a 5 point harness until a certain age does not mean you are smarter or love your kids/care about their safety more than any other parents. It means you made ONE decision differently.

As much as I feel strongly about carseat safety (am even considering buying a Swedish carseat for ERF)...I have to agree w/ this.

There is no. one. in real life that of know of that follows carseat safety rules like me. (ERF, research carseats, backseat only, follow installation rules, etc). NO. ONE.

But then I go through my list and EVERY. ONE. vaccinates. Some delay a few. One friend is skipping the Hep B b/c I shared Ian's voice w/ her. But every child gets at least a handful of them.

I see it as different risk assessment. They are scared of measles, meningitis, etc. They believe the information on risk given to them by their doctors and the media. They take the recommended steps to lower the risk.

I do the same with carseats.

It's hard, yes, not to feel bad about it. Hundreds of children died last year from not being properly restrained. And yet, am I supposed to ignore my friend who points out that a kid died from Hib last year? Different stokes for different folks.


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Equuskia* 
Hmm...let's ask the Swedish if there is no evidence that a car seat is safer than a seatbelt.

Um. Are you referring to the extended-rear-facing seats? I did mean to exclude rear-facing seats from this discussion, because I do think there is good evidence that they are safer than front-facing seats and I'm not sure Levitt did any testing of rear-facing seats.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
Steven Levitt's "independent testing" is a joke. He tested three seats. Three. And he's claiming that test overrules all of NHTSA and the carseat manufacturers' testing. That's ludicris. Plus, he's suggesting putting a two year old in a seatbelt. Sorry, two year olds do not fit in seatbelts. They will be ejected from the seat, or experience submarining or "seatbelt syndrome."

Yes, there is rampant misuse of carseats. Yes, that's a problem. Fact is, most misuse is relatively minor. Several studies have suggested that combined misuse (ie. loose install, belly clip, loose straps) can reduce the safety of a car seat by 50%. Still, that's MUCH safer than having the same child ride in nothing but an ill-fitting seatbelt.

If those three tests are the _only_ three tests that have been done comparing seat belts to car seats for the forward-facing two & up crowd, which is Levitt's contention, then I'm sorry, but that's the only information we have. To me, any amount of testing is more reliable than speculation.

You say that a poorly-installed and used car seat is "MUCH safer" than a seat belt. But do _you_ have any evidence of that? Am I supposed to take your word for it?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
I am sorry but I don't understand the comparason.

Under what circumstances would a child have life threatening side effects from a carseat?

Well, I wouldn't have chosen the comparison myself; I was just trying to go with the example someone else brought up. But to clarify wrt vaccinations, both parents who vax and parents who don't are doing it because they have reasons to believe that their choice is safer. I think my choice is better and safer, and I think that because of the research I've done, but I'm not going to try to force it on anyone else. Also, for the majority of kids there will be no significant side effects whether they are vaxed or not.

As far as car seats are concerned, I think there is pretty solid evidence that misuse can be fatal or result in serious injury.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
If those three tests are the _only_ three tests that have been done comparing seat belts to car seats for the forward-facing two & up crowd, which is Levitt's contention, then I'm sorry, but that's the only information we have. To me, any amount of testing is more reliable than speculation.


Of course it's not the only crash tests. It's just the only one he chose to use. There's even several on youtube.

ETA: here is the graphic I was looking for, showing a 6 year old-sized dummy in a booster, vs in a regular seatbelt. Now this is a SIX year old who actually fits a seatbelt. Imagine a tiny two year old!


----------



## MacKinnon (Jun 15, 2004)

Here is the break down of injury data. I'm not going back through to site each reference, but you can, they are there. Data shows that toddlers 1 - 4 are 54% safer in a ff harnessing seat and children ages 4 - 8 59% safer in a booster than in a seat belt alone. Levitt's data is simply not borne out in the crash test studies and data compliled by virtually everyone else, even if you exclue rear facing.


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovemyavery* 

Here is the break down of injury data. I'm not going back through to site each reference, but you can, they are there. Data shows that toddlers 1 - 4 are 54% safer in a ff harnessing seat and children ages 4 - 8 59% safer in a booster than in a seat belt alone. Levitt's data is simply not borne out in the crash test studies and data compliled by virtually everyone else, even if you exclue rear facing.

Playing devil's advocate here but:

"and by 54% for toddlers ages 1 to 4 years.2"

That's only 4% over statistical probability: death/injury vs. no death/no injury.

Or am I reading this wrong?


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
Of course it's not the only crash tests. It's just the only one he chose to use. There's even several on youtube.

ETA: here is the graphic I was looking for, showing a 6 year old-sized dummy in a booster, vs in a regular seatbelt. Now this is a SIX year old who actually fits a seatbelt. Imagine a tiny two year old!

Note that I said "if" they were the only ones. They were the only ones I was aware of. And they are still the only ones I am aware of, since you didn't link to any. I'm not at all interested in seeing a video, since I have no way of telling the difference between a better and worse crash.

As regards your graphic, it clearly states that the child has put the shoulder belt behind his or her back. And that's certainly not what Levitt is advocating.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovemyavery* 

Here is the break down of injury data. I'm not going back through to site each reference, but you can, they are there. Data shows that toddlers 1 - 4 are 54% safer in a ff harnessing seat and children ages 4 - 8 59% safer in a booster than in a seat belt alone. Levitt's data is simply not borne out in the crash test studies and data compliled by virtually everyone else, even if you exclue rear facing.

Thanks. I actually saw that page--I've been researching since I last posted--but the link to the relevant study isn't good anymore, and I couldn't find the study elsewhere. So I can't argue with its methodology, per se. I will note that Levitt does admit that there is some data showing that car seats are safer, but he says that it is based on after-the-fact calls to parents, and suggests that parents are likely to lie. I can't say that I disagree with him.

I also found a study that said that most booster seats do not actually improve seat belt positioning and that many actually make it worse. Not that I want to get into a discussion about booster seats. DD is still in a car seat and probably will be for some time, so I'm nowhere near up to date on booster seat safety.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *claddaghmom* 
Playing devil's advocate here but:

"and by 54% for toddlers ages 1 to 4 years.2"

That's only 4% over statistical probability: death/injury vs. no death/no injury.

Or am I reading this wrong?









No, you're reading it wrong. Now I'm the one playing devil's advocate, but 54% better is like saying 54% more (than 100%) safety (54%+100%=154% safety). So, yeah, it's a big difference.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Google is very helpful for finding such links. I'll be back with links.


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
I also found a study that said that most booster seats do not actually improve seat belt positioning and that many actually make it worse. Not that I want to get into a discussion about booster seats. DD is still in a car seat and probably will be for some time, so I'm nowhere near up to date on booster seat safety.

No, you're reading it wrong. Now I'm the one playing devil's advocate, but 54% better is like saying 54% more (than 100%) safety (54%+100%=154% safety). So, yeah, it's a big difference.

Are you talking about backless boosters or 5pt harness boosters?

And thank you for clarifying.







lol


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

They are talking about high back boosters. There are only 2 kinds of boosters: high-back and backless. A "harnessed booster" is a different category alltogether, since it doesn't involve positioning the belt.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Kids are not cooperating, so here is a quick list:

NHTSA Reports

Presentations

Crash statistics

Research notes


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
They are talking about high back boosters. There are only 2 kinds of boosters: high-back and backless. A "harnessed booster" is a different category alltogether, since it doesn't involve positioning the belt.

hmm then I guess it's good I am reselling my AO!


----------



## Golden (Mar 15, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oceanbaby* 
I am pretty uptight about carseat safety, but when we went to NYC we did not use carseats in cabs - we just couldn't figure out a way to do it without lugging a huge carseat around all the time (ds1 was 3yo at the time). If they were literally going to be in the car for 5 minutes the entire trip, I could see not bringing a carseat.

Disney is about 30 minutes away from Orlando airport...down a major highway.


----------



## Abismommy (Jul 3, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Golden* 
Disney is about 30 minutes away from Orlando airport...down a major highway.

Yep! I'm right in Orlando close by the attractions! People drive like idiots here! Cannot tell you how many times we've had to slam on the breaks to avoid getting hurt








I feel safest with my kids being harnessed as long as possible!


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovemyavery* 

Here is the break down of injury data. I'm not going back through to site each reference, but you can, they are there. Data shows that toddlers 1 - 4 are 54% safer in a ff harnessing seat and children ages 4 - 8 59% safer in a booster than in a seat belt alone. Levitt's data is simply not borne out in the crash test studies and data compliled by virtually everyone else, even if you exclue rear facing.

The 54% safer figure (and 71% safer for infants) is as compared to no restraint at all. (It's not clear from the page you linked to, but I looked it up.)

Here is a study I just found and skimmed that found child restraints led to a 21% decrease in mortality (28% when not seriously misused) as compared to seatbelts for children 2-6. The authors also discuss other research, including Levitt's, and point out what they see as some problems with Levitt's analysis.

In regard to the OP, I think the horror expressed is way out of proportion to the situation. Yes, it would be safer to use a carseat. Yes, I would use a carseat myself. But the actual risk of death or injury if they make a few short drives without one is pretty low. You could argue that there is no excuse for ever choosing any option that increases the risk to your children. But then you'd have to blast parents who choose to live in houses with stairs, or buy their kids bikes or skateboards, or let them take baths instead of just wiping them down with a washcloth.


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
Kids are not cooperating, so here is a quick list:

NHTSA Reports

Presentations

Crash statistics

Research notes

Wow. That's amazing. Thanks for the info. I'll get back to you once I wade through it all.


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
Here is a study I just found and skimmed that found child restraints led to a 21% decrease in mortality (28% when not seriously misused) as compared to seatbelts for children 2-6. The authors also discuss other research, including Levitt's, and point out what they see as some problems with Levitt's analysis.

Ah, now that is really interesting. I can't help but note that they did not seem to differentiate between forward-facing and rear-facing seats. I wonder if Levitt did? At any rate, this is all starting to get a bit over my head. I am not a statistician, and when two experts take the same data and adjust for different things and come out with different results, I am really not capable of telling which one is better/more accurate. But thanks for the article.









I still believe that where experts disagree as to the relative safety of two choices we should not condemn parents who make either choice.


----------



## MacKinnon (Jun 15, 2004)

Thanks for the follow up and links on the data I posted earlier!

I would like to point out this excerpt from an article about Levitt's car seat findings. EVERY time this issue comes up, this point gets missed. He is NOT advocating for children using adult belts alone.

_Levitt is not advocating getting rid of booster seats. Instead, his main concern is that car seats and booster seats are not built into vehicles at the factory. Chrysler, Dodge and Volvo offer built-in booster seats as an extra-cost option in some of their vehicles. If you want a built-in seat with a five-point harness, though, you're out of luck.

"I'm not advocating using adult seatbelts for kids," he says. "What I'd like to see is some of the $300 million that's invested in the car seat industry allocated to further study and improve the technology already available in cars - seatbelts - to better suit children."_


----------



## Belia (Dec 22, 2007)

My mother is pretty anti-carseat. She would never come out and say so directly, but her overall attitude and side comments she makes are pretty clear.

She thinks strapping DS in so tightly is too confining and uncomfortable for him.







She also has a little of that "We never used seats with you kids and you turned out fine" thing going on.

She also thinks breastfeeding is bad, so ........


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

This is what happens to a child in an adult belt.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
As regards your graphic, it clearly states that the child has put the shoulder belt behind his or her back. And that's certainly not what Levitt is advocating.

So he's suggesting backless booster use from age 2?

Did he do any test with a dummy positioned leaned as far over as possible to try to reach a toy? Or even just slumped over as though asleep?


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovemyavery* 
Thanks for the follow up and links on the data I posted earlier!

I would like to point out this excerpt from an article about Levitt's car seat findings. EVERY time this issue comes up, this point gets missed. He is NOT advocating for children using adult belts alone.

_Levitt is not advocating getting rid of booster seats. Instead, his main concern is that car seats and booster seats are not built into vehicles at the factory. Chrysler, Dodge and Volvo offer built-in booster seats as an extra-cost option in some of their vehicles. If you want a built-in seat with a five-point harness, though, you're out of luck.

"I'm not advocating using adult seatbelts for kids," he says. "What I'd like to see is some of the $300 million that's invested in the car seat industry allocated to further study and improve the technology already available in cars - seatbelts - to better suit children."_

That makes so much more sense.


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
I don't think it's "it couldn't happen to ME" syndrome. I think, just like for any parenting decision, people weight the risks vs. the benefits. I have taken my babies out of their carseats in the past (trying to calm hysterical crying).

I have never understood this. I'd rather have a crying child than a dead child. It just takes an instant.


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

op maybe your friend should watch this


----------



## TheGirls (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 

I still believe that where experts disagree as to the relative safety of two choices we should not condemn parents who make either choice.









Levitt is an economist and author of pop liturature. Not so much a carseat safety expert. He makes lots and lots of money by saying controversial things, especially if they are what people want to hear, which makes him biased, as well.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mizelenius* 
I have never understood this. I'd rather have a crying child than a dead child. It just takes an instant.

taking one's baby out of his carseat does not equal sudden/automatic death.

Leaving them to cry does mean they are most definitely emotionally harmed.

I don't care what other people do. I'm just saying that everyone has to weigh the risks vs the benefits for their own situation.

My baby is screaming hysterically. It is unlikely that we are going to be in a collission. So I take him out of his seat for a few minutes to burp him or whatever. NOt a big deal.


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
taking one's baby out of his carseat does not equal sudden/automatic death.

Leaving them to cry does mean they are most definitely emotionally harmed.

I don't care what other people do. I'm just saying that everyone has to weigh the risks vs the benefits for their own situation.

My baby is screaming hysterically. It is unlikely that we are going to be in a collission. So I take him out of his seat for a few minutes to burp him or whatever. NOt a big deal.

I respectfully disagree with every statement you've made, and I DO care what other people do (it makes me shiver when I see children unbuckled in the car) but, I understand that there isn't a thing I can do about it.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mizelenius* 
*I respectfully disagree with every statement you've made,* and I DO care what other people do (it makes me shiver when I see children unbuckled in the car) but, I understand that there isn't a thing I can do about it.










You disagree with the statement "taking one's baby does not equal sudden/automatic death"?

A baby does not die just because they are out of their carseat. A baby might die if the car they are riding in is in an accident while they are out of their seat. That's the risk I'm talking about. What is the likliness of being in an car accident, at that moment.

nak sorry


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
You disagree with the statement "taking one's baby does not equal sudden/automatic death"?

A baby does not die just because they are out of their carseat. A baby might die if the car they are riding in is in an accident while they are out of their seat. That's the risk I'm talking about. What is the likliness of being in an car accident, at that moment.

nak sorry

I disagree with the statement that it is a fact-- the possibility DOES exist that taking out your child at that instant may equal sudden death. No, it is not a guarantee that the child will die, nor is it a guarantee that the child will live. You state it that there is NO WAY the child will die. I disagree.

If you are comfortable with that risk, so be it, just as I am comfortable with my children crying at times. Maybe if I'd just had one child (who was still an infant at the moment of this writing) I would feel that way, that crying is damaging. After three children who are generally peaceful children (given the reality of their ages, mind you), I see crying, even in infants, as just part of life. When I've had children who really hated the car, I just avoided driving at all costs, so the crying would be minimal. But I'd never risk death just to keep a child from crying.


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
This is what happens to a child in an adult belt.

Look, I am simply uninterested in shocking-looking videos of crash-test dummies. If you have a link to something with actual analysis, I would love to see it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
So he's suggesting backless booster use from age 2?

Did he do any test with a dummy positioned leaned as far over as possible to try to reach a toy? Or even just slumped over as though asleep?

No, he did his research on correctly-positioned child-sized dummies in regular adult seat belts. Just as manufacturers of car seats do their research on correctly-installed, correctly-used car seats. Your point that adult seat belt misuse occurs is certainly valid. I doubt that it rises to the level of misuse that happens with car seats (which, by some estimates, is as much as 95%). I would note that as far as booster seats are concerned, they are not restraint devices. My understanding is that their only purpose is to position the adult seat belt. So boosters will not keep kids from slumping over or trying to reach a toy, etc.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TheGirls* 
Levitt is an economist and author of pop liturature. Not so much a carseat safety expert. He makes lots and lots of money by saying controversial things, especially if they are what people want to hear, which makes him biased, as well.

Point taken. To be perfectly honest, though, when it comes to statistical analysis I think an economist is every bit as much of an expert (and probably moreso) than a medical doctor. What I'd really like to see is the opinion of a biomedical engineer.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mizelenius* 
I disagree with the statement that it is a fact-- the possibility DOES exist that taking out your child at that instant may equal sudden death. No, it is not a guarantee that the child will die, nor is it a guarantee that the child will live. You state it that there is NO WAY the child will die. I disagree.

No, you misunderstood her. She didn't say there was no way the child would die. She was saying just what you said - that there is no guarantee the child will die if removed from the carseat. In these discussions about carseats, a lot of people talk as if they believe riding without a carseat, even for a few minutes, means almost certain death, and being in a carseat guarantees a child will not die. Your comment, "I'd rather have a crying child than a dead child" made it sound as if you were one of those people.


----------



## luv-my-boys (Dec 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ahappymel* 
The car rental places have carseats and as a matter of experience, will not let you off their lot with a car-seat aged child in their car without a carseat.

a lot of rental places are now discontinuing renting carseats out due to liability issues. I mean say a child was in an accident and was hurt the parents could sue the car rental if the seat wasnt *maintained* or what not. I mean you can never be sure using a used carseat what a stranger did with it. When we rented a car a few months back we asked around (we were price shopping) and several national chains no longer do it.


----------



## TheGirls (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:


Point taken. To be perfectly honest, though, when it comes to statistical analysis I think an economist is every bit as much of an expert (and probably moreso) than a medical doctor. What I'd really like to see is the opinion of a biomedical engineer.








Oh, absolutely. A medical doctor wouldn't count for sure. My DD's pediatrician is absolutely clueless about carseats. Ideally a physicist or an engineer with a strong background in statistics would look at it. Maybe with the help of a behavioral psychologist. However I'd be willing to look at an economist's opinion if he did not have a direct economic motivation toward a particular answer.

FWIW, I'm an engineer with a background in physics and analysis. I don't have access to appropriate data to make a good analysis, but I have enough information to spot a poor one.


----------



## Science_Man (Jun 7, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
I was actually far more convinced by the independent testing he had done than by the statistics related to car seats. Statistics are always tricky because something has to be included and excluded, and you have to trust the researcher to do it in as fair and unbiased a way as possible. *Crash tests, on the other hand...well, I don't see how they could lie.*


Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
*Look, I am simply uninterested in shocking-looking videos of crash-test dummies.* If you have a link to something with actual analysis, I would love to see it.


----------



## bandgeek (Sep 12, 2006)

I don't think anyone here believes a child will die automatically if they are unstrapped for a few minutes in the car. That is absurd. I've accidentally forgotten to buckle my child before and he survived. Because we didn't get in an accident. However if we HAD, he could have, or at least been seriously injured. And if we had, I never would have forgiven myself, even though it was an accident that he wasn't buckled. So to take a child out of a seat for *convenience* and risk their life (because you can't predict when you will be in an accident, you are certainly taking a huge risk) boggles my mind. Gotta burp the kid? Pull over! It's inconvenient but I won't risk my child's life for convenience. I will NEVER understand the whole "It's only unsafe if you are in an accident" reasoning. It's unsafe all the time because you can't predict the accident.

I think the guy saying to use seatbelts at 2 is....not all that brilliant. He claims to be trying to make the child restraint situation safer through his research, but what he fails to realize is we DO know what we can do to make things safer, it's just the US is a little slow to catch on. So instead of advocating for better, safer usage, he tells us to just forget about it and take our kids out of their seats until the car manufacturers decide to solve the problem? So while we're patiently waiting, how many kids are going to die or be injured? Because last time I checked, most parents misuse BOOSTERS too. It's not just harnessed seats that see misuse.


----------



## sunnymw (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bandgeek* 
I don't think anyone here believes a child will die automatically if they are unstrapped for a few minutes in the car. That is absurd. I've accidentally forgotten to buckle my child before and he survived. Because we didn't get in an accident. However if we HAD, he could have, or at least been seriously injured. And if we had, I never would have forgiven myself, even though it was an accident that he wasn't buckled. So to take a child out of a seat for *convenience* and risk their life (because you can't predict when you will be in an accident, you are certainly taking a huge risk) boggles my mind. Gotta burp the kid? Pull over! It's inconvenient but I won't risk my child's life for convenience. I will NEVER understand the whole "It's only unsafe if you are in an accident" reasoning. *It's unsafe all the time because you can't predict the accident.*

.

This exactly!!! If you could predict an accident, there wouldn't BE any accidents, and it wouldn't be the number one cause of death for our little ones.

Last year a mama an hour from here had her baby die. She was riding down the road at 35mph (her DH was driving), little to no traffic, no "risk", and took her baby out of the seat to calm it down. She may have been lucky the first 99 times she did it, but THAT time, she lost her baby. Because she just couldn't be inconvenienced enough to pull over for 5 minutes.

But again, everyone makes their own choices, and one way or another you have to live with those choices. OP-you can't save 'em all. Whenever my blood pressure gets up or I feel horrible for someone's kids, DH tells me to tell myself that evolution will take care of it. It's a horrible thought, I know, but it's the only way I can keep myself sane.


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Science_Man* 









Crash test _videos_ are a very small bit of the data that comes from crash tests. Those dummies are covered in sensors, and they put it all into an algorithm, and determine the relative safety of various restraints. As someone who has absolutely no expertise wrt crash tests, I am totally incapable of watching a crash test _video_ and determining how safe or unsafe the restraint is. Perhaps someone with more experience can do that. I _am_ capable of reading or hearing about _analysis_ done by experts interpreting data they got through a crash test, and I do think that that sort of analysis is much less subject to bias than the type of statistical research that involves adjusting for hundreds of variables. I am sorry that I didn't make that more clear. I guess I didn't realize that someone might not know the difference between a crash test and a crash-test video.

On a marginally related note, I certainly do recognize that crash tests provide a limited amount of data. Crash tests are an evolving science and the dummies are improving all the time.


----------



## KristyDi (Jun 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DevaMajka* 
I think people just really think that it will never happen to them. Honestly, that's the ONLY explanation I can come up with. I've seen people who I *know* love their kids and want the best for them in almost every way, who just have no regard for proper car seat use. They just really must think that it could never matter.

I also think that some people, who are using a car seat but not entirely properly, ie, straps aren't tight enough, think that it's just as safe as with the straps tightened. They just don't stop to think enough to realize that it could make a huge difference in a crash. kwim?

Maybe that's it. It's just people that aren't thinking.









:
One of my best friends has a dd 2 weeks older than mine. Her dd was flipped ff at 11 months (she was over 20lbs) and now the straps on her seat are soooo loose. Once when we were riding in her car, her dd was able to slip her arm out from under the strap.









This woman is a wonderful mom, loves her dd very much. She just really dosen't consider car seats very important.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
Look, I am simply uninterested in shocking-looking videos of crash-test dummies. If you have a link to something with actual analysis, I would love to see it.

I have linked to you TONS of information.


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bandgeek* 
I don't think anyone here believes a child will die automatically if they are unstrapped for a few minutes in the car. That is absurd. I've accidentally forgotten to buckle my child before and he survived. Because we didn't get in an accident. However if we HAD, he could have, or at least been seriously injured. And if we had, I never would have forgiven myself, even though it was an accident that he wasn't buckled. So to take a child out of a seat for *convenience* and risk their life (because you can't predict when you will be in an accident, you are certainly taking a huge risk) boggles my mind. Gotta burp the kid? Pull over! It's inconvenient but I won't risk my child's life for convenience. I will NEVER understand the whole "It's only unsafe if you are in an accident" reasoning. It's unsafe all the time because you can't predict the accident.

I think the guy saying to use seatbelts at 2 is....not all that brilliant. He claims to be trying to make the child restraint situation safer through his research, but what he fails to realize is we DO know what we can do to make things safer, it's just the US is a little slow to catch on. So instead of advocating for better, safer usage, he tells us to just forget about it and take our kids out of their seats until the car manufacturers decide to solve the problem? So while we're patiently waiting, how many kids are going to die or be injured? Because last time I checked, most parents misuse BOOSTERS too. It's not just harnessed seats that see misuse.

Yes, indeed.

(And I live in a scandinavian country who is one of the most advanced in car seat safety for kids, our kids usually RF to 4-5 (maybe even 6) yo.)


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
I have linked to you TONS of information.

And I went through it all and found very little actual analysis dealing with the relative effectiveness of seat belts and car seats in children 2 & up. There _was_ a research note that said that car seats were 47% effective against fatalities in children 1-4 and adult seat belts were 47-48% effective against fatalities in children 1-4. But I certainly didn't see anything indicating that horrible things happen to children in adult seat belts, which is what your video was apparently meant to illustrate. I mean what I say: If you have information that adult seat belts are dangerous, I would love to see it. I am just not interested in the shock value of a video. I don't believe in making decisions based on fear.


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bandgeek* 
I don't think anyone here believes a child will die automatically if they are unstrapped for a few minutes in the car. That is absurd. I've accidentally forgotten to buckle my child before and he survived. Because we didn't get in an accident. However if we HAD, he could have, or at least been seriously injured. And if we had, I never would have forgiven myself, even though it was an accident that he wasn't buckled. So to take a child out of a seat for *convenience* and risk their life (because you can't predict when you will be in an accident, you are certainly taking a huge risk) boggles my mind. Gotta burp the kid? Pull over! It's inconvenient but I won't risk my child's life for convenience. I will NEVER understand the whole "It's only unsafe if you are in an accident" reasoning. It's unsafe all the time because you can't predict the accident.


EXACTLY. And no, to the pp who said some people believe that your are 100% safe if you are in a carseat-- no, I am not one of those people. Trust me, I know that every time I get into the car, for any distance, there is a risk. I do think about that often. I drive the speed limit-- I used to speed, but I don't anymore. It's never worth it.

For those of you comfortable taking out your child from the carseat, do you feel comfortable leaving an infant in the bathtub unattended, even if it's "just for a few minutes"? I don't.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

*


----------



## TheGirls (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
And I went through it all and found very little actual analysis dealing with the relative effectiveness of seat belts and car seats in children 2 & up. There _was_ a research note that said that car seats were 47% effective against fatalities in children 1-4 and adult seat belts were 47-48% effective against fatalities in children 1-4. But I certainly didn't see anything indicating that horrible things happen to children in adult seat belts, which is what your video was apparently meant to illustrate. I mean what I say: If you have information that adult seat belts are dangerous, I would love to see it. I am just not interested in the shock value of a video. I don't believe in making decisions based on fear.

This one is old, but very relavent. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/807371.PDF


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

From "Lives Saved by FMVSS & Other Vehicle Safety Technologies":

Quote:

The last study provides NHTSA's current estimates of the "as used" fatality
reduction by child safety seats...For toddlers age 1-4, the seats reduced fatality risk by a
statistically significant 54 percent.
That number is based on "as used" rates, meaning even with misuse, a car seat reduces the risk of death greatly.

Quote:

Over the years, a moderate proportion of toddlers age 1-4, especially at the higher ages have only been restrained by the vehicle's belts, not by a safety seat. The restraint is essentially a lap belt only, for even if the seat is equipped with a 3-point belt, the shoulder harness will not fit across the torso of a child that small, and it will offer little protection. NHTSA urges that children under 4'9'', and especially in the 1-4 age group not be restrained with belts alone, but with a FMVSS 213 seat appropriate to their weight. Nevertheless, belts have some benefits for children age 1-4... [NHTSA] estimates that lap belts reduce fatality risk by 33 percent. That is substantially lower than the 54 percent "as used" effectiveness of the actual mix of correctly used and misused safety seats, let alone the effectiveness of correctly used safety seats.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

From "Crash Protection for Child Passengers", by Kathleen Weber (I have a hard copy, but you can probably google and find it).

Quote:

Finally, a recent analysis of children 2 through 5 in crashes indicates that those in seatbelts are 3.5 times more likely to suffer moderate to severe injuries, particularly to the head, than those in child restraint systems

Quote:

misplacement of a lap belt can
occur during a crash if the belt is loose or, with
small children, is not held in place by a crotch
strap or other positioning device, such as booster
belt guides. A lap belt that is placed or rides up
above the hips can intrude into the soft abdomen
and rupture or lacerate internal organs. Moreover,
in the absence of a shoulder restraint, a lap
belt worn high can act as a fulcrum around which
the lumbar spine flexes, possibly causing separation
or fracture of the lumbar vertebrae in a severe
crash
This is what we saw in the crash test video I posted.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mizelenius* 
I disagree with the statement that it is a fact-- the possibility DOES exist that taking out your child at that instant may equal sudden death. No, it is not a guarantee that the child will die, nor is it a guarantee that the child will live. You state it that there is NO WAY the child will die. I disagree.

If you are comfortable with that risk, so be it, just as I am comfortable with my children crying at times. Maybe if I'd just had one child (who was still an infant at the moment of this writing) I would feel that way, that crying is damaging. After three children who are generally peaceful children (given the reality of their ages, mind you), I see crying, even in infants, as just part of life. When I've had children who really hated the car, I just avoided driving at all costs, so the crying would be minimal. But I'd never risk death just to keep a child from crying.

I didn't say ther is NO WAY a child will die from ebing out of it's seat. I said it's unlikely that the child will die JUST as a result of being out of his seat. We would have to be in a car accident for that to happen. And that is just unlikely.

FTR, I have three children - my oldest is 10







I do avoid driving whenenr possible with my fussy babies. It's actually been since I've had more than one child that I've realized that I can't always cater to one child's needs. If we have a doctors appt for example, I have to go - and so some fussy abby may be in the car. And yes, if that baby is incosolable while being in his seat, I will probably take him out, if it will calm him.

also - you risk death EVERY time you drive. So really why doesn' anyone feel its okay to transport their children by car? Oh, right. Because you've (general) weighed the risks vs. the benefits, and figured its not all that risky







Same with taking your child out of his carseat from time to time


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
No, you misunderstood her. She didn't say there was no way the child would die. She was saying just what you said - that there is no guarantee the child will die if removed from the carseat. In these discussions about carseats, a lot of people talk as if they believe riding without a carseat, even for a few minutes, means almost certain death, and being in a carseat guarantees a child will not die. Your comment, "I'd rather have a crying child than a dead child" made it sound as if you were one of those people.


Thank you dafodil







That's exactly what I meant. I have proof that a child riding outside of a carseat can be safe - three living ones driving me crazy as we speak as a matter of fact







Yes, injury/death IS possible. But NOT just because they are out of their seats. Injury/death is possible no matter what. Car travel is dangerous. But not usually.


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
Thank you dafodil







That's exactly what I meant. I have proof that a child riding outside of a carseat can be safe

And some devastated people have proof that it is _not_. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Mizelenius (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
also - you risk death EVERY time you drive. So really why doesn' anyone feel its okay to transport their children by car? Oh, right. Because you've (general) weighed the risks vs. the benefits, and figured its not all that risky







Same with taking your child out of his carseat from time to time









Yes, I realize this-- and frankly, I do think it IS very risky and I limit how often we drive because of this. One of the reasons we moved to the suburbs is because, in the city, we'd have to drive 8 miles each way to a school-- here, we would walk. Now that we homeschool, one of my big concerns is that we'd actually do a LOT more driving.








I avoid going to the groups where we would actually fit in (read: secular) because they are so far and I don't want to risk an accident . . . now my friends and I are starting one that is close to home. Had I known that HSing was what we were going to do, I would have stayed in the city (gotten around on public transport). If I could move, I would.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mizelenius* 
EXACTLY. And no, to the pp who said some people believe that your are 100% safe if you are in a carseat-- no, I am not one of those people. Trust me, I know that every time I get into the car, for any distance, there is a risk. I do think about that often. I drive the speed limit-- I used to speed, but I don't anymore. It's never worth it.

*For those of you comfortable taking out your child from the carseat, do you feel comfortable leaving an infant in the bathtub unattended, even if it's "just for a few minutes"? I don't*.

No, I don't - because its mroe likely that an infant will immediately slip under the water, than it is tha my husband will get into a car accident.


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
From "Lives Saved by FMVSS & Other Vehicle Safety Technologies":

That number is based on "as used" rates, meaning even with misuse, a car seat reduces the risk of death greatly.

This is 54% better than an _unrestrained_ child. And it is for ages 1-4. As regarding seat belts, this article says that _lap-only_ seat belts are thought to reduce fatality by 33%--which is about the same as the effectiveness of lap belts for adults. I don't see anything in here about children 2 & up, or the relative effectiveness of adult lap & shoulder belts for these children.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *TheGirls* 
This one is old, but very relavent. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/807371.PDF

Thanks. In one place, this article says that for children under 5 (which includes infants, btw), child restraint seats reduce fatality by 49%...and seat belts reduce fatality by 44%. I don't know whether this difference is even statistically significant. In another place, it shows a difference of 11%. But all of the statistics in this article fail to distinguish between children 1-2 and children 2 & up.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
From "Crash Protection for Child Passengers", by Kathleen Weber (I have a hard copy, but you can probably google and find it).

This is what we saw in the crash test video I posted.

I did find it. I have read that incorrectly-positioned seat belts are a problem. But I have read that these types of injuries can also occur from improper use of car seats. And even this article says that there is a 54% reduction in fatalities _for children 1-4_ in car seats and a 47% reduction for children of the same age in seat belts. Yes, it cites studies showing larger differences, but those are after-the-fact analyses that rely on parental honesty in determining whether the injured child was restrained or unrestrained. It also says that seat belts work about as well in children as in adults, or possibly better in children, "even if fit is not optimal." Granted, this analysis appears not to have been done for children younger than 4. I could be misinterpreting this, but I'm not at all convinced that this article contains evidence that seat belts are dangerous for children 2 & up or even that car seats are significantly better for that age group.


----------



## Cinder (Feb 4, 2003)

I think there is no data for shoulder + lap belts for a 2 year old cause there is no way to put the shoulder belt on a 2 year old. Seriously, I'm now tempted to go take pictures of my almost 2 year old in a seatbelt to show how ridiculous it would be!


----------



## sunnymw (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
No, I don't - because its mroe likely that an infant will immediately slip under the water, than it is tha my husband will get into a car accident.

One person drowns every 160 seconds.
One car accident happens every 10 seconds.

I'd feel safer walking out of the bathroom for 2 seconds while being able to HEAR my child babbling (to, say, grab a towel) than I would unbuckling my child for 2 seconds in the car. Because you NEVER know when that ONE idiot just comes out of NOWHERE.

Having been in 4 accidents, I know exactly how it is. One second you're riding along like normal, thinking that it's SO unlikely you'll get into an accident at that moment (well, you're not thinking that at all really, because an accident isn't even crossing your mind). And then BAM! There it is. Over before you even register that there's a "risk".

Car accidents are still the number one cause of death for children. Because people still play Russian Roulette in the car with their kids.


----------



## JessBB (Apr 10, 2007)

nak, sorry.

On taking babe out of carseat: this is something I did fairly often, with both ds1 (28 mo) and ds2 (3 mo) as they were / are major car seat screamers. A few weeks ago, I just decided to stop, b/c it wasnt worth the risk.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that there are myriad other bad outcomes of an unrestrained infant, besides infant death:
traffic ticket (major $$$)
arrest
cps involvement
loss of car insurance
and of course "mere" injury


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cinder* 
I think there is no data for shoulder + lap belts for a 2 year old cause there is no way to put the shoulder belt on a 2 year old. Seriously, I'm now tempted to go take pictures of my almost 2 year old in a seatbelt to show how ridiculous it would be!









Yeah, I actually have to agree with that. I was thinking the same thing when I first watched his lecture. He was consistently saying "over two" so I was thinking perhaps that meant 3 & up (i.e., a two year old isn't "over" two if you're just counting in years). But since then my research indicates that he really did mean 2 & up. I _can_ imagine my 3-year-old fitting not unreasonably well. She's a _bit_ large for her age, but not huge. Perhaps I'll try it out (with the car in park in the driveway). If it sends me into a giggle fit, I'll report back.


----------



## sunnymw (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 







Yeah, I actually have to agree with that. I was thinking the same thing when I first watched his lecture. He was consistently saying "over two" so I was thinking perhaps that meant 3 & up (i.e., a two year old isn't "over" two if you're just counting in years). But since then my research indicates that he really did mean 2 & up. I _can_ imagine my 3-year-old fitting not unreasonably well. She's a _bit_ large for her age, but not huge. Perhaps I'll try it out (with the car in park in the driveway). If it sends me into a giggle fit, I'll report back.









When I get up tomorrow, I'd be more than happy to take a picture of my almost-3-yo in just a seatbelt. Then I'll go next door and take a pic of him in a booster (neighbors use a parkway for their 5yo). We can all have a good laugh


----------



## octobermom (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 







Yeah, I actually have to agree with that. I was thinking the same thing when I first watched his lecture. He was consistently saying "over two" so I was thinking perhaps that meant 3 & up (i.e., a two year old isn't "over" two if you're just counting in years). But since then my research indicates that he really did mean 2 & up. I _can_ imagine my 3-year-old fitting not unreasonably well. She's a _bit_ large for her age, but not huge. Perhaps I'll try it out (with the car in park in the driveway). If it sends me into a giggle fit, I'll report back.









I have a 6.5 year old 47inch 48lb daughter. We had an emergancy issue a few weeks ago long story but in the end we HAD to transport my 6.5 year old and 2 other kids a 13 month old and a small for his age 4 year old. We had an infant seat and my DD HBB. While I normally have an extra booster I didn't on this day and the other mom didn't have her older childs seat.. We let my DD ride with jsut the seat belt. As we felt the 4 year old needed something.. By "law" it was okay and shes sits correctly ect she should have been fine.. SHes was as in we got to where we needed to safely.. but shes was SOOOOOOO uncomfortable she kept trying to pull the shoulder strap down because of where it cut into her neck the lap part while it techinally was in the right place just looked soo loose and her kinda pulling and pushing made it worse. No way would I have her consistantly using JUST a seat belt.
Oh and we just this past year decided she could go to a HHB from her 5 point harnessed seat and I still use the harnessed seat on long trips as she tends to slump foward is she falls asleep to long. At 3 shes swam in a booster.

Deanna


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

I'm not going to try to change your mind, but...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
Thank you dafodil







That's exactly what I meant. *I have proof that a child riding outside of a carseat can be safe - three living ones driving me crazy as we speak as a matter of fact*







Yes, injury/death IS possible. But NOT just because they are out of their seats. Injury/death is possible no matter what. Car travel is dangerous. But not usually.

No, you have proof that you have been lucky. If you let your two year old play unsupervised by a pool and they don't drown, that doesn't make the behavriour *safe* it just means you didn't have a tragedy. Just the same--- your children not being injured does not mean they have been safe, but lucky.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
This is 54% better than an _unrestrained_ child. And it is for ages 1-4. As regarding seat belts, this article says that _lap-only_ seat belts are thought to reduce fatality by 33%--which is about the same as the effectiveness of lap belts for adults. I don't see anything in here about children 2 & up, or the relative effectiveness of adult lap & shoulder belts for these children.









I'm confused. A child "two and up" is in the 1-4 age range. And it still shows the difference--a carseat reduces death by 54%, a lap belt reduces death by 33%. The comparison is still the same.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
I did find it. I have read that incorrectly-positioned seat belts are a problem. But I have read that these types of injuries can also occur from improper use of car seats.

There is NO "correct way" to use a seatbelt with a two (or three, or four) year old.


----------



## jeminijad (Mar 27, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
Crash test _videos_ I guess I didn't realize that someone might not know the difference between a crash test and a crash-test video.

.

I have to say, I thought exactly what Science thought.

You kind of seem like you have decided Levitt is right, common sense and other data be d*mned!

How could a tiny 30lb body possibly be safe in a restraint system predicated on its passenger being over 5", 100 lbs and with fully fused cervical vertebra?

I think we have become _too_ dependent on "studies," statistics & the like... its been covered how they can be manipulated, studies are overturned years later because they didn't account for some esoteric variable... it is good enough for me to look at the situation, look at the conditions inside of a car in a collision (something I have experienced more than once) and decide to restrain my small child.


----------



## sunnymw (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jeminijad* 
I have to say, I thought exactly what Science thought.

You kind of seem like you have decided Levitt is right, common sense and other data be d*mned!

How could a tiny 30lb body possibly be safe in a restraint system predicated on its passenger being over 5", 100 lbs and with fully fused cervical vertebra?
*
I think we have become too dependent on "studies," statistics & the like...* its been covered how they can be manipulated, studies are overturned years later because they didn't account for some esoteric variable... it is good enough for me to look at the situation, look at the conditions inside of a car in a collision (something I have experienced more than once) and decide to restrain my small child.

ITA--it's almost like we've lost the ability to use common sense.

Out to go take that picture I promised


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
I'm confused. A child "two and up" is in the 1-4 age range. And it still shows the difference--a carseat reduces death by 54%, a lap belt reduces death by 33%. The comparison is still the same.

There is NO "correct way" to use a seatbelt with a two (or three, or four) year old.

Riiiight, but if you lump one year olds in with the group, and seat belts are unsafe for one year olds but safe for two year olds, it will totally distort your statistics. The comparison is _not_ the same. And even Levitt said that lap and shoulder belts were statistically safer than lap belts, so I think he would expect to see a significant difference between car seats or lap and shoulder belts and lap-only belts.

I will note that this article was most interesting to me because it indicated that seat belts are just as safe, or safer, for children as they are for adults.

As far as incorrectly-positioned seat belts are concerned, I got that information from the article you cited. I didn't make it up. YOU say that there is no correct way to use seat belts with children of that age, but, once again, that is just your own opinion until you provide actual evidence.


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jeminijad* 
I have to say, I thought exactly what Science thought.

You kind of seem like you have decided Levitt is right, common sense and other data be d*mned!

How could a tiny 30lb body possibly be safe in a restraint system predicated on its passenger being over 5", 100 lbs and with fully fused cervical vertebra?

I think we have become _too_ dependent on "studies," statistics & the like... its been covered how they can be manipulated, studies are overturned years later because they didn't account for some esoteric variable... it is good enough for me to look at the situation, look at the conditions inside of a car in a collision (something I have experienced more than once) and decide to restrain my small child.









I use a car seat just like the rest of you (except that I'd never take DD out while driving, which, apparently, some of you do). I was shocked when I watched Levitt's lecture. I had always assumed that car seats were proven to be safer. It seems to me that I am the one who is open to the possibilities, and (most of) the rest of you are blindly following what you've been told.

I believe it is critically important that we question our beliefs and put them to the test. Common sense is shaped by the culture we live in, and when advertising, the mass market, and our government say something, it can begin to seem like common sense. For many years and many people, it once seemed like common sense that women were not as smart as men, and should not be given the right to vote. For many years and many people, it once seemed like common sense that the (flat) earth was the center of the universe.

So you can rely exclusively on common sense if you like. I question things.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
Riiiight, but if you lump one year olds in with the group, and seat belts are unsafe for one year olds but safe for two year olds, it will totally distort your statistics. The comparison is _not_ the same. And even Levitt said that lap and shoulder belts were statistically safer than lap belts, so I think he would expect to see a significant difference between car seats or lap and shoulder belts and lap-only belts.

The point is, a lap/shoulder belt on a 2, 3, or 4 year old IS a lap belt, since the shoulder belt is so far off correct positioning it's worthless.

ETA: And *I'm* "blindly folllowing what I'm told"?







: Honey, you have no idea how many hours I've put into researching these things. And yet you can watch 5 minutes of one economist's speech and be an expert? Five minutes on google will provide you with more than enough information, if you are interested.


----------



## ruvalokiteshvara (Jun 17, 2007)

following this discussion with a great deal of interest. it covers a lot of ground IRT child safety restraints.

i have always maintained that restraints are misused or used improperly much of the time because in general people do not understand their purpose or function. despite legislation and regulation, i think that most folks think safety restraints are intended to do one thing - keep their child in one place in the car. people don't get that the purpose of a restraint is in fact a very narrow and focused one - to provide optimal protection to your child in the (relatively unlikely) event of a collision or other motor vehicle accident. and because the restraint is a very particular tool for a very particular situation, which people don't understand, they don't use it properly.

what i would like to see, more than anything else, is some R&D money spend to create restraints that are easier to use "correctly" (or, that are more flexible in their "terms of use" to more fully protect children the way people are putting their kids in seats). and maybe a little PSA money used to really educate and inform people about what the purpose of the restraint really is.


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
The point is, a lap/shoulder belt on a 2, 3, or 4 year old IS a lap belt, since the shoulder belt is so far off correct positioning it's worthless.

ETA: And *I'm* "blindly folllowing what I'm told"?







: Honey, you have no idea how many hours I've put into researching these things. And yet you can watch 5 minutes of one economist's speech and be an expert? Five minutes on google will provide you with more than enough information, if you are interested.

Again, that is your opinion. That is not what (the only) research (that I am aware of) shows.

Please don't call me "honey." That kind of condescension has no place in a rational, reasonable discussion.

I never said you, personally, were blindly following what you were told. You obviously have done some significant research. I think you have misinterpreted some of it, and perhaps given some of it more weight than it ought to have. That is my opinion, and I understand that you feel the same way about me. I am certainly not an expert, and I have never claimed to be. But I have read every single article you have suggested and I am not persuaded. You may consider _yourself_ an expert, but if you can't provide factual support for your claims, I am not going to simply accept them. I hardly think an additional 5 minutes on Google is going to persuade me, since the 5 hours I have spent have not.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ruvalokiteshvara* 
following this discussion with a great deal of interest. it covers a lot of ground IRT child safety restraints.

i have always maintained that restraints are misused or used improperly much of the time because in general people do not understand their purpose or function. despite legislation and regulation, i think that most folks think safety restraints are intended to do one thing - keep their child in one place in the car. people don't get that the purpose of a restraint is in fact a very narrow and focused one - to provide optimal protection to your child in the (relatively unlikely) event of a collision or other motor vehicle accident. and because the restraint is a very particular tool for a very particular situation, which people don't understand, they don't use it properly.

what i would like to see, more than anything else, is some R&D money spend to create restraints that are easier to use "correctly" (or, that are more flexible in their "terms of use" to more fully protect children the way people are putting their kids in seats). and maybe a little PSA money used to really educate and inform people about what the purpose of the restraint really is.

I agree.







I think Levitt's point is primarily this: why aren't we spending some of that money that we spend on car seats on finding something even safer--especially if it will also save us money?


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
why aren't we spending some of that money that we spend on car seats on finding something even safer--especially if it will also save us money?

Yep, and until that happens then we need to use the safest thing we have on the market currently, which are car seats. FMVSS has made HUGE changes in vehicles over the past 40 years. If you read through that whole 2-part report I quoted earlier, you can see how the advances save lives. Cars aren't perfect, but manufacturers and NHTSA spend loads of money on developing and testing new safety features.

Look, you've read the numbers which show very clearly that car seats are safer. I can provide you with a thousand studies and you're just going to reply with "I don't buy it." It's really not worth my time and energy to provide you with information you're just going to reject anyway


----------



## sunnymw (Feb 28, 2007)

...and here is me jumping in uninvited again, with pictures of my 26lb 2.75yo and 22lb 11mo. in nothing but adult belts. If I do it in our Durango, the belts basically go over their heads.

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...s/100_3609.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...s/100_3612.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...s/100_3613.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...s/100_3614.jpg


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
Yep, and until that happens then we need to use the safest thing we have on the market currently, which are car seats. FMVSS has made HUGE changes in vehicles over the past 40 years. If you read through that whole 2-part report I quoted earlier, you can see how the advances save lives. Cars aren't perfect, but manufacturers and NHTSA spend loads of money on developing and testing new safety features.

Look, you've read the numbers which show very clearly that car seats are safer. I can provide you with a thousand studies and you're just going to reply with "I don't buy it." It's really not worth my time and energy to provide you with information you're just going to reject anyway









Some of the evidence indicates that car seats are safer for very young children. I don't think that there is clear or conclusive evidence. If we are talking about "buying" it, I _have_ shelled out the cash for multiple car seats. I also don't think that there is clear or conclusive evidence that lap & shoulder belts are as safe or safer. There is _some_ evidence that they are. The _only_ evidence that deals with kids two and up in lap & shoulder belts indicates that it is just as safe, if not safer. That evidence is not conclusive. It's only one piece of the puzzle, the rest of which apparently does not yet exist. The only reason I posted on this thread to begin with is because I felt, given the lack of conclusive evidence and the fact that experts disagree, that condemnation of parents who make an unpopular decision is inappropriate. I am not trying to convince anyone to switch to seat belts.

Regardless, I agree that we have reached the point in this conversation where we should agree to disagree. I do appreciate your providing me with a great deal of information, which I found truly interesting. I believe in critical analysis and I was trying to engage in it to the best of my abilities, but I am sorry that this conversation was so frustrating for you.


----------



## hookahgirl (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnymw* 
...and here is me jumping in uninvited again, with pictures of my 26lb 2.75yo and 22lb 11mo. in nothing but adult belts. If I do it in our Durango, the belts basically go over their heads.

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...s/100_3609.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...s/100_3612.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...s/100_3613.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...s/100_3614.jpg

How can anyone think those are ok?? Blows my mind! Thanks for the pictures, I knew it was horrible to put a little one in a seatbelt, but that just takes it home for me!!(My DD rode RFing for 4 years lol)
Installing and putting a kid in a carseat is probably one of the EASIEST parenting things someone could do, just do it!


----------



## OGirlieMama (Aug 6, 2006)

Question for the people who take their kids out when the kids get fussy while driving: who's driving the car? Are you telling me you drive with a fussy, crying (nursing?) infant on your lap? If so, wouldn't this increase your likelihood of getting in an accident, because of the distraction? I nearly blew through a red light this afternoon because I was distracted by my yelling 3-year-old in her carseat on the way to a doctor's appointment. I can't imagine if I'd been holding her (I know, you probably don't do that with a 3-y.o., but even a tiny baby is rather squirmy and distracting, no?) I really don't understand the mechanics here.


----------



## Amylcd (Jun 16, 2005)

Quote:

The point is, a lap/shoulder belt on a 2, 3, or 4 year old IS a lap belt, since the shoulder belt is so far off correct positioning it's worthless.
This is true. Even with a backless booster, the shoulder belt cuts across my 2 year old's forehead. (something i tried recently to see if my friend could possible be using a shoulder strap with her baby - she lets her almost two year old sit in a backless booster with just a lap belt)


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
The _only_ evidence that deals with kids two and up in lap & shoulder belts indicates that it is just as safe, if not safer.

No, the evidence shows that a lap/shoulder belt provides some more protection than nothing, but that a car seat provides more (as evidenced in the studies above, where a car seat reduces death by 54%, and a lap belt reduces death by 33%--thus, a car seat reduces death over seatbelts by 21%). That's not "just as safe, or safer".


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OGirlieMama* 
Question for the people who take their kids out when the kids get fussy while driving: who's driving the car? Are you telling me you drive with a fussy, crying (nursing?) infant on your lap? If so, wouldn't this increase your likelihood of getting in an accident, because of the distraction? I nearly blew through a red light this afternoon because I was distracted by my yelling 3-year-old in her carseat on the way to a doctor's appointment. I can't imagine if I'd been holding her (I know, you probably don't do that with a 3-y.o., but even a tiny baby is rather squirmy and distracting, no?) I really don't understand the mechanics here.

My husband has usually been the driver







Sometimes my dad, or mom, or sister. Occasionally a friend.


----------



## finn74 (Aug 24, 2008)

when i was little, my mom used to make a bed for me on the floor of the front passenger side..she swears today its the safest spot in the car in case of accident


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Golden* 
Disney is about 30 minutes away from Orlando airport...down a major highway.

I'm not at all trying to defend their decision, but the trip from JFK into Manhattan seemed like 20/30 mins, involved a freeway, and we had no carseat. Was I comfortable with this decision? No. Would I preferred to have had a carseat? Yes. But it's the decision we made at the time, and it was in no way because we have little regard of our child's safety.

My dad is a huge safety freak. Like, it's his mission in life that no child will ever get hurt on his watch. But more than once he tried to convince me that I didn't need a carseat for the kids. It just wasn't on his radar as important. He believed in driving safe cars and being a good driver. That wasn't enough for me, but his regard for their safety was just as high as mine.

Edit to add: I guess what I'm saying is that even though I agree with using carseats (and I never took my kids out, we always pulled over) it would be nice to see titles of posts like this saying something like "Oh, I'm so worried that this child could get hurt" rather than "how could they have so little regard for her safety."


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
No, the evidence shows that a lap/shoulder belt provides some more protection than nothing, but that a car seat provides more (as evidenced in the studies above, where a car seat reduces death by 54%, and a lap belt reduces death by 33%--thus, a car seat reduces death over seatbelts by 21%). That's not "just as safe, or safer".

That's the most damning evidence (the other studies you provided found only a 5-11% difference), and it is about kids one and up in a lap-only belt. I know your contention is that it is physically impossible to use a lap and shoulder belt with a small child, but I have yet to see actual evidence of that. And as I wrote earlier, the fact that they lumped one year olds in with the kids two & up makes these results inapplicable to the two & up crowd. So this piece of evidence exists, but it is _not_ evidence about kids two and up riding in lap & shoulder belts.

(Oh, and in case anyone cares, I'm not at all sure that one should obtain the difference between percentages by simple subtraction. I'm doing it that way only because I don't know any better.)


----------



## sunnymw (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *finn74* 
when i was little, my mom used to make a bed for me on the floor of the front passenger side..she swears today its the safest spot in the car in case of accident









Ironically, in an accident, this is the most dangerous place to be. I believe the most common major injury in accidents is front passenger side leg injuries? Because it all crumples? Someone else here have that stat--I don't remember where I heard it.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
I know your contention is that it is physically impossible to use a lap and shoulder belt with a small child, but I have yet to see actual evidence of that.

I'll take a picture of my 2 and 4 year olds in seatbelts and you can judge how well they fit in them









Also, I just wanted to repost this quote that I had posted earlier:

Quote:

Finally, a recent analysis of children 2 through 5 in crashes indicates that those in seatbelts are 3.5 times more likely to suffer moderate to severe injuries, particularly to the head, than those in child restraint systems
That seems pretty damning, it excludes one year olds, and it's talking about a lap/shoulder belt


----------



## Cinder (Feb 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
Some of the evidence indicates that car seats are safer for very young children. I don't think that there is clear or conclusive evidence. If we are talking about "buying" it, I _have_ shelled out the cash for multiple car seats. I also don't think that there is clear or conclusive evidence that lap & shoulder belts are as safe or safer. There is _some_ evidence that they are. The _only_ evidence that deals with kids two and up in lap & shoulder belts indicates that it is just as safe, if not safer. That evidence is not conclusive. It's only one piece of the puzzle, the rest of which apparently does not yet exist. The only reason I posted on this thread to begin with is because I felt, given the lack of conclusive evidence and the fact that *experts disagree*, that condemnation of parents who make an unpopular decision is inappropriate. I am not trying to convince anyone to switch to seat belts.

Regardless, I agree that we have reached the point in this conversation where we should agree to disagree. I do appreciate your providing me with a great deal of information, which I found truly interesting. I believe in critical analysis and I was trying to engage in it to the best of my abilities, but I am sorry that this conversation was so frustrating for you.

I'm still confused on why were are considering an economist an expert on child seats...


----------



## katiesk (Nov 6, 2007)

Quote:

I guess what I'm saying is that even though I agree with using carseats (and I never took my kids out, we always pulled over) it would be nice to see titles of posts like this saying something like "Oh, I'm so worried that this child could get hurt" rather than "how could they have so little regard for her safety."
i agree with this.


----------



## JD5351 (Sep 13, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *finn74* 
when i was little, my mom used to make a bed for me on the floor of the front passenger side..she swears today its the safest spot in the car in case of accident









Yikes...I'm not sure about the passenger side, but I got in a car accident a few years back, and my foot, ankle and leg got broken when I got hit head on. The passenger side didn't look much better.

I think I'd feel safer in the trunk..lol


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
I'll take a picture of my 2 and 4 year olds in seatbelts and you can judge how well they fit in them









Also, I just wanted to repost this quote that I had posted earlier:

That seems pretty damning, it excludes one year olds, and it's talking about a lap/shoulder belt









I put my 3-year-old in a seat belt yesterday and I honestly did not see a significant difference between how she fit and how I fit. The shoulder belt was not uncomfortable for her. I suspect it may be different for different cars, but _seemed_ fine. Not that I think the way something _seems_ is the best way to judge its safety.

Yes, that study does exist. And I think it is valuable information. The reason I excluded it is because I could not determine whether it was talking about lap & shoulder belts or just lap belts. If I missed the place in the study where it actually says lap & shoulder belts, then that is my mistake. Even if it was just about lap & shoulder belts, there would merely be two competing studies. Regardless, it is not _conclusive_ evidence.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cinder* 
I'm still confused on why were are considering an economist an expert on child seats...

Oh, well, I consider him an expert in statistics, which is the nature of his study. If he had done a study where he looked at children and judged their injuries and compared them to other injuries, I would certainly not consider him to be an expert. But I think economists are, by and large, better trained at statistical analysis than most doctors are. And given that his study is nothing but a statistical analysis of data points others have collected, I do consider him to be an expert. I hope that clears it up.


----------



## Amylcd (Jun 16, 2005)

Quote:

I put my 3-year-old in a seat belt yesterday and I honestly did not see a significant difference between how she fit and how I fit.
Your three year old must be tall. My 7 year old is just now fitting correctly (with a backless booster), and she is the size of an average 9 - 10 year old.


----------



## TheGirls (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
Oh, well, I consider him an expert in statistics, which is the nature of his study. If he had done a study where he looked at children and judged their injuries and compared them to other injuries, I would certainly not consider him to be an expert. But I think economists are, by and large, better trained at statistical analysis than most doctors are. And given that his study is nothing but a statistical analysis of data points others have collected, I do consider him to be an expert. I hope that clears it up.

Why is your point of comparison doctors? No one on here is trying to use doctors as experts. "better than a doctor" still doesn't make one an expert....

It's great that you're questioning the rigour of these studies, but it does seem as though you're questioning all the details of the analysis done by the NHTSA, while giving the very poorly done study done by this economist you saw on youtube a pass.

As for his crash tests, we have no inkling of how he did them, so you're just taking him at his word that the conclusion should be that seatbelts are just as safe as child seats. Also, for something like crash tests, the results need to be reproduced by an independent source before they "count". It's called reproduceability, and it is absolutely critical for a scientific test. A non-reproduceable test or study is hearsay.

Also, while I agree that "common sense" changes, physics does not. Physics tells me that more surface area restraining a child is better. Until someone comes out with a quality study that indicates otherwise (and the results of that study are reproduced a second time by an independent source).


----------



## Cinder (Feb 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
I put my 3-year-old in a seat belt yesterday and I honestly did not see a significant difference between how she fit and how I fit. The shoulder belt was not uncomfortable for her. I suspect it may be different for different cars, but _seemed_ fine. Not that I think the way something _seems_ is the best way to judge its safety.

Yes, that study does exist. And I think it is valuable information. The reason I excluded it is because I could not determine whether it was talking about lap & shoulder belts or just lap belts. If I missed the place in the study where it actually says lap & shoulder belts, then that is my mistake. Even if it was just about lap & shoulder belts, there would merely be two competing studies. Regardless, it is not _conclusive_ evidence.

Oh, well, I consider him an expert in statistics, which is the nature of his study. If he had done a study where he looked at children and judged their injuries and compared them to other injuries, I would certainly not consider him to be an expert. But I think economists are, by and large, better trained at statistical analysis than most doctors are. And given that his study is nothing but a statistical analysis of data points others have collected, I do consider him to be an expert. I hope that clears it up.

Ohh well, I don't think doctor's should be considered experts on child seats either! But I would trust a CPST over both a doctor and an economist.


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TheGirls* 
Why is your point of comparison doctors? No one on here is trying to use doctors as experts. "better than a doctor" still doesn't make one an expert....

Point taken.







But I will also note that economists are routinely considered experts on safety issues. It's uncomfortable to think about, but every day, in almost all of our activities (electrical safety, food safety, building safety, traffic safety, medical safety, etc., etc.), we make judgments (or our government makes judgments for us) about how much risk is acceptable to save/earn a certain amount of money. One of the jobs of economists is to figure out how much money we spend on relative amounts of safety. I definitely do not think this study is outside of the general expertise of an economist.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TheGirls* 
It's great that you're questioning the rigour of these studies, but it does seem as though you're questioning all the details of the analysis done by the NHTSA, while giving the very poorly done study done by this economist you saw on youtube a pass.

I will admit that have been feeling fairly defensive since I first posted that I thought his speech was fairly convincing (and it was the only research I had ever heard/read about on the subject), and I felt that I was totally attacked. Perhaps that is why I seem biased. But I really have been trying to be fair. I feel that I am arguing on the side of Levitt's study being possibly correct, and at least something to consider, and a valid differing opinion, and I have felt that others have been arguing that I should utterly disregard everything he says, and that I am crazy/ignorant/ridiculous for even thinking about it.

Perhaps I haven't been too clear, and I admit that I entered into this discussion with some naivete about how my initial post would be received, but I thought Levitt was saying was that there is no conclusive evidence that car seats are better than lap & shoulder belts for the 2 & up crowd. So, since that's a negative statement, I feel the burden of proof should be on those saying that there IS conclusive evidence.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TheGirls* 
As for his crash tests, we have no inkling of how he did them, so you're just taking him at his word that the conclusion should be that seatbelts are just as safe as child seats. Also, for something like crash tests, the results need to be reproduced by an independent source before they "count". It's called reproduceability, and it is absolutely critical for a scientific test. A non-reproduceable test or study is hearsay.

No, hearsay is me telling you what someone else told me the study says without you going to the source to find out for yourself. And just because it hasn't been reproduced does not mean that it is non-reproducible. I would love to see an attempt to reproduce it, and if the attempt failed I would certainly consider that to be important evidence. It is my understanding--and I don't have personal knowledge of it, so I can't be certain--that he offered to release all of his data to other researchers. I don't know whether that has been done or not or whether anyone has even asked for it. I have not seen where anyone has made an attempt to reproduce his crash tests.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TheGirls* 
Also, while I agree that "common sense" changes, physics does not. Physics tells me that more surface area restraining a child is better. Until someone comes out with a quality study that indicates otherwise (and the results of that study are reproduced a second time by an independent source).

I don't know. I guess it depends on the part of the body the surface area is on. I wouldn't imagine a restraint that covered the abdominal area only, even if it covered more surface area, would be better. I also wonder how much of the surface area of the straps is actually intended to be part of the restraint mechanism. I gather that the part that goes across the abdomen is not intended to be part of the restraint (because my understanding is that when it does function as part of the restraint it can cause very serious injuries).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cinder* 
Ohh well, I don't think doctor's should be considered experts on child seats either! But I would trust a CPST over both a doctor and an economist.









I would trust a CPST to know and explain the talking points that they were taught. I wouldn't trust a CPST to perform or analyze scientific research on the relative safety of restraints. That's just not in their purview.


----------



## Dacoda (Jun 9, 2009)

...and as far as I know, you will get a ticket, no matter how far you are going if you don't have a child restraint system in your car. Even if you are just renting it.


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
I also wonder how much of the surface area of the straps is actually intended to be part of the restraint mechanism. I gather that the part that goes across the abdomen is not intended to be part of the restraint (because my understanding is that when it does function as part of the restraint it can cause very serious injuries).

No substantial part of the harness should be on the child's abdomen. If it is, the carseat does not fit properly (and it's why 3yos should not ride in adult seatbelts!). The lap belts should be low on the hips and thighs.


----------



## TheGirls (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
I don't know. I guess it depends on the part of the body the surface area is on. I wouldn't imagine a restraint that covered the abdominal area only, even if it covered more surface area, would be better. I also wonder how much of the surface area of the straps is actually intended to be part of the restraint mechanism. I gather that the part that goes across the abdomen is not intended to be part of the restraint (because my understanding is that when it does function as part of the restraint it can cause very serious injuries).

My point, exactly. A lap belt goes directly across the belly on a person who does not have adult hip structure. A shoulder belt would go directly across the neck on most children. A harness goes across the shoulders, chest, and hips (ie the strong bits....) distributing the forces...


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Fwiw, I remember riding in the seatbelt at about 5 and putting the shoulder part behind my back because it was so uncomfortable digging into my neck. I also remember it bothering my stomach (I was very sensitive and still am to things that press on my stomach). I was slightly short for my age and skinny, but I don't see how on earth a child, say under 4 to be conservative, could possibly fit properly in a seatbelt. And even then I doubt it.


----------



## MacKinnon (Jun 15, 2004)

I have thought and thought about this thread, about the turn this discussion has taken... There are two separate issues, one, the idea that car/booster seats do not provide a level of safety that is any better than a seat belt after age 2, and that it is reasonable to occasionally unbuckle your child in a moving vehicle.

no5-- you have been given many, many links to statistics that prove our point, that car seats and boosters ARE safer than a seat belt alone. If you truly continue to doubt this, I would strongly encourage you to contact a crash test facility near you. Granted, I live in Michigan, where cars (use) to run our economy. I live within 35 miles of two major crash test facilities. Call your local Safe Kids group, see if they or someone, could get you into see a crash test and talk to a bio-med engineer. I can promise you, that 15 minutes of conversation with a bio-med, working in a crash test facility, would explain to you what we are clearly failing to explain. YOU might be interested in this debate, and able to sustain this as a theoretical debate while still restraining your child within the purvue of the law. HOWEVER, what frightens me is how many lurkers are thinking, "Oh, well then, I KNEW those boosters were crap, now I'm not going to bother." We have fought for years to get boosters legislated, and now they are in 45 states, and people like Levitt undermine the message, in a way that is not theoretical. It's dangerous, and it costs children their lives.

Secondly, this idea that unbuckling, for a while, is OK because it does not constitute "immediate and certain death" angers me incredibly. It IS this attitude that is responsible for the roughly 50% of children that die unrestrained in crashes every year. How many of those parents thought, just this once it would be OK? Just this ride it would be fine? Nothing is likely to happen withing the neighborhood, on the way to the store, etc. You do not have the luxury of knowing that this time it will be OK. This could be the time it's not. It appears you are prepared to take that risk, for your child's sake, I hope that you are that fortunate. Many, many others, are not.

And to both of you, 16 years ago this July my sister nearly died in a crash on a beautiful sunny day, on a short drive to our Grandma's house. A drive my mom had done a thousand times, rarely saw traffic, and certainly never saw a crash. Rural, but paved, roads. She was 7, and not in a booster. My mom swerved to avoid a car in her lane as she crested a blind hill and hit a tree. My sister had a cerebral hematoma, a skull fracture, and emergency brain surgery. Had she been in the back seat, in a booster, she most likely would have walked away. But she nearly died. And if you think my mom doesn't question that decision, to let her be in the front, in a belt only, on a regular basis, you are wrong. Her choice nearly cost my sister her life. My sister lives her life wondering how her traumatic brain injury has effect her memory, her school performance, her LIFE. My mom is having yet another surgery this fall, a hip replacement at 54, 16 years later, because of damage related to her injuries (over 40 broken bones).

This is NOT a theoretical debate. If your life hasn't been touched by the serious injury or death of a child in a car crash, or by a crash that could have been fatal, you are very, very lucky. If your life has been touched, then you realize that this is life or death. For real. It's not about economics, or being 10 minutes late because you had to stop to nurse the baby. It's not about scare tactics or a false fear, it is reality. Car crashes are the leading cause of death for everyone ages 1 to 44 in the US. Depending on the year, 3 to 6 children die EVERY DAY in cars, and typically, around half of those are totally unrestrained.

This isn't about choosing organic vs. traditional, or co-sleeping vs. crib, breast vs. bottle. There is real, honest data, born out tragically year after year, that this is THE major life and death issue facing our children, every single day. I just wish parents and caregivers could realize this BEFORE it is their tragedy.


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovemyavery* 
no5-- you have been given many, many links to statistics that prove our point, that car seats and boosters ARE safer than a seat belt alone.









: Look, perhaps you think that the only or the best way to prove a point is to say over and over that there is a ton of evidence that clearly shows that you are right. But when the evidence you provide either is off-point for one reason or another, or hasn't been reproduced, or there are significant flaws in the methodology, and someone calls you on it, I think it is inappropriate to just keep saying that there is a ton of evidence that clearly shows that you are right. I am never going to be convinced by mere assertions, no matter how forcefully they are made. If you want to talk about the specific statistics in the specific studies and why you think they prove your point, fine. We can do that--it is what I have been trying to do all along--even though I am honestly getting tired of saying the same things over and over. If you aren't interested in discussing the studies, fine. Just say you think there is conclusive evidence, but you recognize that I don't, and we can end this conversation. But why you would just repeatedly insist that you are right and have proved it without bothering to explain why or even consider my viewpoint, is totally beyond me. I just don't understand it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovemyavery* 
If you truly continue to doubt this, I would strongly encourage you to contact a crash test facility near you. Granted, I live in Michigan, where cars (use) to run our economy. I live within 35 miles of two major crash test facilities. Call your local Safe Kids group, see if they or someone, could get you into see a crash test and talk to a bio-med engineer. I can promise you, that 15 minutes of conversation with a bio-med, working in a crash test facility, would explain to you what we are clearly failing to explain.

That's an interesting idea.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovemyavery* 
YOU might be interested in this debate, and able to sustain this as a theoretical debate while still restraining your child within the purvue of the law. HOWEVER, what frightens me is how many lurkers are thinking, "Oh, well then, I KNEW those boosters were crap, now I'm not going to bother." We have fought for years to get boosters legislated, and now they are in 45 states, and people like Levitt undermine the message, in a way that is not theoretical. It's dangerous, and it costs children their lives.

Ideas are dangerous, that is true. But I daresay I have not persuaded a single person to stop using child seats or boosters. And, for what it's worth, I think your point--which apparently is that if you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a change is both necessary and safe, that you should never mention the possibility of a change--is shockingly dogmatic and authoritarian. Heck, if we can't trust people (who were heretofore following the law) to stop following the law because they read a few posts on an internet forum indicating that _perhaps_ the foundations for the law are not well-supported, maybe we shouldn't let them make any of their own decisions at all.


----------



## MacKinnon (Jun 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
Just say you think there is conclusive evidence, but you recognize that I don't, and we can end this conversation.

Ok- I feel that we have presented you with conclusive evidence. And I'm struggling to see your perspective but I recognize you disagree. I don't feel that I am just "asserting" anything, we have provided you with many links, to many other data sources.

Quote:

And, for what it's worth, I think your point--which apparently is that if you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a change is both necessary and safe, that you should never mention the possibility of a change--is shockingly dogmatic and authoritarian. Heck, if we can't trust people (who were heretofore following the law) to stop following the law because they read a few posts on an internet forum indicating that _perhaps_ the foundations for the law are not well-supported, maybe we shouldn't let them make any of their own decisions at all.








My point is most certainly NOT that you shouldn't mention change. I posted the link about how Levitt himself feels that we should be looking at change to the system and is not trying to argue for parents to stop using restraints.

Look, for you, this is a theoretical argument online. For me, this is my job, this is my every day life. I try to convince parents that what they have heard from places like this is not correct because of X, Y and Z. Levitt and his points are just not born out in the crash data, data analysis and many studies conducted by many other organizations including NHTSA. Their pediatricians aren' t up on the current recommendations, their MIL's advice is wrong and out of date.

I am an educator, it is my JOB to try to teach people about things that they are under or mis-informed on. So yes, I am passionate about this. And no, I don't really think parents should make un-informed decisions that could effect their child's lives, that violate the law in 45 states, because an ECONOMIST has interpreted statistics differently than the rest of the child passenger safety, bio-med engineering, crash test studying world. I'm leaving work in a few to go to a crash lab, I WILL ask about their interpretations of the Levitt's "data" and if you PM me, I can put you in touch with a bio-med engineer, who is a certified CPST Instructor, who could possibly provide you with the kind of technical information that you are looking for.

However, I feel that the burden of proof is really not on us, although we have tried to convince you, the burden of proof is on Levitt's side, because his data is the clear anomaly.


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

I am bowing out of this conversation, because it seems clear to me that I am no longer getting anything out of it and neither is anyone else. I disagree with many of the points you made, but I have already made all my points and I don't want to make them again. Before I go, I do want to respond to this:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovemyavery* 
Look, for you, this is a theoretical argument online. For me, this is my job, this is my every day life.

One of the reasons I like the idea of moving away from car seats is because of how often they are misused and how dangerous they can be if they are misused. So I want to thank you for helping parents to use car seats correctly and for helping them to see how important it is to use them consistently. I understand that. And I understand how incredibly frustrating it must be when someone blunders into your neck of the woods and starts spouting ideas that seem to conflict with what you teach. It has never been my intention to interfere with the work of the car seat safety folks. I would not drive with my 3-year-old DD in just a seat belt and I would not condone others doing so. (I just wouldn't condemn them for it either.)


----------



## MacKinnon (Jun 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
One of the reasons I like the idea of moving away from car seats is because of how often they are misused and how dangerous they can be if they are misused. So I want to thank you for helping parents to use car seats correctly and for helping them to see how important it is to use them consistently. I understand that. And I understand how incredibly frustrating it must be when someone blunders into your neck of the woods and starts spouting ideas that seem to conflict with what you teach. It has never been my intention to interfere with the work of the car seat safety folks. I would not drive with my 3-year-old DD in just a seat belt and I would not condone others doing so. (I just wouldn't condemn them for it either.)

I want to thank you for this statement. I didn't mean to be impatient or confrontational, and IRL, I have had this debate with many people. I usually enjoy a good debate, especially one when I can back my point. I talked with the folks at the crash lab today, they were talking about variables, and indicators, and how Levitt mis-interpreted the blah-blah-blah. It went above me, but essentially, he was using an economics intepretation of bio-med data, and not reading the supposedly small variables correctly. I really can't site it all back, I'm not an bio-med!

I'm sensitive on this this week, one of my volunteer CPST's and all around fabulous police officers is in critical condition in ICU, due to a car crash. I just opened the door to a car at a car seat check to find an 18 month old sitting on the floor in the back. I'm just getting jaded, I guess. Sometimes it feels like too big of a battle to fight.

Anyway, thank you for your appreciation and recognition of my perspective. I can see your desire to have a clear understanding of the facts at hand, and I do agree that with a consistent 80 to 90% misuse rate, something needs to be made easier.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

That study that I quoted twice DID specifically state it was about lap/shoulder belts, which is why I mentioned that specifically when you said you couldnt find any info about l/s belts.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
One of the reasons I like the idea of moving away from car seats is because of how often they are misused and how dangerous they can be if they are misused.

*Again, the 54% safer statistic is real-use data, not perfect use.* It takes into consideration the 70%+ misuse rate, and determines that even given misuse a car seat is still safer.


----------



## no5no5 (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *an_aurora* 
That study that I quoted twice DID specifically state it was about lap/shoulder belts, which is why I mentioned that specifically when you said you couldnt find any info about l/s belts.

Okay, I know I said I was done with this thread, but I decided to go back and check to see if I missed something. I hate it when I miss things, but I feel compelled to check and to admit it when I am wrong. I was not able to access the full text of the study you quoted without paying a hefty fee and the abstract doesn't indicate that it is only about lap & shoulder belts, but I did find another study (one I think you'd like) discussing your quoted study and specifically saying that it did not distinguish between lap belts and lap & shoulder belts.

Anyway, in trying to find a way to access the full text of the above study, I stumbled across a new study undertaken by two public-safety-expert, non-economist types. They wrote:

Quote:

We estimated seat belts to be as effective as safety seats in preventing death for children aged 2 and 3 years.
Of course, they found that child safety seats were more effective for children younger than 2, and they recommend the use of car seats. So it sounds like Levitt's study did have some reproducibility after all, eh?







(But I am not sure that they separated lap & shoulder belts from lap belts.







)

But really, I'm done with this thread. I've been losing sleep just thinking about all these kids in car crashes. I don't know how y'all do it.


----------



## Mandynee22 (Nov 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kim Allen* 
I know of a CPS worker (which her MIL is also the head of the CPS office) who does not strap her kid in the seat. I see her almost everyday driving through town ( she always is exceeding the speed limit) and does not think twice about it.







thats lets you know how cps is around here also. She also would drop him off at daycare (which my mother worked at) at 10:00am and he had not had a diaper change since the night before and was always filthy!!! but thats another story!


A friend of mine did foster care up until a few months ago. She went to pick up a 2 1/2 year old boy. The social worker installed a booster seat into the car for the toddler using the seat belt and top tether... it was so loose I literally picked up the seat and moved it and she had the top tether just wrapped around the back seat headrest. The car was a a 2008 so it had anchors and tether and the social worker has a toddler of her own. There was NO EXCUSE for that, IMO. I reinstalled the seat


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
But really, I'm done with this thread. I've been losing sleep just thinking about all these kids in car crashes. I don't know how y'all do it.

I am not trying to rehash the debate, but I do it because I believe (and IMO for good reason) that properly used car crashes DO save kids' lives, and if I can help teach people to use car seats properly, and in some cases help them obtain the seats, it's worth it.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

What gets me is he is comparing FF videos, whereas my kid was rear facing at that age. I can guarantee you that the videos would be quite different if the kid in a car seat was rf. I wish car seat manufacturers would make extended rf seats available that you can get in europe.


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
Anyway, in trying to find a way to access the full text of the above study, I stumbled across a new study undertaken by two public-safety-expert, non-economist types. They wrote:

That study uses data going back to 1996. Carseats have come a LONG way in 13 years.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *no5no5* 
O
Anyway, in trying to find a way to access the full text of the above study, I stumbled across a new study undertaken by two public-safety-expert, non-economist types. They wrote:

Actually, I just used this study for a critique project in my english class.







They did state that they did not find any significant difference, but they also go on to state that they didn't take into account ejected children, and in their conclusion recommend that children remain in harnessed seats until 4 years and 40 pounds.


----------



## Love_My_Bubba (Jul 4, 2006)

Just a follow-up:

The photos were just posted on Facebook and there are about 15 pictures of the 3yo nestled safe and sound in the car, wait for it, in her 16yo sister's lap in the front seat









I'm not trying to revive this spirited thread (which, seriously, I LOVED) but I thought I should follow up since people invested so much time, effort, passion and research to this topic.

I'm actually really kind of proud, it's the first time I've started a thread that had such a longrunning and meaningful conversation. Thans mommas!!


----------



## 1littlebit (Jun 1, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chickabiddy* 
I am not trying to rehash the debate, but I do it because I believe (and IMO for good reason) that properly used car crashes DO save kids' lives, and if I can help teach people to use car seats properly, and in some cases help them obtain the seats, it's worth it.

this debate was crazy... and very informative... and i thought it ended on a fascinating note









and fwiw i am related to a whole pack of economists and every single one of them will tell you that statistics are great theoretically. and that economists are numbers people.. but numbers only take you so far when you take in to account unpredictability. if it were even .5% safer to put a kid in a carseat that is where they belong. seatbelts were not made with children in mind. neither were the seats in cars for that matter. they were made to support and adult frame. i think most would agree that it is not a risk worth taking.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Another interesting article.... Not sure if the link will work since I had to logon to access the article, but the citation is at the bottom of the quote:

Quote:

In 2005, a widely-cited report found that lap-shoulder safety belts were as protective as child safety seats for 2-6 year olds, and were far less expensive. The report challenged what many experts had found, and now researchers have challenged the findings of that report.

The authors used U.S. data on a national sample of crashes that were severe enough to require that at least one vehicle had to be towed away. If a toddler, aged 2-3 years, was involved in the crash and sitting in the rear seat, the authors studied whether they were injured and whether they had been restrained by a lap-shoulder bell or in a child safety seat. They found that the chances of injury were about 20% less if the toddler was in a safety seat, leading them to conclude that "laws requiring that children younger than 4 years travel in child safety seats have a sound basis and should remain in force." (Zaloshnja E et al: Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, January, 2007, pp. 65-68)


----------



## earthgirl (Feb 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Love_My_Bubba* 
Just a follow-up:

The photos were just posted on Facebook and there are about 15 pictures of the 3yo nestled safe and sound in the car, wait for it, in her 16yo sister's lap in the front seat









I'm not trying to revive this spirited thread (which, seriously, I LOVED) but I thought I should follow up since people invested so much time, effort, passion and research to this topic.

I'm actually really kind of proud, it's the first time I've started a thread that had such a longrunning and meaningful conversation. Thans mommas!!









That's just sad. I'm glad nothing happened, but the fact that nothing happened will probably make it that much easier for them to do something like it again in the future. Hopefully, their luck will not run out.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *1littlebit* 
this debate was crazy... and very informative... and i thought it ended on a fascinating note









and fwiw i am related to a whole pack of economists and every single one of them will tell you that statistics are great theoretically. and that economists are numbers people.. but numbers only take you so far when you take in to account unpredictability. if it were even .5% safer to put a kid in a carseat that is where they belong. seatbelts were not made with children in mind. neither were the seats in cars for that matter. they were made to support and adult frame. i think most would agree that it is not a risk worth taking.

And really, most seats/belts were made for large male frames.







Smaller adults still don't fit all that well in most cars. Fortunately many newer have adjustable seatbelts in the front, which helps.


----------



## 1littlebit (Jun 1, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
And really, most seats/belts were made for large male frames.







Smaller adults still don't fit all that well in most cars. Fortunately many newer have adjustable seatbelts in the front, which helps.

Yeah my 5ft 2in self is still to short to sit normally and comfortably in the car.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm going to lock this thread, due to the new Family Safety Forum guidelines. They state, in part:

Quote:

We ask that threads focus on safety information gathering, education, advocacy and sharing of personal experience rather than critiques of individuals or venting about others. Insulting, belittling or condemning others is neither productive nor appropriate. While we understand that it can be difficult to watch others make choices that are not in line with your own, the focus of this forum is on "safety." We ask that discussion focus on facts and information rather than venting about others who make different decisions for their families.
This thread started out as a vent thread, but then did go on to be more about facts, education, and advocacy. If anyone wants to keep up THAT part of the discussion, you are most welcome to post a new thread, with that as the goal.

Thanks!
Becky


----------

