Child seat safe for a toddler?
07-12-2007, 12:18 PM
#17
Advanced
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Savannah
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TD in DC
Getting on Soapbox as an engineer . . .
THAT IS INSANE
The seatbelts do not go in the right position across the body of a child. As such, the primary function of a childseat, or a booster seat, is to ensure that the child is strapped to the car in a manner that distributes the load across the child in as optimal location as possible. No child seat or booster seat? The belt could choke the child as it slid across the neck, or the upper body of the child could simply slip out altogether.
Children and booster seats are no different than seatbelts. They are merely devices that are designed to ensure that the seatbelts, which were designed for larger bodies, can be adapted for use to a child's body.
So the choice really is: seatbelts or no seatbelts. The ONLY smart choice is seatbelts. If you are going to use seatbelts for children, again, the ONLY smart choice is to use a proper child's seat or booster seat. THAT is the choice.
If Freakonomics is saying that, it just shows that either the authors do not understand the relevant engineering or the people who compiled the data did not. Ask the wrong questions, and you will get useless data. Useless data will lead to bad decisions.
Off Soapbox.
Ranger, I take it you have fraternal twins? My daughter is 4 and my identical twin boys are 3. Sounds like we have fairly similar situations.
THAT IS INSANE
The seatbelts do not go in the right position across the body of a child. As such, the primary function of a childseat, or a booster seat, is to ensure that the child is strapped to the car in a manner that distributes the load across the child in as optimal location as possible. No child seat or booster seat? The belt could choke the child as it slid across the neck, or the upper body of the child could simply slip out altogether.
Children and booster seats are no different than seatbelts. They are merely devices that are designed to ensure that the seatbelts, which were designed for larger bodies, can be adapted for use to a child's body.
So the choice really is: seatbelts or no seatbelts. The ONLY smart choice is seatbelts. If you are going to use seatbelts for children, again, the ONLY smart choice is to use a proper child's seat or booster seat. THAT is the choice.
If Freakonomics is saying that, it just shows that either the authors do not understand the relevant engineering or the people who compiled the data did not. Ask the wrong questions, and you will get useless data. Useless data will lead to bad decisions.
Off Soapbox.
Ranger, I take it you have fraternal twins? My daughter is 4 and my identical twin boys are 3. Sounds like we have fairly similar situations.
Easy there TD. I too am an engineer.
Re. Seatbelts going across the right part of a kid, and "no childseat or booster seat". Read my post again. The smallest kid is in a childseat. The other two are in booster seats. I agree that the seat belt needs to be properly positioned.
Re. Freakonomics. The authors are economists, not engineers. Their bailiwick is statistical analysis, not physics. In the chapter on kid safety, they looked at test data and accident data. It was arguably the first non-biased look at car seats and airbags, and child injury data. I would diplomatically suggest that criticism be withheld until the book has been read.
Look more closely at what I wrote. I said that no data suggested that car seats were more safe then seatbelts. That is not the same as asserting that car seats are as safe as seatbelts. An absence of data can't prove anything. The problem with car seat studies (and airbag studies) is that they compare car seats to kids & infants that were "unsecured", as opposed to comparing car seats to kids that were secured (in one of various ways) by seatbelts.
The outcome of these studies has been, unsurprisingly, that car seats are significantly better. But what about car seats vs. a kid in the back seat wearing only a lap belt? What about car seats vs. a kid in the back seat wearing a shoulder belt that has a device that holds it properly across his chest? These studies have not been done. But the economists were able to analyze what accident data was available, and they found that the data did not support a conclusion that car seats were safer then seat belts. But that is not the same as a study designed to compare two specific scenarios.
Therefore my assertion, that there is no data that says that car seats are safer then seat belts, is reasonable.
Re. "seatbelts or no seatbelts". That confused me. I'm not advocating a lack of restraint, nor an absence of booster seat.
07-12-2007, 12:24 PM
#18
Three Wheelin'
It seems logical that the ONLY reason a booster seat is needed is to ensure that the shoulder restraint rests properly on the occupant. There does not seem to be any safety mechanisms on a booster seat. It is what it is....a BOOSTER seat to boost the height of the occupant so the belt rests properly. Of course this can be accomplished mainly by the belt loop on the side of the seat. When they are older, the the booster isn't needed as the natural height will fit the kids properly without the need for assistance......right???
J
J
07-12-2007, 12:26 PM
#19
Originally Posted by Ranger
Easy there TD. I too am an engineer.
Re. Seatbelts going across the right part of a kid, and "no childseat or booster seat". Read my post again. The smallest kid is in a childseat. The other two are in booster seats. I agree that the seat belt needs to be properly positioned.
Re. Freakonomics. The authors are economists, not engineers. Their bailiwick is statistical analysis, not physics. They looked at test data and accident data. It was arguably the first non-biased look at car seats and airbags, and child injury data. I would diplomatically suggest that criticism be withheld until the book has been read.
Look more closely at what I wrote. I said that no data suggested that car seats were more safe then seatbelts. That is not the same as asserting that car seats as safe as seatbelts. The problem with car seat studies (and airbag studies) is that they compare car seats to kids & infants that were "unsecured", as opposed to comparing car seats to kids that were secured (in one of various ways) by seatbelts.
The outcome of these studies has been, unsurprisingly, that car seats are significantly better. But what about car seats vs. a kid in the back seat wearing only a lap belt? What about car seats vs. a kid in the back seat wearing a shoulder belt that has a device that holds it properly across his chest? These studies have not been done. But the economists were able to analyze what accident data was available, and they found that the data did not support a conclusion that car seats were safer then seat belts. But that is not the same as a study designed to compare two specific scenarios.
Therefore my assertion, that there is no data that says that car seats are safer then seat belts, is reasonable.
Re. "seatbelts or no seatbelts". That confused me. I'm not advocating a lack of restraint, nor an absence of booster seat.
Re. Seatbelts going across the right part of a kid, and "no childseat or booster seat". Read my post again. The smallest kid is in a childseat. The other two are in booster seats. I agree that the seat belt needs to be properly positioned.
Re. Freakonomics. The authors are economists, not engineers. Their bailiwick is statistical analysis, not physics. They looked at test data and accident data. It was arguably the first non-biased look at car seats and airbags, and child injury data. I would diplomatically suggest that criticism be withheld until the book has been read.
Look more closely at what I wrote. I said that no data suggested that car seats were more safe then seatbelts. That is not the same as asserting that car seats as safe as seatbelts. The problem with car seat studies (and airbag studies) is that they compare car seats to kids & infants that were "unsecured", as opposed to comparing car seats to kids that were secured (in one of various ways) by seatbelts.
The outcome of these studies has been, unsurprisingly, that car seats are significantly better. But what about car seats vs. a kid in the back seat wearing only a lap belt? What about car seats vs. a kid in the back seat wearing a shoulder belt that has a device that holds it properly across his chest? These studies have not been done. But the economists were able to analyze what accident data was available, and they found that the data did not support a conclusion that car seats were safer then seat belts. But that is not the same as a study designed to compare two specific scenarios.
Therefore my assertion, that there is no data that says that car seats are safer then seat belts, is reasonable.
Re. "seatbelts or no seatbelts". That confused me. I'm not advocating a lack of restraint, nor an absence of booster seat.
But the lack of data does not suggest that your assertion, even if true, is relevant in any way with respect to whether you use a booster and/or car seat.
You can place a kid in the back seat, strap the seatbelt around them, and see that it is not properly positioned. Specifically, visual inspection easily verifies that, at least with smaller children, seatbelts alone will never be as safe as seatbelts with a properly sized and installed booster and/or childseat. Moreover, unless it can be shown that a booster or childseat could increase the danger to the child (might be possible, but I don't see it), you literally have NOTHING to lose by using a booster or car seat.
My comments regarding seatbelt vs. no seatbelt were based on the following logic: booster or childseat is part of the seatbelt mechanism. It is an adaptor designed to ensure that the seatbelt is properly placed across the child. It is not really a separate system at all and, (and I feel very confident in this assertion) you have no business using mere seatbelts with a child who is too young. So, the only real choice should be between properly used seatbelts (which means using a booster and/or childseat) or no seatbelt at all. The other choice: seatbelt alone or seatbelt plus booster and/or childseat is not really a separate choice at all.
07-12-2007, 12:28 PM
#20
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JBRipps
I have researched the Star Riser by britax...but they are indeed discontinued....the Parkway is it's replacement
J
J
Got my discontinued Starrisers off ebay. They're paisley blue and pink; hideous but effective.
07-12-2007, 12:28 PM
#21
Originally Posted by carpundit
Parkway did not work for me; YRMV.
Got my discontinued Starrisers off ebay. They're paisley blue and pink; hideous but effective.
Got my discontinued Starrisers off ebay. They're paisley blue and pink; hideous but effective.
07-12-2007, 12:39 PM
#23
Originally Posted by JBRipps
hmmmm....rear seats are more narrow in a cab.....I have a C4S....does that effect the rear room as well with the AWD system??
J
J
07-12-2007, 12:46 PM
#25
Originally Posted by carpundit
No, I'm pretty sure this particular paisley would be hideous in any car. 
No seriously though, the Parkway didn't work because your seatbacks tilt forward? If not for that, I don't know why it would work fine in mine and not yours. Did you remove the seat bottoms?
07-12-2007, 12:50 PM
#26
3rd Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all! Very much appreciate the great info! I have my eye on a silver 2003 C2 Coupe that is for sale at the local dealer for $49,900. If I can get them to $47 I may have a deal. Now to convince the wife........
07-12-2007, 12:55 PM
#27
Originally Posted by lapistola
Thanks all! Very much appreciate the great info! I have my eye on a silver 2003 C2 Coupe that is for sale at the local dealer for $49,900. If I can get them to $47 I may have a deal. Now to convince the wife........
Sounds like what happened to me. When we only had one child, I owned a Boxster S, and my wife had a Toyota Sienna. When my wife found out that she was pregnant with twins, she told me that "the Porsche must go." I tried to resist, pointing out that she has the Sienna, but she, correctly, noted that if I were home alone with the twins and there was an emergency, I would not be able to take the twins to the hospital.
So I sold the Boxster S. Two days later I drove home in the Targa, in which I had already placed two baby seats in the back. My wife flipped out when she saw me driving up in a 911. Then I pointed out the baby seats, and she started laughing. Now we affectionately refer to it as "the family car." Now she likes it, and we are both happy to go out on our "date nights" in the 911 rather than the minivan. My car is always waiting in front of the restaurant when we are ready to leave. Somehow I do not think that would be the case in the minivan . . .
07-12-2007, 01:18 PM
#28
Originally Posted by TD in DC
Between the active safety (great handling and great brakes) and passive safety (very good chassis rigidity and crush zones), I would put the 911 right up with the better cars from a safety perspective.
In fact, we refer to my 996 as the "family car" around my house.
I have found that the best booster seats for the 996 are the Britax Parkway. The key factor is that you need a seat that is narrow at the top. The Parkway curves back in at the top, which is very helpful. Finally, always remove the seat bottoms. They are held in by velcro, so they are easy to install and remove.
In fact, we refer to my 996 as the "family car" around my house.
I have found that the best booster seats for the 996 are the Britax Parkway. The key factor is that you need a seat that is narrow at the top. The Parkway curves back in at the top, which is very helpful. Finally, always remove the seat bottoms. They are held in by velcro, so they are easy to install and remove.
I use these seats as well (one of them) for my 3 year old boy - it is excellent
07-12-2007, 01:40 PM
#30
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Posts: 1,258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting info, there have been an array of public service announcements reminding people that based on government tests stating that until 4 feet tall and 100 pounds children should be in booster seats for adequate protection. That being said, I too have a 4 year old and she currently rolls in a Britax car seat, I need to change to a booster soon. Im not very confident in the base fitment of the seat.