Question for parents...

[Diode Dynamics]

I am not looking forward to the complex struggles that come from being a parent

Nick C.

[Burrcold]

Originally Posted by SirBrass

What's the big deal about not letting kids ride up front? The airbag won't decapitate them if they're far enough back and properly belted in (either booster seat or seat belt adjuster or what have you). For pete's sake, WE rode up front properly belted in well before teenage years and how many of us were killed by the safety systems? Yeah, exactly: statistically insignificant.

If they're big enough for a booster seat instead of a baby seat, then they're probably big enough to sit up front with the proper precautions taken.

Used to be you could use a key to disable the front passenger airbag in cars. Not sure why those were taken out. Seems pretty stupid to me.

It was also once thought that smoking while pregnant was okay.

[SirBrass]

Originally Posted by Burrcold

It was also once thought that smoking while pregnant was okay.

False dichotomy. One is putting poisons into the blood stream, the other is... putting a child in the front seat. Apples and oranges.

How many children were harmed or killed by the passenger airbag until "master" told us "no no, shame shame. they have to nearly be in high school first"?

Unbelted, YES, I can see them being very harmed by the airbag if it impacts at the wrong angle and the seat is far enough forward for them to meet it. However, that's like saying roll cages are dangerous: they only are if not used properly as part of a system.

Airbags are DESIGNED to be used with the shoulder belt system. You are more likely to be fine MAYBE if you're not belted in and are an adult b/c the airbags will deploy faster then, and you're maybe of the proper height. However, they are designed to be used in conjunction with the seat restraints. They also only deploy out so far.

SO, proper precaution since we can no longer disable the passenger airbag with a key (so SO dumb), is to have the seat moved back far enough for the smaller person such that the airbag won't reach them, and the shoulder system + side airbags (which cover both front and rear) will protect the occupant.

If they're too big for a booster, they're big enough for the standard safety systems. The only real risk is if they're too short in the torso for the shoulder belt to cover their torso properly (and thus cover the neck). Guess what: adults have this issue too (my mother and late grandmother being good examples). Solution: belt adjusters which lower the angle between shoulder belt and lap belt. If it works for short adults, it works for kids too. Frame size is the same.

Back to little kids in boosters: they're in boosters and effectively strapped into a 4 or 5 point harness that is securely mounted to the front seat or back seats. They can't lean far enough forward to contact the front airbag if the front seat is moved far enough back.

Final word: the parents are the ones who have to decide this. As long as they're being prudent, no one (not even the government) has the right to tell them they're being reckless or dangerous.

[Sportsguy83]

Originally Posted by Diode Dynamics

I am not looking forward to the complex struggles that come from being a parent

Nick C.

Its a very rewarding life consuming evolution. Nothing will make your life pause like it, but there is NOTHING in this world like it...

[sklimo]

Originally Posted by Diode Dynamics

I am not looking forward to the complex struggles that come from being a parent

Nick C.

[n2oinferno]

I won't put my kids in the front of any car. If I had a two seater, that would be different, but as long as there is a rear seat I'll keep them back there. I follow AAPA and NHTSA guidelines when it comes to my kids. Better safe than sorry.



It's not just the airbag. Studies have proven that both adult and child occupants are less likely to be as severely injured when they are riding in the back seat of a vehicle rather than the front.

[Diode Dynamics]

Originally Posted by sklimo

Attachment 73989

Ah yes, I do plan on buying legos for myself...er I mean kids lol

Nick C.

[Karigan]

Well, you might say that nothing ever happened to us as children driving without booster seats, but how many of us were in serious accidents as children in that situation? I certainly never was, so I can't feel confident that this sort of thing isn't an issue.

Can you even fit a booster seat in the back of the frs? or any child car seat, for that matter?
Does the frs front passanger seat go back far enough, that a child who is pushed forward to the end of the seat belt restraint, can avoid being blasted by the airbag?

If they can, I don't see the problem.
However, it is mostly the side airbags (which the frs has) that were killing children, not necessarily the front airbags.

At the very least, I would like to think most parents drive differently when they have their children in the car (even if I've seen otherwise). If you drive overly cautious and are paying attention, it should be easier to avoid accidents.

[Calum]

This thread is just awesome. 'I WILL defend my right to put my children in greater risk than is suggested or legal!!" smh

Why increase vehicle safety standards at all? For that matter, let's start selling cars without headrests and just padded dashes again. As long as it's not putting poison in our children it should be our right to do what we want. And fuck helmet laws. My uncles buddy told me that the helmet can cause as much damage as the road hitting my face at 70 mph. Hey, you know what, I'm gonna go check my BBQ's propane tank for leaks with a lighter. It doesn't matter if it's stupid, it's MY right to do what I want. I'm not gonna let the man get me down. Who does he think he is trying to keep me safe. Making it illegal to earn a Darwin award...

@SirBrass, what does master gain by trying to protect us or our children?

It's not just about the position of the belt across the shoulder. If the upper anchor of a shoulder belt is too high above the shoulder, the restraint wont be able to hold enough tension to prevent the person from either folding forward or just falling out of the shoulder harness altogether. Even with a five point harness that is securely adjusted and doesn't have to travel before it's stop engages, the upper anchor should "be installed no more than 4 inches below, and not above, the driver’s shoulders" (NHRA General Regulations, pg 26)

Yes, airbags are designed to work with the shoulder harness. But the shoulder harness is designed to work with people of a specific range of heights, and airbags are designed to arrest a certain range of body momentum. The average size of a twelve year old puts them at the bottom of that range. Before that size, the average child is physically too small for the restraint system to be effective. Of course different children grow at different rates, and different cars have slightly different ranges.

[wheelhaus]

Originally Posted by n2oinferno

I won't put my kids in the front of any car. If I had a two seater, that would be different, but as long as there is a rear seat I'll keep them back there. I follow AAPA and NHTSA guidelines when it comes to my kids. Better safe than sorry.

It's not just the airbag. Studies have proven that both adult and child occupants are less likely to be as severely injured when they are riding in the back seat of a vehicle rather than the front.

This is what I'm questioning, simply measuring child injuries from car accident statistics doesn't paint the whole picture. How many children were belted in correctly? How many children in the front seat were in a booster or other proper seating system for their size/weight which in itself provided them with proper restraint? How many children who sustained injuries weren't belted in at all? Of course fewer injuries happen in the back seat, it's inherently safer when children aren't restrained properly. It's the same idea that school buses utilize padded seats and no belts. it's believed to be safer to let the child bounce around. This MO however, isn't what we're discussing.

Originally Posted by Calum

This thread is just awesome. 'I WILL defend my right to put my children in greater risk than is suggested or legal!!" smh

Why is questioning something make someone stupid? I always thought questioning things was a sign of intelligence. Nobody here wants to put their children AT RISK, we're simply trying to understand why the back seat is the only legal place without saying "welp that's just how it is". Again with the statistics and laws, we all get it, but it seems the logic behind them is skewed. Comparing a properly restrained child in the back seat, vs. a properly restrained child in the front seat, I don't see how it's such a different situation (with the exception of the airbag).

[Calum]

Originally Posted by wheelhaus

This is what I'm questioning, simply measuring child injuries from car accident statistics doesn't paint the whole picture. How many children were belted in correctly? How many children in the front seat were in a booster or other proper seating system for their size/weight which in itself provided them with proper restraint? How many children who sustained injuries weren't belted in at all? Of course fewer injuries happen in the back seat, it's inherently safer when children aren't restrained properly. It's the same idea that school buses utilize padded seats and no belts. it's believed to be safer to let the child bounce around. This MO however, isn't what we're discussing.

Why is questioning something make someone stupid? I always thought questioning things was a sign of intelligence. Nobody here wants to put their children AT RISK, we're simply trying to understand why the back seat is the only legal place without saying "welp that's just how it is". Again with the statistics and laws, we all get it, but it seems the logic behind them is skewed. Comparing a properly restrained child in the back seat, vs. a properly restrained child in the front seat, I don't see how it's such a different situation (with the exception of the airbag).

That is exactly why children aren't allowed in the front seat. You cannot properly restrain a child in the front seat without re-positioning the anchor for the shoulder harness at a minimum. Some cars would require the lap belt anchors be moved rearward vs. the seat as well. The restraint systems in the front seats are designed for someone roughly 5 foot or taller.

There's also a minimum mass to ensure the airbag isn't too hard when the occupant hits it, as that would be more damaging than the air bad not being there. This is why there is a capacitive sensor in the passenger seat to sense the weight of the passenger. IIRC this allows for two different deployment speeds of the passenger side airbag, or will turn the air bag off automatically if there isn't a person of sufficient mass to activate the system. (The down fall to that sensor is that a gore-tex jacket has enough capacitance to make the sensor.)

As I understand it, there's other considerations as well, things that are age dependent such as bone density. But that would take more research than I'm willing to give to this topic.

Asking questions is great. Doing something stupid with your child's safety because you don't know or don't understand the answer, that is stupid.

[wheelhaus]

Originally Posted by Calum

That is exactly why children aren't allowed in the front seat. You cannot properly restrain a child in the front seat without re-positioning the anchor for the shoulder harness at a minimum. Some cars would require the lap belt anchors be moved rearward vs. the seat as well. The restraint systems in the front seats are designed for someone roughly 5 foot or taller.

I don't think anyone is arguing to use OEM 3-point restraints for a small child, that is stupid. Once again, I'm referring to a proper restraint, such as a rear facing child seat, or booster seat, or anything else that's considered a requirement for placing a child in the back seat. Where is the real factual data saying the same systems are so much more dangerous in the front? The only difference I can see is the airbag.

One nuance I can think of, is that the rear seat has special hook loops for anchoring a dedicated belt for the seat base, but even it's not a requirement to be used. The standard belt works fine to restrain a child seat in an impact, the dedicated belt/loops is simply a preferred option.

[Mikem53]

Originally Posted by Diode Dynamics

I am not looking forward to the complex struggles that come from being a parent

Nick C.

Kids are tough.. It's quite an obligation and a big pain in the ass..!
But it's worth it because of Grandkids...

[n2oinferno]

Hey, people do whatever they want. But god forbid something happens, guaran-damn-teed they'll regret it the rest of their life.

Just googling a bit

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19452372

Traffic Inj Prev. 2009 Jun;10(3):297-301. doi: 10.1080/15389580802677799.
Front versus rear seat injury risk for child passengers: evaluation of newer model year vehicles.

Arbogast KB1, Kallan MJ, Durbin DR.
Author information


Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Design improvements to frontal air bags for vehicles of model year 1998 and newer have reduced the risk of injury to child occupants exposed to their deployment. These changes in conjunction with other improvements in the protection of front seat occupants give impetus for the reconsideration of rear seating recommendations for child occupants. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the association between seating row (front vs. rear) and risk of injury to children in newer model year vehicles.
METHODS:

Data was collected on child occupants from December 1, 1998, to November 30, 2007, via insurance claim records and a validated telephone survey. The study sample included child occupants aged 0 to 15 years seated in the front and rear rows of vehicles model year 1998 or newer, involved in a crash in sixteen states. Children were classified as injured if a parent or driver reported an injury corresponding with Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of > or =2. The age-specific relative risk of injury by seat row was calculated for the whole data set and then further stratified by model year.
RESULTS:

Complete interview data were obtained on 10,670 crashes involving 16,920 children, representing an estimated 205,408 crashes with 314,968 child passengers in the study population. The adjusted relative risk of injury to children in the rear seat compared to those in the front was 0.36 (0.23-0.57) and 0.69 (0.49-0.98) for 0- to 8-year-olds and 9- to 12-year-olds, respectively. For 13- to 15-year-olds, the reduced injury risk associated with rear row seating narrowly missed statistical significance. When stratified by model year (1998 to 2002 and 2003+), all age group/model year combinations demonstrated a crude rear row injury risk that was lower than that of the front row.
CONCLUSIONS:

This analysis, conducted on a set of vehicles with advanced front seat safety systems including second-generation and newer air bags, strongly confirmed the recommendation that all children 0-12 years should be seated in the rear row(s) of their vehicles. Children in the rear row(s) were one half to two thirds as likely to sustain injury than those in the front after adjusting for potentially confounding crash, vehicle, and child factors.


PMID:19452372 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Originally Posted by Karigan

Well, you might say that nothing ever happened to us as children driving without booster seats, but how many of us were in serious accidents as children in that situation? I certainly never was, so I can't feel confident that this sort of thing isn't an issue.

Can you even fit a booster seat in the back of the frs? or any child car seat, for that matter?
Does the frs front passanger seat go back far enough, that a child who is pushed forward to the end of the seat belt restraint, can avoid being blasted by the airbag?

If they can, I don't see the problem.
However, it is mostly the side airbags (which the frs has) that were killing children, not necessarily the front airbags.

At the very least, I would like to think most parents drive differently when they have their children in the car (even if I've seen otherwise). If you drive overly cautious and are paying attention, it should be easier to avoid accidents.

A booster seat, and for that matter a convertible car seat as well, fits just fine in the rear of the FRS. That was a dealbreaker, so I had to make sure my son's Recaro harnessed booster would make it. Ultimately I went another route but it fits just fine in my Fiat as well. If someone is having issues they may be trying to install it improperly or they have a seat that doesn't fit the vehicle, because that's a thing too.

I'm not really worried about my driving. I'm worried about the asshole who is drunk, not paying attention, or something, that comes flying out of nowhere and causes a collision before I can react. Just the other day I was heading home, two lane road, and some woman came around a blind corner, speeding, on her phone, in my fucking lane. She looked up, saw me, and swerved back into her lane. Thankfully I had plenty of distance to slow, but if I was five seconds ahead, who knows?