spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
i couldn't see where it advocated rear placement in that link - maybe it's because it's late?Johnny Canuck2 said:
Booster seats compulsory for under 12s after 18th Sept.
- Thread starter DJ Squelch
- Start date
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
spanglechick said:i couldn't see where it advocated rear placement in that link - maybe it's because it's late?
"Children who weigh less than twenty pounds should be restrained in rear facing infant or convertible child safety seats."
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
but that doesn't say front or back - that says rear-facing.Johnny Canuck2 said:
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Looking around a bit, you might be right about the lack of articles in UK dealing with rear facing seats, etc, but this could be due to the lack of regulation in this area generally:
"Under current laws, children need only wear a restraint in the back if one is already fitted. Over threes can wear adult belts if there is no suitable restraint, and under threes do not need protection."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1719778,00.html
"Under current laws, children need only wear a restraint in the back if one is already fitted. Over threes can wear adult belts if there is no suitable restraint, and under threes do not need protection."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1719778,00.html
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
spanglechick said:
But it also says this:
"Children under the age of twelve should not be allowed to ride in the front seat of a vehicle, irrespective of whether or not the vehicle is equipped with air bags. Further, children under twelve should never be belted with a lap belt and no shoulder belt."
Thus it's implied that infants, being under the age of 12, will never be in the front seat of a vehicle.
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
johnny - did you read the op? - the rules change next month - very thorough and prescriptive, europe-wide.Johnny Canuck2 said:
And rear facing is not the same thing as placed in the rear seat.
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
ok - didn't see that bit, thanks <goes off to read it again>Johnny Canuck2 said:
edit - my point about screaming kids being potentially far more hazardous stands though.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
spanglechick said:
Sounds like a good thing.
spanglechick said:
depends on how you look at it really - never heard of a baby getting a broken neck from screaming.
my daughter hated her carseat so we avoided the car as much as poss for months and months and months, but it would never have occurred to me to switch her to forward facing just to stop her screaming. that would be a huge commiseration if she'd died in a collision - well at least she died happy.
toggle
wobbly
lyra_k said:
depends whether the distraction from the screaming kid caused the driver to crash, dosen't it.m This has fuck all to do with whether the kid is enjoying the journey, and you would know that if you were reading the thread.
sc and I are not questioning the rear facing seats for babies, just the blind insistance that a kid cannot be in the front seat.
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
depends if the driver is so distracted they have a crash they wouldn't otherwise have had, doesn't it?lyra_k said:
i'm not talking about forward facing. not at all. but putting the correct seat, rear facing, into the front passenger seat, where there is no airbag.lyra_k said:my daughter hated her carseat so we avoided the car as much as poss for months and months and months, but it would never have occurred to me to switch her to forward facing just to stop her screaming. that would be a huge commiseration if she'd died in a collision - well at least she died happy.
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
pssst! i'm not trashpony... don't worry, it happens a lot...toggle said:
at me.Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
spanglechick said:
Which one of you took the photo on the toilet with the fancy shoes on?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
spanglechick said:
Thing is, for anybody, the front passenger seat is the most dangerous in the car.
I was referring more generally to the notion that the fact that a baby is (or could potentially be) crying excuses or mitigates not putting them in the safest possible position. It doesn't really make any difference whether you're talking about rear seat or rear facing.
It could go in circles, obviously, and everyone will do what they think best, I was just putting in my own opinion which is that I'd rather listen to a bit of crying, than risk a baby with a broken neck (or other avoidable physical injury). As I said my daughter cried a lot in the car, and it never made me crash the car, but we were rear-ended TWICE during her first 6 months by fuckwits running into us at red lights (when we were stopped already), once quite badly, so I suppose it's a hot topic for me.
And yes, I hear you, you were not talking about rear facing, I was talking about this stance in general, and disagreeing with it.
It could go in circles, obviously, and everyone will do what they think best, I was just putting in my own opinion which is that I'd rather listen to a bit of crying, than risk a baby with a broken neck (or other avoidable physical injury). As I said my daughter cried a lot in the car, and it never made me crash the car, but we were rear-ended TWICE during her first 6 months by fuckwits running into us at red lights (when we were stopped already), once quite badly, so I suppose it's a hot topic for me.
And yes, I hear you, you were not talking about rear facing, I was talking about this stance in general, and disagreeing with it.
toggle
wobbly
Johnny Canuck2 said:
I'm not aware of the proof of that, and what external factors that proof could be based on.
However, i am certain that a screaming kid in the back is a very real danger, distracting the driver, and it's far better for the kid to be in the place where they aren't going to cause the driver to have an accident than in a slightly safer place in an accident.
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
Johnny Canuck2 said:
on the toilet???
neither of us, afaik
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
toggle said:
That is one reason children are no longer allowed to sit in the front seat. The front passenger seat is the most dangerous location in the vehicle.
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/localnews/storypr/17997
Recognizing that the front passenger seat is the most dangerous seating position in the car for children and adults, the bill also requires children 12 and under to ride in the back seat.
http://www.carseat.org/Legal/CA_AB2108-samplet,org.doc
http://www.childcarseats.org.uk/choosing/position.htm
There's a diagram on this UK website (it was linked from the Dept of Transport site) that shows the merits of each position from a safety POV.
Of course it's all ideal world scenario bollocks, but seems fairly factual.
There's a diagram on this UK website (it was linked from the Dept of Transport site) that shows the merits of each position from a safety POV.
Of course it's all ideal world scenario bollocks, but seems fairly factual.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
spanglechick said:
on the toilet???
neither of us, afaik
You're right: it was Louloubelle. I hope she won't be mad that I forgot....
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
toggle said:
At the moment. A couple of pints mean that the rigour of my scholarship leaves a little to be desired.
p.s. who wants to see their pets injured in a motor vehicle collision?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Anyway, the upshot is this. Put your kids wherever you want. After researching the issue, I put my infant children in the rear seat, behind the front passenger seat so I could see them easily, in a rear facing child seat.
They're your kids, do as you please.
They're your kids, do as you please.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
toggle said:
Put this in your pipe and smoke it, luv:
"Restrained children in rear seats had the lowest risk of dying in fatal crashes. Among children seated in the rear, risk of death was reduced 35% in vehicles without any airbags, 31% in vehicles equipped only with driver airbags, and 46% in vehicles with passenger airbags. Both restrained and unrestrained children aged 0–12 were at lower risk of dying in rear seats. Rear seats also afforded additional protection to children aged 5–12 restrained only with lap belts compared with lap/shoulder belted children in front seats. Children were about 10–20% less likely to die in rear center than in rear outboard positions."
http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/4/3/181
Similar threads
- Poll
